>
 |
| From Not an MRA |
I discovered an odd little manifesto the other day put forth by a raging antifeminist … who also hates the Men’s Rights Movement. “Not an MRA’s” site looks like a blog, but it’s essentially a long rambling rant cataloguing all the reasons “why I am NOT an MRA.” His basic thesis:
I hate feminism. I hate the destruction it has brought onto our society and culture. I hate male-bashing. I am sick and fed up with all of it. That said – I realize that the MRM – or MRA’s are doing way more harm than good in the efforts of getting rid of these things.
As the lead-in to a manifesto, it’s not quite up there with “a spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism,” but it certainly grabs your attention. As do the illustrations he uses to illustrate his various points, taken from Disney’s version of Alice in Wonderland. (Don’t tell Disney!)
So what exactly does notanmra hate about the MRM? It’s a idiosyncratic list of irritations, some perfectly understandable, some just sort of cranky. Here’s a partial list:
He hates the endless blather about “manginas” and “White Knights,” and the slew of of oddball acronyms that litter most MRA discussions (PUA, MGTOW, MGHOW, NAWALT, and of course MRA). He thinks MRAs cheapen the notion of “male bashing” by complaining endlessly about ads in which men get kicked in the balls are the victims of slapstick violence. He hates the undercurrents of anti-Semitism and generalilzed bigotry that infect some MRA forums. He hates conspiracy theory in general. He hates the endless denunciations of “chivalry.”
Holding doors open for people is common courtesy. If you approach the door first, hold it open for the PERSON behind you. Where I work, men do this for men, men do this for women, women do this for men, and women do this for other women. It’s called being a human being. A few MRA blogs/sites label this as “chivalry” – poppycock. Come on out of that rabbit hole and stop acting like a screwball.
Holding doors open for PEOPLE is not what leads to male-hatred or male-bashing.
He hates that “some MRAs call themselves “”masculists” or “masculinists”. This makes me sick. I have no desire to “follow in the footsteps” of feminism by calling myself this, or even by associating with people who call themselves this.” He thinks all the talk of circumcision as “genital mutilation” is completely backwards, and that the procedure is actually beneficial. (I’m guessing of all his opinions this is the one that gets MRAs most angry at him.)
Of all his various complaints, I think my favorite is this one:
Observations have convinced me that the MRA agenda is not one of getting the laws changed or eliminating male-hatred, but rather – to argue the same points over and over.
Don’t I know it!
EDIT: I corrected a testicle-related error in the text above.
>Wrong.My criticism of "mangina" and "white knight" get the most tomatoes thrown at me.Most MRA's are afraid to touch the circumcision issue: for exactly the reasons I stated: They do not want to alienate the peoples belonging to the religions that practice it.If I am an oddball – you are a completely whacked out schizophrenic.No surprise there.
>"…by complaining endlessly about TV shows in which men get kicked in the balls."I never once mention men getting kicked in the balls. I mention men getting hit with clipboards.You are retarded.Typical feminist. You see whatever you want to see…I had to read my rant again – since I wrote it so long ago.Excellent reminder of why I do not post here.Your brain clearly does not work right.
>I stand corrected. Clipboards it is.
>Cute. And he's got 2 followers now. Eoghan and Scarecrow.
>I agree with a lot of what he wrote, esp the anti jewish bigotry on some boards. However, IMHO, MRM is really the only thing men have, warts and all, to help men who are being abused by feminism in this society.Random Brother
>Bishopsinister, that doesn't mean you have to embrace it and defend it at every turn. Like you said, there are problems. Warts can be removed, but they won't be removed if you defend them.
>"…ads in which men are the victims of slapstick violence."Again, you are a retard.slapstick HUMOR. Not slapstick VIOLENCE.Typical feminist. You equate humor with violence.I wonder: If what is meant as humor to you is actually perceived as violence: perhaps what is meant as violence is perceived as humor.Hence: feminists find Lorena Bobbitt funny.Yes, that makes sense.
>When someone hits somebody with something — like a clipboard, which was your example — that's violence. When they do it in a slapsticky way, that's slapstick violence.
