The Men’s Rights subreddit works on its image problem — by reaffirming MRA’s sacred right to call women the c-word

Well, to be fair, just because one dude has a love affair with the word “cunt” does not a hate movement make.

It’s not just one dude. It’s a lot of dudes, and a lot of other dudes upvoting and supporting those other dudes for saying it.

You’re right that this sexist behavior alone is not enough to qualify the MRM as a hate group. However, their frequent habits of making vague threats of violence, spouting rape apologia, and fondness for a website aimed at stalking and harassing women make for pretty damning evidence.

I always think it’s funny when MRAs respond to criticism of their movement with “OH YEAH BUT A FEMINIST SAID SOMETHING BAD ONCE TOO!!1”

I mean, if feminism is the epitome of evil they claim it is, why would they use its bad behavior for justification of their own? Wouldn’t an actual civil rights movement want to, I don’t know, not replicate the oppressive patterns of its opponents?

Just a thought, fellas!

Because MRAs operate on terms of vengeance.

A feminist said sexist things about men? Say sexist things about women!
Someone was falsely accused of rape? Let all the accused rapists go!
Some Swedish radfems made a video about killing men? Kill the radfems!

It’s not just one dude. It’s a lot of dudes, and a lot of other dudes upvoting and supporting those other dudes for saying it.

Exactamundo. And as I was saying above (though it was held up in moderation for a while, probably for excessive c-verbage), what in my judgment makes a hate group a “hate movement” is the capacity of making hate mainstream through passive and active support of more extreme rhetoric.

Guys that are puking gobs of c-bombs out through their keyboards are one thing. In a real sense, I am more disturbed by the “nice-guy” MRAs who nod ruefully in agreement with those comments but post nothing; or worse, those that post something like “well, I wouldn’t have put it that way, but…”

There are also conditions (spina bifida, congenital heart disease) that are best or only treatable by fetal surgery.

Re: hatred:

To me, it’s not enough to criticize remarks that promote hateful values. Criticism of any hateful values or remarks — to be effective at combating hatred — must be expressed in a non-hateful way. That’s why I think that it’s counter-productive to criticize misogynistic slurs with caustic insults, or to stand by and nod in silent approval, and say nothing, when people who share your world view use venom in their remarks. What benefit is there to society when a person invests so much effort in combating the mainstreaming of hateful values, yet uses as his vehicle the mainstreaming of venomous expression?

If you’re truly interested in combating hate, then I think you should criticize not only the substance of a remark but also the delivery — including the delivery of the remarks made by those who share your values. This blog seems to be calling on MRAs to stand up to misogyny in their own movement. Such a call, to be perceived ad credible, requires a certain degree of moral high ground, by the person issuing the challenge. But as I see it, no one occupies the moral high ground when they express themselves this way:

http://manboobz.com/2012/03/16/the-mens-rights-subreddit-works-on-its-image-problem-by-reaffirming-mras-sacred-right-to-call-women-cunts/comment-page-1/#comment-135495

I think that I have made a valid point: a person who calls on his opponents to police themselves of corrosive rhetoric should practice the same thing in his or her own sphere of influence. Yet will I now be derided as a troll for saying this? Will I myself be insulted?

Yet will I now be derided as a troll for saying this? Will I myself be insulted?

Yeeeees. Specifically, a tone troll! Do you seriously think that blitzgal pointing out a bill that authorizes doctors to lie to their patients in ways that could cause them real harm is somehow less meaningfull because she’s angry about it? Well then, let me say, fuck you!

I’m not posting at Manboobz as part of my interest in combatting hate, for goodness’ sake. This is a mockery blog, not an activism blog. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I don’t think that anything written at Manboobz is going to affect anyone already caught up in the underbelly of the MRM.

I will allow that it’s possible that some people who are not already sucked into that might come here and see how cruel/stupid/unfunny/childish some MRAs are and think twice about becoming a part of that. But mostly I’m here for the lulz.

@Roscoe
The problem is not the language used, it is the ideas. There are plenty of bigots that express themselves without swearing, this does not make their messages better. See for example David K Meller, who normally refrains from swearing, but still promotes extremely evil notions.

Rosco: Fuck you you concern troll.

