>
If you’re ever looking for a pretty much sure-fire way to get a Men’s Rights Activist to blow his top — not that this is a particularly difficult feat — just tell him to “man up.” Indeed, the phrase is so infuriating to some MRAs that it causes them to spew typos like a mad man. “Few phrases in the world make an MRAs [sic] want to rip our [sic] their spines and beat people to a bloody pulp with them,” writes TheZetaMale on his Zeta blog. “‘Man Up’ has to be one of them.” Meanwhile, on the Men’s Rights subreddit on Reddit, a fellow calling himself olythoreau seconds this emotion:
I noticed that people using the phrase “man up” or “be a man” really fucking pisses me off. A trigger of sorts. Fuck everyone who has any expectation that I or any other man perform masculinity to their liking. Yes, I’m a man, but I’m a fucking individual… and I’ll perform masculinity any way I fucking please!
Thing is, I completely agree with this sentiment: telling a guy to “man up” is an obnoxious thing to do. Oh, sure, I sometimes agree with the message people are trying to send by using this phrase: stop whining about trivial shit and get on with your life.
Indeed, no group of people I’ve ever run across is so expert in turning molehills into Mt. Everest than the MRA crowd; they put the whiniest of “victim feminists” to shame. Do you really need to boycott half the companies in the Fortune 500* because they ran “misandrist” ads featuring doofus husbands failing in their doofusy attempts to cook dinner? Does the fact that some random hot chick finds you repellent really mean that evil women rule the world? Does the fact that some anti-MRA blogger calls a dumb old sexist cartoon a dumb old sexist cartoon really mean that “feminists and manginas .. would love to enforce a world where the very thought that men experience problems with women in relationships is taboo[?]”
So I can certainly understand the exasperation so many people feel towards the MRM, as the very existence of this blog attests. But the phrase “man up” is absolutely the wrong way to make these points, for precisely the reasons olythoreau outlines. And I’d add: the phrase is sexist as hell, suggesting implicitly that non-men and non-manly men are a bunch of, well, pussies. (It’s telling that the most common alternate way to tell someone to “man up” is to tell him to “stop being a pussy.”)
I’m hardly the only feminist-ish person to dislike the phrase “man up”: Jezebel ran a story called “Stop Telling Men to ‘Man Up'” the other day, noting the sudden ubiquity of the phrase in the political world, and making the point that the phrase implies “that the worst thing to be is not-a-man — weak, lacking in courage.” (Of course, there are some MRAs who have no problem with the phrase “man up” for exactly this reason.)
But there is an irony to MRAs’ distaste with the phrase. No, scratch that, a HUMONGOUS GIGANTIC FUCKING IRONY. While they complain about the phrase “man up” being applied to them, they are the first to question the masculinity of anyone who disagrees with them or who displays their masculinity in any other way than they do — hence their almost ritualistic use of the gender-bending term “mangina” (NSFW link) to indicate anyone not-them. (For ample proof of this, just scroll down to the comments on virtually any post on this blog.) As cat points out in a comment on this very subject on this very blog:
The thing about MRA patriarchy foot soldiers is that they can’t seem to get the old slogan of “the patriarchy hurts men too”. First, they complain about not being able to express emotions and variety, then they turn around the first chance they get to bash the guys that do. You know, if you stopped doing all this gay-bashing gender shaming, you would be able to express your emotions verbally, dress in different colors, admit you enjoy musicals and baking, etc. You’re slitting your own damned throats and blaming it on everyone but yourselves.
I’d only add one little caveat to this: the people attacking “manginas” aren’t always the exact same people in the MRM who are complaining about being told to “man up.” Indeed, TheZetaMale — the first guy I quoted above — actually took his fellow MRAs to task in an earlier post for using “shaming language like ‘Faggot’ and ‘Emasculated Mangina.'” Unfortunately, his attitude is rarer than rare in the MRM.
So here’s a challenge for any MRM who hates being told to “man up”: take a stand against the term “mangina” and all the other obnoxious gender-questioning slurs that litter every message board or comment section populated by MRAs. Post a denunciation of this shit right here, in the comments to this post. Just human up, and do it.
NOTE TO EXTREMELY LITERAL READERS: *I realize that they’re not literally advocating boycotting half the companies in the Fortune 500. Sometimes I keed.
EDIT: Amanda Marcotte posted an excellent piece on how “man up” fucks stuff up for everybody. Check it out.