>Umm, violence and humour are not mutually exclusive. Quite the contrary, in fact.I'm beginning to think the common thread uniting all the MRAs and associated riffraff is the overwhelming need to get really, really worked up over ANYTHING.
>lol notanmra says I'm not an MRA but… [insert typical anti-feminist rantings here] Yeah, you're a MRA… more acurately a PDD/MPA…"Men already have rights. They do not enjoy the privileges that women do." Buhahaha Yup, lol. This made me laugh. Yes, it is of course the oppressed who have privilege. Just like how non-whites get all those privileges over whites! Especially in the USA! And don't forget places like South Africa. Oh and the poor they have soooo many more privileges than the rich. And don't forget those people in wheelchairs! Why do they get special parking spots? And those ramps everywhere! I mean, if there are stairs at a building, they should just choose to not go in, am I right? <– sarcasm Seriously, what a schmo…notanmra needs a lesson in feminism, 101:http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/faq-what-is-male-privilege/
>He has many good points about how the MRM defeats itself. It's no wonder he had trouble with some MRA's in the MRM community. He is loads more insightful and rational than most MRA's I've seen on those sites. I don't relate to every thing he has there but a lot of it, yes.
>I really adore this blog. Thank you.
>@Chrissy – Does he have some good criticism about the feminist movement as well? Or do you "not relate to" anything which subjects your feminist scripture to so much as an iota of scrutiny?
>NOTANMRA tells us, he is NOT an MRA, but he hates feminism.David in return tells us, he is a feminist, but thinks men should also have 'some few rights'…the right to work and to pay…Somehow, these 2 blogs are similar. These 2 blogs are funny, and it's about people who do not know what they really want…notanmra: Observations have convinced me that the MRA agenda is not one of getting the laws changed Your observations are wrong, most MRAs had a bad experience with a very specific problem and therefore want to have a certain law to be changed. – Especially in some countries in Europe you will easily observe that.Isn't it 'funny' that a man had to pay child-support to his DEAD ex-wife, while the child was living with him? Child support is from the father to the ex-wife and NOT directly to the child. The mother pays NOTHING, even not if the child is an adult, studying in a college and not living with the mother anymore.Just two examples out of a long, long list…MRAs want such laws to be changed.What's wrong with that? Well, feminists are against changing such laws…
>@ SandyI don't embrace everything about the MRM, but I'm also not going to be that guy nagging other men to death about insulting language nor alleged misogyny. There is no legitimate place for men's issues in feminism. None.I'd like to see a paper abortion law. I believe that if a woman has the right to claim she is not ready to become a parent, then so should men. Will that ever pass in feminist circles? I think not.I'd like to see child support placed in a fund and monies taken out and ensured it goes directly to the child. Will that ever considered good in feminist circles. Doubtful.The point I'm trying to make is that the 2 above ideas, I believe are completely fair and doable, but feminists are against both and pretty much everything else I believe in. Therefore my choice is to support a flawed but well meaning movement that has at least some of my interests at heart. Or do nothing. Or support feminists who have NONE of my interests at heart. I'm not going to support people who actively pass laws that harm me.Random Brother
>There is no legitimate place for men's issues in feminism. None……I'm not going to support people who actively pass laws that harm me.Random Brother I fully agree.Excellent summery of the present situation in many Western countries.
>@bishopsinister So what you're saying basically is: It is unfair women get to choose to have children or not, regardless of what the man feels. Therefore if a man doesn't want a child she should be forced to abort it? And if a man wants to keep a child she should be forced to keep it? I think you're ignoring the fact that the woman is the one who's actually growing the fetus in her body, therefore only she should have the right to say what becomes of it.
