Comments

1. Posted by: Alek on 11/11/2010 12:02 PM
   
   You know what's sad though Mark? The comic above is increasingly (oddly enough) becoming true. I think you were the last mature guy on the youtube/mra movement.
   
   Since you've left its gone downhill. Right now, its gone to the point, where most guys who identify themselves as an MRA are bitter guys who (genuinely) hate women. I mean like honest-to-goodness doofuses who are mad that the cheerleader in highschool didn't bang them, and now they found this "mra" thing to lash out through.
   
   Its no longer about equality, or rights, or libertarian topics of any kinds. Its just unadulterated "all women suxxors and wants to rob my money, bla bla"...
   
   Since you've left, the movement has turned into a cesspoll, and the few other mature guys left too... which is sad, coz there does need to be a male-movement.
2. Posted by: Adi on 11/16/2010 12:01 PM
   
   I can tell you why that is Alek:
   Those who want to do well and succeed in life have no time to get depressed by inequalities. The odds are stacked against men anyway - even without distractions from activism. That means that only those who stand out and out-perform the average will succeed - and spending energy on debating feminists or getting upset about unfairness has NEVER gotten any man anywhere.
   
   I know this because the annoyance and frustration inherent in thinking about gender issues hindered me quite substantially for a while. Fortunately I noticed this in time so I have decided to ignore them and get on with life. I tell myself that men might have it bad compared with women in the West, but we're still hugely privileged compared with people from developing countries. We're STILL the lucky ones. Remember that.
   I'm still for equality of the sexes and I'll vote accordingly (pirates or something like that) and I'll stand up for myself when I get attacked for my gender. But I just can't afford to go around in self-pity or get frustrated by these issues.
   
   I suppose that most ambitious and successful men will make the same choice and hence you're left with all the losers - the whiners who bury themselves in self-pity and hack around on their keyboard for a few crumbs of self-respect.
   MRA activism is a man-trap really. It lures you into the false notion that men might one day receive equal treatment to women in terms of societal value. Total BS. Men have always been mostly losers and it's up to the individual to work hard to tip the balance in his favour.
3. Posted by: Mark on 11/16/2010 12:41 PM
   

   I know this because the annoyance and frustration inherent in thinking about gender issues hindered me quite substantially for a while. Fortunately I noticed this in time so I have decided to ignore them and get on with life. I tell myself that men might have it bad compared with women in the West, but we're still hugely privileged compared with people from developing countries. We're STILL the lucky ones. Remember that.

   
   
   Amen. It is essentially moving from the victim mentality to the empowered mentality (not being "empowered" where the feminists so depravedly want others or "society" to bestow power on them). I was never really hindered myself as I took an observers stance, and I still consider these issue interesting and want to write on them, but the less you wrap yourself in the victimality of it all, the happier you will be.
   
   Thinking in this way, I have moved away from MRA-ism to being an observer of human nature.
   
   That said, men in certain situations (such as a divorced father) can very much be victims, but in general it doesn't benefit us to think in that way.
4. Posted by: Ray on 11/16/2010 8:38 PM
   
   This is really quite saddening. This statement I mean:
   
   " MRA activism is a man-trap really. It lures you into the false notion that men might one day receive equal treatment to women in terms of societal value."
   
   How is fighting for equal rights "a false notion?" That's ridiculous.
   
   And Alek, I don't know what the hell you are talking about, but there will be extremists in any movement. The people who say "women suxxors and need to get back in the kitchen" are usually basement dwelling trolls and don't really count. They're an extreme minority as well, and they are called out all the time. There is no evidence that the movement has turned into a cesspool, and there is zero evidence that most of the guys in the MRA are misogynists, unless you are ascribing to shaming tactics that describe men seeking equality as bigots. Ridiculous.
5. Posted by: Adi on 11/16/2010 10:29 PM
   
   @ Ray,
   Don't confuse equal rights with equal treatment. Equal rights are absolutely attainable and not even far out of our grasp.
   HOWEVER, hoping for equal TREATMENT is not a good idea. Most of us live in democracies and they are ruled by the majority and the majority of both men and women do NOT want equal treatment of the genders. They want chivalry, providers/beauties etc. Even most MRAs (like most feminists) don't want equal treatment. And as long as there isn't equal treatment, there will be unfairness such as "women and children first", men paying for dates, women judged by their looks etc.
   