>@cat:"'no matter how unnatural' Okay, now we have an official invocation of the 'The Appeal to Nature' logical fallacy. Bravo, you have officially advanced your argument into the realm of official logical fallacy."I was actually referring to the caustic quality of ideology which influences people to cast aside their personal independent judgment and follow the ideology instead. If you were paying closer attention to what I wrote, you would see that. It's a valid and logical point too. Ideology causes one to think in a rigid way. It can motivate someone to ignore and/or justify any amount of suffering, no matter how severe.@cat:"Okay, onto failure in reasoning number two. If something just happens all by itself, the notion that it needs enforced on people is absurd. If masculintiy simply followed from having a penis and feminity from having a vagina, there would be absolutely no need to set up social systems or policing to enforce it."You haven't been paying attention to what I have been saying all along. I have been saying that feminism uses the coercive power of social and political coercion in order to implement its agenda. But the agenda of the men's rights movement is to dismantle the illegitimate forms of that coercion, and thereafter to live free of coercion. Political correctness is an example of social coercion, governing what people may say, causing them to lose their jobs or get kicked out of institutions such as universities. And forcing males to register for the selective service, while making military service optional for females, is an example of the coercion of public policy. It is not MRAs that go around policing society for compliance. It is ideologues, people who hold rigid belief systems that blind them to the pain of others.If I point out some injustice that is primarily suffered by men, I guarantee you that a feminist ideologue will come along and discount it — not because the injustice has been exaggerated, but rather because the ideology of the feminist makes him or her totally unsympathetic to male pain, or the need to take steps to alleviate it.
>John — Glad you clarified that comment; I thought for a moment that you had joined so many of your MRA brothers in the land of total insanity.Now I've gone back to thinking that you're sane, just really really wrong. It is not MRAs that go around policing society for compliance.Uh … did you read my post? That's exactly what they're doing when they call male feminists "manginas" and call feminists "whores" and worse. Your convoluted defense of the term "mangina," even if it actually made sense, wouldn't change the fact that it is a term of abuse, intended to shame, based on the notion that someone has deviated from what you guys consider "natural" masculinity. That's the very essence of what "policing for compliance" is all about. Also, just so I understand what you're saying in your whole "mangina" scenario above, am I the "feminist manipulator"? Or am I being manipulated by one? Because, uh, no and no.
>Before I go any further, may I ask that people stop using "Um" as a tool to try to make a fool out of their opponent? Aren't we adults here, attempting to having an intelligent conversation? Saying "Um" before what you consider to be an obvious statement doesn't make your opponent look foolish at all. Instead, it is the mark of an amateur. I hate it. Please stop.Secondly, when it comes to the term "mangina," notice that I didn't use it; I just explained it. There are some men's rights activists who definitely use it in exactly the way that you have lambasted them for, David. Valid point, valid criticism, point well taken. I don't call people names with that word for that very reason, not to mention that it is personally my goal to stand up for what I believe in with a modicum of respect in the way that I say it. Sometimes I fail in that, but nevertheless it's important to me. I believe very deeply that male pain is ignored and I want to do something to not only highlight its existence, but also alleviate it.Mangina can be used, and is often used, as a term to shame someone. But you need to understand that among MRAs it has a specific meaning. It's not just a name that you hurl at someone that you disagree with or hate. It specifically means a man who tries to elevate his own social status by acting against the interests of men, and all under the pretext of protecting the vulnerable. Now it is your prerogative to criticize the reasoning behind that definition, and it is also your prerogative to skewer those opponents of yours who verbally abuse you and other men with the mangina epithet purely as an instrument of shame. But at least you should know what you are talking about when you do it.
>UMGreer likens the social construct of masculinity to vitality. She wasn't arguing that men are the only people with actual vitality or that women needed to become more like men in order to gain vitality. She was saying vitality in women isn't recognized – or is shamed for being masculine, ie gender-non-compliant – because they're women. Like say nurturing in men isn't recognized or is shamed for being gender-non-compliant because they're men.But I'm betting you didn't read the actual book. You read some idiot MRA's twisted interpretation of a passage of the book. You guys are always doing that, citing each other as your sources. Talk about echo chambers.
>It specifically means a man who tries to elevate his own social status by acting against the interests of men,I find this characterization much more offensive than the term "mangina," which at the least has the advantage of being a completely ridiculous term that makes the user of it look like an idiot. I am not driven by status-seeking, nor am I "acting against the interests of men." I think the MRM is a disaster for men (and women); and that's why I oppose it.
>"But you need to understand that among MRAs [mangina] has a specific meaning. It's not just a name that you hurl at someone that you disagree with or hate."I literally laughed out loud. No hate, just your everyday misogyny, homophobia, and routine gender-policing. Ho hum.
