Over on the Men’s Rights subreddit, a bunch of the locals are doing a little brainstorming, hoping to come up with a pithy slogan or two for posters that will allow them to better sell their alleged movement to the misandrist masses.
The results so far are, well, intriguing. The front-runner, so far, is this highly upvoted one from deluks917, though as you can see it has received some criticism:
Chernab0g’s contribution is short and to the point:
This one from unexpecteditem is a bit perplexing:
And this one from The_Real_Johnny_Utah is, if anything, even more unexpected than the one from unexpecteditem:
SuicideBanana seems to have a little trouble with his pith. Also, “huh?” Cthulufunk tries his best to play the race card, but unfortunately does not seem to be playing with a full deck:
Neofool’s slogan seems a bit defensive:
Oddly, none of them mentioned the “wicked new slogan” that Counter-Feminist Philosopher King Fidelbogen unveiled earlier this year: “Feminism spreads lies like a fly spreads germs.”
It’s frankly quite bizarre that MRAs haven’t SWARMED (get it? get it?) around this slogan yet. Not only is it clearly the greatest slogan since “The Best Part of Waking Up is Folgers in Your Cup,” but it also comes with a little graphic (see here on the right) that someone made for Mr. Bogen.
And no, despite its endearing amateurness it wasn’t put together as a joke by anyone here.
As wonderful as all these slogans are I think we can do a better job than the Reddit MRAs; after all, most of us know a lot more about the MRA than do most MRAs themselves. So have at it!
Oh, and speaking of posters, these have been going up recently in Vancouver. The r/MRer’s aren’t happy about it.
Meanwhile in France:
Man Ordered to Pay Ex-Wife $14,000 Over Lack of Sex
http://gawker.com/5837378/man-ordered-to-pay-ex+wife-14000-over-lack-of-sex
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/8741895/Frenchman-ordered-to-pay-wife-damages-for-lack-of-sex.html
“… The 51-year-old man was fined under article 215 of France’s civil code, which states married couples must agree to a “shared communal life”.
A judge has now ruled that this law implies that “sexual relations must form part of a marriage”…. “
Now that is odd. And I can see that being overturned.
I see MRA’s being in full support of that decision, for precedence for future lawsuits for men.
@Ugh
If you had to pin my personal philosophy into any category, I would be a classical liberal. It means, among other things, that I strongly believe in equality (of opportunity) and a large degree of personal autonomy. Almost everything I say will reflect that. So, to the degree that feminism agrees with classic liberalism, I agree with them, and to the degree that MRA’s advocate classic liberalism, I agree with them too, and the same holds with the inverse.
So, if MRA’s are advocating rape (and I don’t know if they are or aren’t, but you say they are) then I disagree with them because that removes personal autonomy from the woman (or man) being raped. The reason I’m skeptical about them advocating rape is that I haven’t looked into it myself, haven’t seen concrete proof, and would initially think that no one would say something that stupid. Dumb positions like that are hard to believe.
Partnered sex? Yeah that works better.
Dualityhearts assumption is unfounded.
Diogenes, you have only to look at any of the standard MRA bloggers – A Voice for Men, or Roosh, or Heartiste – and you will see rape advocacy all over the place. You don’t even need to go to their sites: use the ‘rape’ tag right here and you’ll find links to them in every article.
One example: Paul Elam on AVFM says that men should always vote ‘not guilty’ when they’re on the jury for a rape trial, even when it is clear the rapist is guilty. He wants rape to be legal by default if not by legislation.
Roosh and Roissy (Heartiste) regularly advise men to ignore a woman’s ‘no’ and force sex upon her. They are rape advocates and, if their claims are true, rapists themselves.
The MRM is very largely about enabling rape and rapists.
Joe1, Thanks for sharing that terrible legal decision, which should be overturned. Given that it was feminists who pushed for protection against marital rape, I don’t think you can really lay responsibility for that bad French legal decision on feminism. Or did you have some other reason for plopping that here? Do you blame the C1A? Mu5lims?
Also, do you remember thebionicmommy’s great song about you?
Yeah, Joe, I am against that court decision from the link you gave. Nobody is ever obligated to have sex with their spouse or partner. Along with that, nobody is obligated to stay in a relationship that doesn’t meet their sexual needs.
Then you haven’t looked very hard.
Warren Farrell is the source of most MRA talking points, and he thinks that child molestation is beneficial for families.
Paul Elam of AVFM has asked that all MRAs should pardon rapists if they’re on juries, even if they believe that the defendant was guilty.
Roosh and many other PUAs have advocated for rape as a pickup strategy.
Really, rape advocacy is the only consistent feature of the MRA movement. There literally is not a single mainstream MRA writer who has not advocated for more rape and domestic violence in society.
Feminism and MRAs aren’t two liberal movements that complement each other. Feminism is an actual movement. MRA is a hate movement. I don’t really care to what extent their hatred correlates with the ideals of slaveowners 240 years in the grave, they are still a hate movement.
I think it’s pretty hilarious how people who are clearly hateful hide behind “classical liberalism: as if the fact that Thomas Jefferson didn’t give a shit about women or foreigners suddenly makes it not hateful in the modern day.
