Men’s Rights Redditors teach “darkbros, homobros and transbros” a few things about inclusiveness.

So the other day someone went to the Men’s Rights subreddit with some concerns about the movement’s inclusiveness – or, rather, its lack thereof. “I’d be a lot more inclined to follow this movement,” this person wrote,

 if it was more inclusive of the issues of other men, such as those of colour, homosexuality and those who identify as males. But as it stands even when you quote prison statistics as a form of sexism, you flat out ignore the ethnic make up of those statistics and the last time I saw y’all chatting about queer rights? I can’t actually remember, it’s been even longer since something along those lines came on the front page.

Naturally, the fine folks of the subreddit responded with a big “nuh-uh!”

Some suggested that the Men’s Rights movement is already quite inclusive enough, thank you very much. A few offered the existence of GirlWritesWhat, an actual female lady woman MRA, as proof of inclusiveness. I’m not quite sure how that has to do with race or LBGT issues, but hey: The MRM has a lady! (More than one, actually.)

Our dear old friend AnnArchist, who despite the name is not a lady, and who may or may not still be a mod (see below), helpfully explained:

Huh. I remember that month, too. Lots of Men’s Rightsers were angry about being associated with anything gay, and a lot of LGBT folks were angry about being associated with the Men’s Rights subreddit. I also recall that time when Kloo2yoo, the founder of the subreddit, attempted to make a token effort to be LGBT-inclusive. Oh, and the time a Men’s Rights redditor talked about how he would violently assault any trans woman who “tricked” him into having sex. Oh yeah: that Men’s Rights Redditor was a fellow called AnnArchist.

Others pointed out that they personally weren’t bigots or anything. Tyciol put it this way:

I wasn’t aware that darkbros, homobros and transbros were being discriminated against as policy. The free speech policy does inevitably end up with some closeminded folk being hostile of them, but I don’t think this means the movement is not inclusive. To be non-inclusive would there not have to be active exclusion?

I happen to think [wrestler] David Ortunga is a sexy black man who I would like to rub oil onto, and I respect the maleness of Larson Degado. Yet I’m not banned so… hm.

So if you’re not black, and you fantasize about rubbing oil on a black dude, that makes you a paragon of post-racial “inclusivity?” Apparently.

Other Men’s Rights Redditors want to be post-racial by not talking about race at all, suggesting that what the OP called inclusiveness could end up splitting the Men’s Rights movement in two, or three or four:

The trouble — well, one of many troubles — with this complaint is that there … really aren’t any significant numbers of black MRAs to speak of. When the Men’s Rights subreddit conducted its own demographic survey – alas, I’ve lost the link to it – there was, I believe, literally only one black MRA who stood up to be counted.

Lurker_lenore, meanwhile, suggested that focusing on anything other than men, indivisible was just plain wrong:

But if “age, race, sexual preference, and/or gender identity” somehow don’t affect the issue of equality, why would you assume that gender would? Shouldn’t we just be fighting for People Rights? Or, if that is too-species specific, why not Primate Rights, or Animal Rights, or Carbon-Based Lifeform Rights?

The best comments in the thread – by which I mean the most transcendently loopy — all come from Tyciol, whom we’ve met already, who raised a whole bunch of issues that no one dared to. Mainly becuase these issues were stupid.

For example, this one, touching on the terrifying topic of spermburgling.

I am interested in issues where transmen’s rights overlap with cismen’s rights. I’m not entirely clear on it, TBH. They’re our bros from another chromosone and all that, but I guess a lot of the issues just don’t currently apply, like procreation-related rights, probably less of a concern, since transmen (FtMs) don’t produce semen which can be misused, stuff like that.

And this even weirder followup:

I think FtMs are awesome and stuff but well… in terms of men’s rights… is it that, or is it male rights? I would like to identify some of the struggles we’d actually have in common. I’m all for standin’ up for’m since it’s the right thing and stuff but like… if it comes up in a dispute that they’re XX, doesn’t this usually sway to get them superior female-status consideration even if they detest that?

And all of these:

Tyciol seems to have a lot of questions, and a lot of opinions, about LGBT issues. And a deep love for language – in particular, the word “bros.” Here, in a different thread, we see the two interests combined in one intriguing comment:

In other words, the attitude of the Men’s Rights subreddit towards LGBT folks seems to be summed up pretty well by this parody poster prepared by Man Boobz Art Brigade solider Myoo, originally intended  as a parody of the attitudes expressed over on A Voice for Men.

You can find approximately a gazillion million more parody posters over on the always entertaining Artistry for Feminism and Kittens blog.

(Oh, and on the bit about AnnArchist possibly being a mod: He used to be one, but a few months ago the mods all got new anonymous handles, and because of that I can’t say for sure if he’s still one.)