I think that I have made a valid point: a person who calls on his opponents to police themselves of corrosive rhetoric should practice the same thing in his or her own sphere of influence.

I agree. But Blitzgal’s calling someone an “asshole” in no way matches the corrosive language that we criticize the MRAs for. Blitz did not say that zie was sexually aroused by the idea of fucking up MRA’s shit. Blitz did not make a vague, threaning comment about how things will get violent if the MRAs keep pushing their agenda. Blitz did not say that we should stalk and harass MRAs and find out their routes to work.

While I disagree strongly with Roscoe’s post, I don’t think it’s right to always yell “Concern Troll!” whenever you’re being criticized.

I mean, when I read an MRA on Reddit who tries to say, “Guys, we should cut down on using misogynistic language”, I think “I’m glad to see that there are some moderate MRAs.” I don’t say, “Look at this concern troll!”

Crum, it has a particular definition. It’s not the fault of any regular here that it’s popular to do with groups that have a belief of some sort.

@Crumbelievable: An MRA trying to done down the rhetoric in at MRA site is not a concern troll (as I understand the term).

An MRA going to a feminist site (or a space with feminists, heh) and telling the FEMINISTS that they ought to tone down their language to keep the moral high ground, etc. is a concern troll.

I remember Roscoe from before. He’s a fucking troll. His mansplaining advice to how people on this site should talk (especially given the post he linked to–legislators trying to tell doctors they can lie to women about their pregnancies and not be fucking sued into the ground) makes him a concern troll.

I checked urbandictionary just for fun: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=concern+troll

Posters on this site who are regulars have called out other posters on certain ways of expressing themselves–and as I recall, THOSE regulars don’t get called “concern trolls” because they aren’t.

Roscoe is.

I fucking swear constantly, as regulars here probably know. But, I actually try to be very careful about my language when it comes to slurs and oppressive language. I won’t even use “idiot” or “stupid” as an insult, let alone more blatant slurs like the r-word, racial epithets, etc. I try not to use any issues around someone’s lack of a sex life, body shape, etc. as insults either. The notion that I am not careful with my language and speech because I say words like “fuck”, “asshole”, “bullshit”, “fuckwad”, etc. is total shit.

It’s a form over content fucking argument. Objecting to swearing in general is objecting to the form of a statement, objecting to slurs and oppressive terms is objecting to the content. A slur pretty much by definition contains hateful content. If someone calls for my death/oppression, and I call it bullshit, it’s the former that has a problem, not the latter.

@DSC: +100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

I think that I have made a valid point

So does everyone, Roscoe. So does everyone.

Is this Roscoe the eminent Roscoe P. Coltrane? The one who said this:

If a man and a woman are both inebriated, and sexual activity occurs, and neither party intended to coerce the other, and neither party considers themselves to have been coerced, according to Futrelle’s absurd definition, rape has happened. Should both be charged? Or neither? If one should be charged, should their maleness or femaleness be a mitigating factor (and why)? And assuming that either or both parties are charged, will one be charged more severely than the other (and will the sex of the defendant justify by itself the disparity in the charges)? Moreover, even both are charged with identical charges, who do you think is more likely to receive an acquittal, and who is more likely to be convicted?

Followup: Is Roberta a sock for him, or vice versa? Because they sound like two peas in a pod.

<Steerstroll>
Of course MRAs have a sacred right to call a woman a “cunt”… which as everyone knows, and my super special dictionary agrees, that “cunt” only means “a rude and obnoxious person” – it’s entirely possible there’s no misogyny there at all…
</Steerstroll>

🙄

Basically, identity epithets work by denigrating an entire class of people as collateral damage. Why would anyone defend their right to be obnoxious?

Whenever I hear tone arguments, all I can think of is

which was a response to critics trying to shut down rap because of profanity.

Mr. Coltrane, don’t you have to go and butter up Boss Hogg now?

That new Kansas bill sure is enraging. I can’t bring the funny.

“…But some of the more radical ones are wearing the designation as a badge of honor, as David’s post illustrates.”

It’s a testament to their pathos: “Life has denied me any real validation, so I’ll pounce on this and call it validation. It ain’t the real thing but it’s the closest I’ll get.”