>@ NymeriaNymeria said: "So what you're saying basically is: It is unfair women get to choose to have children or not, regardless of what the man feels. Therefore if a man doesn't want a child she should be forced to abort it? And if a man wants to keep a child she should be forced to keep it?"No. What I'm saying is that in case of pregnancy, women have the right to either raise and be responsible for the child or terminate the child or give it up for adoption and not be responsible for the child. Men also should have the option to either be responsible for a child or to terminate legal parenthood. The woman can have the child and the man would have no responsibility to support it. Just as woman can give up her child and have no financial responsibility to it. That would be equality, not the system we have now. Nymeria said: "I think you're ignoring the fact that the woman is the one who's actually growing the fetus in her body, therefore only she should have the right to say what becomes of it."1. There would be no child if not for a man. 2. I have no real problem with a woman's right to abortion. However, to claim it's my body my choice and then force a man under penalty of prison and death to support an unwanted child is unfair. Random Brother
>Nymeria said… @bishopsinister So what you're saying basically is: It is unfair women get to choose to have children or not, regardless of what the man feels… This is a very difficult question, but the present legal situation is about 'all rights (=100%) to the mother' and 'the father has nothing to say' (=zero%).Just 'nothing', and it's not only about abortion of the unborn, it is also about adoption of the newborn.A father is nowadays something like a 'bondsman' of the mother and HER child.Not really a satisfactory situation.The mother, with the law firmly protecting her – ignores 100 % the father, regardless of what he feels? Well, and this is equality?
>"There is no legitimate place for men's issues in feminism. None."Well, there's no place in your limited and distorted version of feminism, which has about as much relation to feminism in the real world as, say, the tea party's "Obama is a muslim/Hitler" nonsense has to do with Obama in the real world.
>@ DavidFeminist and MRA's want completely different things and are fundamentally at odds with one another. It would like trying to be a black Nazi, simply not workable.To feminists men's rights are merely privilidges and women's whims are rights.This whole idea you have about feminism being good for men seems to me to be your projection of what you want feminism to be rather that what it actually is.I can't think of one area in regards to male female relations where feminism would help a man. The one that feminists like to claim is that they are taking away gender sterotypes that harm men. However they want those alleged gender sterotypes taken down anyway and would attempt to remove them regardless. So, it's not like they really thought about men before they decided. Random Brother
>I am not aware of any situation in the life of any male where feminism could be helpful.Just a few observations:Education is lower for men than for women, health care is less available for men than for women, retirement age for women is earlier than for men (despite men die earlier), working hours are longer for men than for women, work is heavier for men than for women, fathers rights do not exist…Not to mention military…The future looks even worse for men. There are talks about gender-specific income tax in various feminist countries and women pay less and men pay more – there are talks about excusing criminal women by reducing or even closing down prisons for females.As woman you might claim alimony 40 years after divorce, as 12 year old girl you might request for contraceptives and abortion and parents have no rights even to be informed. In return boys as young as 4 year old are accused for sexual harassment…As woman owning nothing you will claim social benefits and government housing free of charge, as man you are jobless and homeless. Feminism helps men? How?
>Personally I think that the far right wing and the far left wing are the ones that triumph in general internet discourse. This fits with the idea that "the most vocal ones" are generally the ones to frame debates. Thus, I don't think that most people in the feminist or masculist/MRA/whatever movement online are likely to reflect opinions widely held by the general populace. As far as I know, there aren't any feminist or masculist parties in any democratic societies that have a major say in the way their countries run. Thus, feminism and masculism are both fringy movements (although feminism is more mainstream)Most people I think want a world where people regardless of accident of birth are capable of controlling the flow and course of their lives without overt discrimination levelled against them. This is not a feminist or a masculist ideal. It is an ideal fundamental to the notion of human rights and human self-determination. It is a right that most people value. What I see in extreme discourse is a tendency to paint the opposition with broad strokes that dehumanize and infantilize them. We have enough problems in the world without people antagonizing others needlessly and creating outrage where it need not exist.
>Despite what certain members of the feminist movement think, "MRA" is in fact not just a synonym for "anti-feminist" (and both of them do have meanings beyond just "someone who says stuff we don't like"). In fact, one of the bigger anti-feminist sites (I think it was Manhood 101) absolutely detests MRAs for having been "emasculated" by feminism – and they're probably correct in thinking MRAs have more in common with feminists than with themselves.The difference is that MRAs, at least generally speaking, have objections to the current male gender role and the expectations, stereotypes, etc. attached to it. A lot of what they object to actually predates feminism. Plain anti-feminists, on the other hand, generally object to the idea that there's anything wrong in the first place.The post you've linked is a little bit unusual, but even so, notice that many of the objections basically boil down to "MRAs are too like feminists".