   It's not a new or societal thing anyway. The males of most species are second in terms of value. In fact, progressive human culture might be the ONLY way that could get partially evened out - but only partially. But don't kid yourself. As individuals, men are just not as valuable as women. Perhaps they will be in the distant future but not in our lifetimes.
   Facing the harsh reality is the first step towards REALLY making things better. THAT is real optimism.
   
   One thing that made it clear to me that MRA was not going to work was that there are almost no homosexuals among them. But it was the lesbians who played a key role in women's empowerment. You'd have thought that gay men notice unfairness much sooner than we do because they aren't coloured by their sexual need for women. Yet, they are more to be found among feminists. That made me think - something is obviously wrong here.
6. Posted by: Ray on 11/16/2010 10:35 PM
   
   "But don't kid yourself. As individuals, men are just not as valuable as women."
   
   I find this a highly ridiculous statement. This isn't "harsh reality", it is simply false. It takes both an egg and sperm to make offspring. There is absolutely zero evidence to support your claim. As a biology student, your claim doesn't even make sense.
7. Posted by: Adi on 11/17/2010 1:00 AM
   
   While it is true that both are needed for reproduction, that doesn't refute my statement.
   One male can reproduce many more times than one female. As a consequence, fewer men are needed to reproduce - a lot fewer. Even if males were just a small minority of the population, the following generation would not be in danger.
   This is not just theoretical. It is already in practice. The majority of males never reproduce in most mammals (including us), while the majority of females DO reproduce. I believe the statistics with humans is (throughout history) around 40% of men reproduced compared with 80% of women.
   
   Hence:
   Most men are losers and most women are winners.
   Corollary:
   The odds are against the average man but favour the average woman.
   AND:
   Taking risks is necessary for most men while playing it safe is beneficial for most women.
   
   Or in other terms:
   A woman who does not reproduce means in all probability that the next generation has fewer offspring which means a loss for the species.
   A man who does not reproduce means in all probability that another man will take his place in evolution which means no loss for the species.
   
8. Posted by: Introspectre on 11/17/2010 2:26 AM
   
   @Adi, what you speak of is a conditioned biological drive from a time when many women died in childbirth and males of a tribe were routinely culled in warfare. A few men and several women could re-populate a tribe more quickly than the reverse. We no longer live such a "Darwinian" existance.
   
   Wombs are plentiful, women seldom die in childbirth,(at least in the western world), and arguably technical skills are much more important than reproductive ability in our current societies. Males tend to be better at technical tasks and more innovative in developing technology so the argument could be made that males are actually the winners in a technology based society, and hence more valuable.
9. Posted by: Adi on 11/17/2010 11:00 AM
   
   Good point.
   But this past age you describe is what shaped our species until very recently. Though much of our behaviour is culturally 'programmed', much of it is also biologically routed. We are still animals by any definition and we still behave exactly like animals.
   Perhaps we can shake that off over time. I certainly hope so. But it will take thousands of generations at least (unless there's some kind of genetic engineering or eugenics). But don't think for one second that we're somehow beyond our biological past.
   
   As for the skills (technical or not) that men have, that illustrates my point from a different angle: because men have to acquire those skills (and women can too incidentally). They do not make men inherently valuable. How does that illustrate my point? Well because it shows how men must earn their value. You are "not a man" until you have earned it somehow and keep proving that you're worthy of being accepted as a man.
   Totally unlike women, who are inherently valuable just for being women. A woman never needs to prove that she's a woman or earn the 'female status'. She just needs to be.
   No amount of equal rights or political activism are going to change that. It's outright naive to think that we can teach society to value men as it values women.
   