@Ugh
Do you even know what classical liberalism is?
Its Locke and Adam Smith. David Hume, and Montesquieu. Guys like that. It isn’t Jefferson because he may have believed in what those men said, but his administration blocked exports to Britain.
There’s a .pdf of Wealth of Nations I’m reading, and Adam Smith takes a strong stance against slavery from a moral perspective. Alexander Hamilton, one of our more pragmatic founding fathers also didn’t like slavery. He mentions as much in one of the Federalist Papers he wrote. I think it was number 45, or 46. These guys definitely believed in equality.
You yourself probably believe in most of the tenants of liberalism too. I imagine you wouldn’t want a national religion, or arbitrary imprisonment. I bet you also like government accountability, separation of powers, and natural rights.
So, if you are going to accuse me of being “clearly hateful” you could at least try to qualify that statement. Otherwise, you’ll show yourself to be “clearly bigoted.”
If MRA’s are advocating rape, they’re being idiots.
If they’re advocating that states adopt presumed joint custody in the case of divorce so fathers will be assured they get to see their children, they have a legitimate point.
@The Kittehs
I have problems wrapping my head around the level of derp it would take for them to say that.
“I’m totally not a bigot,” he said, immediately after revealing that all the intellectuals he likes are old sexist racist white dudes.
Hey there, pedantic cynic. Just because you can’t wrap your head around the idea that MRAs believe the things that they say, that doesn’t mean that they don’t actually believe those things, or that the fact that they believe those things is not relevant and related to their opinions on other things.
Diogenes, it is mind-boggling, and sickening, but their hatred really does run that deep. It’s not just idiocy, it’s extreme malice. They blame children for being raped.
When it comes to divorce, joint custody is not automatically a good thing. I know it would have done me no good at all to spend time with my father and his second wife and her kids, even if any of us had wanted that. And he wasn’t an abuser. There are parents out there – of whatever gender – who should never be allowed near their children again. The kids’ safety and wellbeing come before any ‘rights’ an adult has to access, let alone custody.
It’s so odd to me that people don’t realize that the guiding principle of how child custody battles are decided is what’s best for the children, rather than what’s best for the adults.
Well dodgy guy so long as you do not look you will never have to know. I think they call that willful ignorance in the scholarly works.
@diogenes
You’re not the only one who’s read the dead white man canon, assuming that you have, in fact, read the dead white man canon. I’m guessing you’re not aware of what the canon authors you mention wrote about women. Yes, they believed in “equality”, but some animals are more equal than others. And women are definitely not equal animals.
Locke is remarkable in that he states that women are not property! Wow! Clearly we have nothing more to learn about power and government, especially in terms of gender relations, than we can learn from the classical liberals.
And of course a seventeenth-century liberal is going to be totally liberal by twenty-first century standards. Hell, in the period of the Thirty Years’ War, it was pretty damned liberal for a ruler to permit even limited freedom of worship. Somehow I don’t think that’d cut it today (well, unless we’re talking about fruitloops like Owly, but then he’s pretty socially backward even by seventeenth-century standards).
Yeah, the whole ‘yeah maybe some of the oppressing and exploiting going on isn’t so great’ thing was a great start, but not really that great of an end point.
@Gametime
Guess what? You’re a bigot!
@Cassandra
Did I do anything to you?
@The Kittehs
When I first heard of NAMBLA, I assumed it was a joke.
I thought that video was going to turn into satire up to the last minute. I sometimes have trouble thinking that some people mean what they say, when what they say is pretty stupid.
As to the divorce thing, I’ll open that can of worms later. I’ll just say that excepting extenuating circumstances, parents should be in their childrens lives. You would have to have a heart of stone to disagree.
@Nepenthe
I like that. Dead white guy canon.
I wont pretend that I’ve read everything, but I know a bit, and when I do a direct quote, or paraphrase, its because I’ve read it in the original.
At the time, what they were saying was revolutionary. People used to think the King was appointed by G-d. That the life of a nobleman was worth more than that of a serf, and if a merchant became richer than a nobleman, his status was still lower.
Don’t knock it man. We’re only able to change things now, because they changed things back then.
@The Kitteh
Its why I qualified my statement that I am a classic liberal. Modern liberalism is an outgrowth of the Populist/Progressive movement from the 20’s. So maybe we’re using the word differently?
BTW, who is Owly?
No it isn’t. Modern liberalism, also known as Social liberalism, began in 19th century Europe. Don’t worry, though, it was founded by dead white guys too.
Which is why feminists should stop trying to change things now! The logic, it’s impeccable. The appeal to emotion (heart of stone) was entertaining, though, as was the attempt to use it to downplay the fact that the extenuating circumstances are why some parents are refused custody of their kids now.
@Diogenes the cynic
NWO Slave, also called Owly, Slavey, and Mr. Slave, is a regular troll famous for his bizarre rants. See the Book of Learnin’
http://manboobz.forummotion.com/t454-nwo-s-big-book-of-learnin
@Fembot
Well, thank you. Reading that was frightening as it was enlightening. He says that to troll though, right? Its not serious stuff I assume.