You remember that big MRA-vs-feminists debate in Vancouver we were talking about the other day? The one later this month? In the car dealership? About whether or not feminism has “gone to too far?” Oh, and which doesn’t, so far, seem to involve any actual feminists?
In case no feminists decide to show up to a debate organized and moderated by MRAs, promoted only on MRA websites, and taking place in a car dealership run by an MRA, one Reddit MRA has a suggestion:
Yep, he really did just suggest that MRAs debate themselves, and then, with no sense of irony, say “Let’s not turn this debate into a MRA circlejerk.”
It’s hard to imagine a more perfect encapsulation of the Men’s Rights movement than this. MRAs are always eager to debate the imaginary feminists that live only in their own heads. Straw feminists are really the only feminists they know.
You might also enjoy TyphonBlue’s heroic special-snowflaking in the Reddit thread.
and blockquote fail. damnit
Happy- thanks, but I think Kakanian’s “sending psychiatrists into a congregation of Scientologists” analogy was more succinct! Scientologists vs psychiarists is a great example of a very emotionally-charged issue in which at least one side take criticism very personally indeed.
The more emotionally-charged a debate is, the greater the likelihood of it turning ugly, and as it seems that Hell hath no fury like an MRA scorned, I sure as hell wouldn’t like to find myself arguing the case for feminism in a room surrounded by them.
@Happy:
“the futility of debating with them”
That’s another issue- MRAs are conspiracy theorists, and debating ANYTHING with a conspiracy theorist is futile. As they say themselves, “just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you”.
@Gokkun Gooch: If you’ve read Plato’s Republic (it’s not just the Republic that’s written as a dialogue between different views btw, all Plato’s books are), you know that he (through Socrates) argues that all jobs should be open for women as well as men. At a time when women had NO rights whatsoever and were confined to their homes.
A little off topic, but just saying.
Devil’s Advocate is a tough place to be. In ritualised debate (i.e. “forensics”) it’s not so bad,because the resolutions are, by and large, not anything the debaters have any deep investment in, “Resolved, advertising is detrimental to the quality of life in the United States”. One has to argue both sides† because being Con is more work than Aff (why yes, I did “do debate” in college). One isn’t actually being asked to defend a position one disagrees with, but rather take turns examining a question that doesn’t matter much.
But to play Devil’s Advocate, for real; arguing a side one vehemently disagrees with, that’s hard. It requires a deep understanding of the other side, and the ability to treat it fairly.
I’ve seen evidence of neither from the MRM.
&dagger: in the actual Lincoln/Douglas debates they didn’t switch off. They were campaigning for office, and cared deeply about what people thought of their arguments)
@pecunium
Exactly. In forensic debate one usually isn’t forced to defend the position “You guys shouldn’t rape me; that would be wrong. Can I get the fuck out of this place?”
It’s a lose/lose, of course. Even if for some reason a troop of Vancouver feminists DID show up to debate, the MRA would THEN take it as a sign that they’re very important and showing they mean business. (See the response to SPLC.)
“Sharon”
Oh, maybe because MRAs have a tendency to harass, stalk, and threaten those who disagree with them. Along with the fact that they will always say the sky is green, even when it is clearly blue.
The point of forensics is learning how to debate, so that if you find yourself ever having to debate something you actually believe you can do it well. It isn’t about how everyone should switch sides at the drop of a hat.
Also, in a debate neither team picks their side, so during the debate nobody but you knows your personal opinion. Also, you are doing this for fun, so you can laugh in the halls afterwards. In this debate, we know the MRAs are MRAs (and the feminists are also MRAs), which eliminates that unknown, and nobody wants to laugh with MRAs in the halls afterward, not even other MRAs.
The expectation that everybody, but especially marginalized people, should always be calm and reasonable about things that effect them is so. damn. stupid. And also oppressive.
To all those who think feminists ought to show up to this debate- are you high? The feminist who originally suggested this debate was threatened on her fb page, and this page is linked to the violent rhetoric used to describe feminists. Couple that with victim blaming tactics directed towards abused women and rape victims, no feminist is going to feel entirely safe in that crowd, let alone be confident they weren’t there to have their arguments outshouted for the entertainment of angry dudes. MRA arguments are successfully addressed by feminists all over the internet- go read them there.
“Let’s not turn this … into a MRA circlejerk.”
Too late.
“Stalk, harrass and threaten”
Such as a large group with box cutters?
So, essentially, when MRA’s leave angry facebook messages, its “stalking and harassment.”
When femz come at you with blades, its… what? All in good fun? Maybe Dave can answer that.
Sharon. We saw the video.
If you are going to come at us with shit that didn’t happen, you need to actually do it before it gets debunked.
Shit, if “cutting down posters in your general vicinity” is the same as coming at you with blades, I’m going to have to sue the restaurant I went to the other night. I passed the kitchen at one point, and there were at least THREE people wielding knives at me!
Hahahahahahha, they’re still lying about this incident even after the video was made public? Freaking hilarious.
Gah, I wish it was easy to retrain your brain, because every time I see the words “box cutter” (a name we don’t use over here), I think of bolt cutters instead. Which would be weird to carry around with you to threaten people with.
“When fems come at you with blades…”
You’re fucking kidding me, right?
@Sharon
People watched the video, I watched the video, a video made by MRAs. They had every chance to show this “mob armed with box cutters” and instead the video showed a few people cutting down posters. So either the MRAs themselves decided to omit the incriminating footage for some reason or they’re full of shit.
If I were John the Other, I would have at least got people to come at me with Stanley knives…
Their dedication to film honesty is hilarious when compared to their complete fabrication of the rest of it.
@ Sharon:
Wasn’t Ken Ham (of Answers in Genesis infamy) demanding a debate with Bill Nye a while back? Do you think the fact that Bill Nye isn’t going to debate Ken Ham means that the theory of evolution is wrong and that the world really is less than ten thousand years old?
All a debate between MRAs and feminists would do would be to give undue publicity and credibility to the MRAs. Even if the feminists completely trounced the MRAs’ arguments, the feminists would still have provided them a platform to spew their lies. It would give the MRAs a chance to speak before a wider audience. Even if the MRAs lost the debate, they would ultimately win just by having such a debate take place.
What I learned today:
Two people with box cutters is a large group
Merely holding something considered a tool in your hands is threatening to assault someone with it. (I think I’ve been assaultiung my family with hoit dinners for years. I plead guilty, can someone else do the cooking now?)
Taking down posters and shouting angry words is life threatening.
Getting together a group of people to discuss an issue they vehemently disagree with is a debate, provided that at least one person pretends to be the one with the hated views and tries to represent a side of the argument they clearly misunderstand.
There is clearly no problem with showing up at debate site filled with people who vehemetely oppose your views and have been known to stalk and harass or threaten people who oppose their views.
Clearly, despite years of internet debate, the entire issue can be resolved by face to face argument. Presumably the arguments will be so persuasive that everyone will come to mutual agreement and support a view they did not necessarily hold before the event.
Really? Are you always this obtuse or is it a Wednesday thing?
NOBODY CAME AFTER JTO WITH BOXCUTTERS AND THREATENED HIM YOU PATHETIC FUCKSTAIN.
You’d think people who are so concerned about “false accusations” would be more wary of making accusations that are demonstrably false.
That would be horrifying, yet worth watching.