>Oh is that why MRAs are always claiming they "debated you on the facts" when all they did was call you a mangina? Because they decided "you're a mangina" is just shorthand for "everything Warren Farrel has ever said"?
>"I sure wish you feminists would stop being so kind to us."I sure wish you MRA/MRMs would stop being so unkind to men and then blamingfeminists or Western women (which has somehow become synonymous with feminist) for this unkindness."'Man up' also seems to be sexist to women as no one uses that phrasing for women so it's perhaps that they dont think women capable of the same virtues embodied in men?"It defends the natural distinctiveness and uniqueness of men as the only "grown-ups", whereas women need to be perpetually child-like in order to defend the "natural" authority (and superiority) of men over women. Since the neuter wording 'grow up' can apply to women and implies that women CAN grow up, it must be avoided."MRAs also value clear definitions of what constitutes masculine and feminine"In order to keep things natural, right, and police those who might cross over the line.But gendering isn't a sociopolitical construct, nah.How DO MRAs define what constitutes masculine and feminine?
>"MRAs also value clear definitions of what constitutes masculine and feminine"So if they're all in favor of gender-policing why do they get so spittle-flinging pissed when somebody tells them to "man up" or "be a man?"
>Disagreeing with people who want to fracture the clear and naturally-determined definition of masculine or feminine is not inhibiting anyone's freedom. Contrast that to genuine policing. David, you and your supporters keep on conflating what I have said as though it were directed at bloggers and their supporting commenters, as if the men's rights movement specifically exists to fight against feminists in some perpetual, epic online conflict. And so you think that these criticisms apply to you primarily. No, they don't (primarily). When I say that the men's rights movement is fighting against social and political coercion, I literally mean fighting against injustice that is ultimately inflicted through the barrel of a police officer's gun. For example: Did you offend somebody on campus? Say something politically incorrect? As a consequence, you will now be escorted out of class, by a police officer if necessary, and your enrollment at this university permanently revoked. Or have you shouted at your wife, who was shouting at you? You will now be escorted out of your house, and jailed if you return, because your wife says that you "might" do something violent.You're just a blogger, David. It's not about you. It's about the unjust laws of public policy and social coercion. It's about people losing their freedom, their homes, their licenses, their university enrollment, their professional reputations and is all enforced by genuine police — not the metaphorical "policing" that you accuse MRAs of, but genuine police. When are you going to accept that the men's rights movement opposes feminism because the teeth of feminism are in the nation's laws and social mores?It's not about you, although you may be rightly opposed by MRAs for defending the unjust, politically coercive status quo.
>David: I think the MRM is a disaster for men (and women); and that's why I oppose it. Might be, and? Many other people however do not share your opinion. About myself, I think, feminism is a disaster for men (and women); and that's why I oppose it.Pam: I sure wish you MRA/MRMs would stop being so unkind to men and then blamingfeminists or Western women (which has somehow become synonymous with feminist) for this unkindness. Feminism has nothing to do with equality, but with demanding advantages and privileges for certain groups of mostly Western women. Feminism is not even into equality between women themselves.MRAs are not 'unkind' – many of them are married and have family. However they give advice to men to stay away from certain women (and men) and to avoid certain mistakes, which could significantly change their life to the worst.
>dias:"You're making my point. Masculinity is not just a construct, it's an outgrowth of the nature of men"Gawd, that is so over your head! Dont even bother!
>"So if they're all in favor of gender-policing why do they get so spittle-flinging pissed when somebody tells them to "man up" or "be a man?"Completely agree anonymous 6:50!
>anonymous said:"But I'm betting you didn't read the actual book. You read some idiot MRA's twisted interpretation of a passage of the book. You guys are always doing that, citing each other as your sources. Talk about echo chambers"Yup, they do that all the time. I also love the copy and pasted out of context quotes they use. Also love it when they talk about Valerie Solanas. They dont know she wasnt a feminist!!!They also dont know that scum manifesto didnt stand for society for cutting up men. That was all said about her (20 page) "book," but she doesnt say it in her book or in any interviews.
>Dias:"Disagreeing with people who want to fracture the clear and naturally-determined definition of masculine or feminine "LOL!!!Such an amateur….
>yohan:"MRAs are not 'unkind' – many of them are married and have family"Theyre called mail order brides.
>@anonymous 2:16 – Ridiculous and derogatory comment by a bitter feminist. The usual 'shaming language'.Do you really think, every woman who is married with a men's rights activist is a mail-order-bride?Or do you think, only women holding US-citizenship are rich and all these other women worldwide are living in poverty?