It saddens me that there are multiple concern trolls who have come here to make the “I can think of situations where it would be unclear if something is rape, therefore nothing is rape” argument.

Proud misanthropes. Quelle surprise.

The MRM can’t get off the ground because there’s no validity to their claims that they need more rights.

@Ruby Hypatia (great name btw): More than that, they don’t really need/want more rights–a huge amount of what they want is predicated on taking women’s rights away, and there are very few “civil rights” or “social justice” movements that work that way.

I too get the feeling they want some of women’s rights taken away. They tend to be vague so I’m not sure which ones they want to take away. Do they want fathers to be the owners of their children like it was a hundred or so years ago? Do they not realize there’s no chance in hell of accomplishing this objective?

Posters on this site who are regulars have called out other posters on certain ways of expressing themselves–and as I recall, THOSE regulars don’t get called “concern trolls” because they aren’t.

Yeah, I realized my post was stupid right after I made it. You’re right.

@Ruby Hypatia: Well, just from my reading here (and I almost never click through to read the actual sites, shudder), and from being old and grumpy (just did a rant on a friend’s journal about how the current attempts to criminalize women’s reproductive rights have been going on since the 1970s, it’s not some sudden thing), yeah, they’re yearning for a non-existent Golden Age where women did not get educated; women could not work outside the home (except as prostitutes, controlled by male pimps); there are no affirmative action or non-discrimination laws; women cannot control reproduction; women should do all the child care and never argue, let alone want a divorce; women could not control their own money; women had the legal status of children (could not serve on juries, for example, which would remove all those “guilty” verdicts); where rape is “life” instead of a “crime,” etc.

And they are Masters and Commanders of the Universe.

Sheesh! Maybe they should convert to Islam and emmigrate to Saudi Arabia.

@Ruby Hypatia: Tempting on the surface, but the racism and anti-Islamic sentiments are pretty high over there–and even those more conservative branches of it, like some of the religious fundamentalist Christian groups in the US, have some standards for men that some people on this site before have speculated would not appeal to these MRAS (i.e. adultery technically not a good thing in many religious communities, and some of these dudez seem to think they should get to sleep around with whomever and still have wifey waiting at home with clean laundry and a hot meal–and I grew up in just that sort of social context!).

My perception of what they want is some bizarre crossover AU of John Norman’s God, “Leave it to Beaver,” and Hugh Hefner’s Playboy Mansion.

But that could be just me!

So basically they want the Madonna and whore separated again, the two kinds of women?

I suspect so–or even more tellingly, that’s how they think, and they want to force it on everybody else (DKM is the worst in that respect!). Their idea that somehow their ideology is new, and in response to the terrible feminazi oppression of the last mumble mumble years decades centuries is horrifyingly amusingly bizarre as well.

What’s clockworkgirl21 trying to do? Help them? If they even took her advice, and they won’t because she’s a girl, they’d just be shooting for the same agenda but with more polite language.

Hm, speaking of definitions of hate groups, I had this bookmarked from a while back:

http://rosieindc.wordpress.com/human-psychology-101/is-your-pua-or-mra-group-a-hate-group/

More specifically about PUA groups although it does touch on the MRM in general. Worth a read I guess.

It’s like a black person trying to convince KKK members not to use the N-word.

The Oppression Olympics grand champions are non-adults. In other words, chrdlien . Those who are under 18, or whatever the legal age of majority is, lack many rights that those who are legally adults possess.Among the rights denied to minors:1) They cannot vote.2) They cannot sign legally binding contracts, and are restricted in their right to own property and earn income.3) They cannot consent to sex, and are frequently prevented from accessing sexually explicit material that is available to adults.4) They are required to undergo compulsory education, and they are severely restricted in their ability to control its form.5) They can be legally subjected to punishments by private individuals that would be unconstitutional in the United States if imposed by a judge and which are illegal for one adult to force on another adult.6) They cannot consume or purchase certain substances that adults can.Of course, there are very good reasons for at least some of these restrictions, but they are, in fact, restrictions that, in general, would not be tolerated if imposed upon an adult.Oppression of various groups has often been justified by equating members of those groups with chrdlien: that they lack the decision making capacity and moral agency of normal adults, so they must be guided and controlled by those that do.With that out of the way why do we care, again?