>@Anonymous:"LOL!!!Such an amateur…. "The minute that you can stop using "LOL," put spaces in between your sentences, compose a proper set of ellipses, and form a coherent argument, you can graduate from the ranks of amateurs. Until then, you're in no position to decide who is or who isn't an amateur.
>@anonymousI wonder, why all these feminist trolls are always 'anonymous'. So many 'anonymous' comments around, and all what they can say is 'LOL' as they have no arguments.Or maybe all these 'anonymous' comments are written by the same person?Next time please sign with your name.We know, all MRAs are amateurs and all feminists are highly professional experts… in so-called women studies teaching equality.
>The minute that you can stop using "LOL," put spaces in between your sentences, compose a proper set of ellipses, and form a coherent argument, you can graduate from the ranks of amateurs.The minute you can apply these same standards, or any standards at all, to MRAs on this blog or elsewhere in the world, is, well, you can guess the rest.
>@David Futrelle:"The minute you can apply these same standards, or any standards at all, to MRAs on this blog or elsewhere in the world, is, well, you can guess the rest."I apply standards to myself. I also do criticize some MRAs who are over the top. For example, as a former admin in a men's rights forum, I banned people who were justifying homicide. On my own Web site, I have used administrative moderation in similar ways. Even when I didn't have the leverage of an admin, I have criticized the most shrill voices from within MRA forums, such as "Bob" and "MikeeUSA." But I'm on your blog right now, and the so many of the voices of shrillness are feminists, some of whom are demonstrating blatant misandry right under your nose. You haven't said a word about it, let alone used your admin powers. Here's an example of such misandry:@Anonymous:"dias:'You're making my point. Masculinity is not just a construct, it's an outgrowth of the nature of men'Gawd, that is so over your head! Dont even bother!"It's obvious to me that "Anonymous" was saying that I didn't realize the prescience of my own comment ("that is so over your head!"). Anonymous is saying that masculinity can be attributed as the reason for so much violence and terror in the world. Anonymous is also saying that the masculinity-as-evil viewpoint (popular among feminists) is an outgrowth of the nature of men. Hence, violence, terror and injustice are an outgrowth of the nature of men, according to not only Anonymous but also feminists in the Women's Studies programs that seem to have produced the likes of Anonymous. Such a belief — that nature has produced something unnatural, namely the male sex — is in my opinion the textbook definition of misandry.The statement that I made in a previous comment, that masculinity is "an outgrowth of the nature of men," was intended as a celebration of the nature of men.
>That's ridiculous. You're just projecting all sorts of ideas onto that commenter, then blasting that person for things s/he never actually said. The notion that this that comment reflects some kind of poisonous man-hatred is simply laughable. By contrast, many of the comments from MRAs here are blatantly hateful; you don't have to leap through hoops to see hatred in this:http://manboobz.blogspot.com/2010/09/first-they-came-for-fleshlights.html?showComment=1285187701640#c3131142968042564792
>@David Futrelle:"You're just projecting all sorts of ideas onto that commenter, then blasting that person for things s/he never actually said."I'll take that as a concession from you that it is misandrist to criticize masculinity as the cause of violence, terror, and injustice.And as far as the shrillness of some of your opponents, isn't it your job to police your own forum? You do have the ban hammer, don't you? On MRA forums (at least on the major ones) there is order because moderation is applied by the admins in a judicious manner. But you attract the shrill voices, then purposefully keep them around because they are useful to you in the ugly picture that you wish to paint of a movement whose aims you disagree with. Rather than make your case against the MRM in a methodical and logical way, you use ad hominem attacks upon the MRM under the pretext that your shrillest opponents are representative of the whole men's rights movement.NAMALT ("Not All MRAs Are Like That"). But to acknowledge this fact would undermine your ad hominem attacks.
>I still don't get how MRAs reconcile their belief that masculinity and femininity are "clear and naturally-determined" with their anger when people try to impugn and police their masculinity by telling them to "man up."
>John, "masculinity" isn't one universally accepted way of being. It's an ideological construct which has some roots in biology but isn't completely determined by it. Many versions of masculinity do in fact suggest that violence is a justified way to keep others in line. How do you explain the fact that men are, on average, more violent than women — the ratio of male to female violent crimes is roughly ten to one. As for banning, I hate banning, and only do it as an absolute last resort; I've banned only 4 or 5 non-spam comments so far, and they were thoroughly foul. If you feel the "shrillness" of your MRA comrades is a problem, you are free to criticize it all you want. I have seen almost no criticism of this from any MRAs who visit the site. The MRAs who visit here complain that I'm picking on MRA "nobodies," but then they align themselves with whatever vile nonsense these supposedly non-representative nobodies are spouting.