   But things aren't all bad for men. Everything tends to balance out. If men have to swim upstream to get through life, that will make them stronger swimmers. This is probably why men are on average more capable than women in a number of different areas.
10. Posted by: Ray on 11/17/2010 7:12 PM
    
    The concept we use in biology to illustrate why no sex is less valuable than the other, and to illustrate how completely wrong you are, is evolution and genetics: It takes 1 man and 1 woman to procreate and the probability of having a boy or a girl child is 50:50. Across all mammals, the sex ratio is 1:1. As one of my professors said, if either sex was more important than the other, there would have to be some mechanism to produce more of that offspring.
    
    Example: Men are superior to women. Having a male child gets you more evolutionary benefits (the currency for evolutionary benefits is always reproduction and genes passing down generations) than having a female child. A mutation arises that allows people to have a higher probability of producing male offspring which shifts the sex ratio towards men. Obviously we all can't be men or there will be no potential for reproduction. Women are now the rare sex and inevitably competition for access to female mates among males increases. Along with the increase in competition, it becomes more favorable for a couple to have a daughter because they can be sure that their daughter will mate and pass on their genes. A mutation arises that makes it more likely that a couple can have a daughter and daughters become more prevalent, etc, etc, etc.
    This is why the sex ratio of 1:1 is considered evolutionarily stable.
    
    Bottom line, if one sex was more important that the other, we would see a skew in the sex ratio to favor that sex. If men truly were superior to women, we should expect to see many more male offspring. Since there is not, evolution and genetics sees men and women as two different, but EQUAL forces of nature.
    
    What you said here:
    
    "A woman who does not reproduce means in all probability that the next generation has fewer offspring which means a loss for the species."
    
    We've gone over this in my classes several times. It's a fallacy. The sex ratio: being 1 to 1, means that another woman will take her place. It also means that said woman who doesn't reproduce will not produce a heavy loss for the species, as women can only bear a certain number of children whereas a man can produce orders of magnitude more children.
    
    "Totally unlike women, who are inherently valuable just for being women. A woman never needs to prove that she's a woman or earn the 'female status'. She just needs to be."
    
    This is also a fallacy. Biologically speaking, a woman isn't valuable at all if she isn't attractive. It will make it much harder for her to find a mate. This only correlates with the male situation only slightly. A man need not be attractive if he is successful, he will still find a mate rather easily.
11. Posted by: Adi on 11/18/2010 1:32 AM
    
    Ray, you're referring to the large scale balance across an entire species. Obviously the entire male sex is as valuable as the entire female sex and I never said it wasn't.
    
    That has little meaning for us as individuals though. Far more meaningful to individuals, is the small scale. For example across anything from zero to a few hundred people which is the kind of numbers we commonly concern ourselves with (families, teams, villages, work places etc).
    The balance is very different there and, to make it clear, I'll use a simplified example:
    
    Population 200. 100 male + 100 female.
    Imagine that every woman will have 10 offspring (assuming all will live and be healthy). That is pretty much the most one can expect. In reality it would be far less.
    So the total offspring will be 500 in number.
    The 100 men will have to copulate at least 500 times or 5 times each.
    
    Now imagine 90 men die in battle before they can reproduce. Then the remaining 10 will have to reproduce 50 times each which means having sex at least 50 times in a life time. No problem at all.
    
    Now imagine that 90 women die before they can reproduce. The remaining 10 women will have to give birth to 50 children each. A HUGE problem.
    
    Hence, losing the 90 women is a far greater problem than losing the 90 men.
    
    
    The other fallacy is that there is another kind of natural selection going on on besides the strictly biological one. This type of natural selection is unique to an intelligent species (one that can communicate and pass on knowledge from one generation to the next so that the total amount of knowledge grows exponentially) and we're the only one. Most of our history as a civilization we have lived in societies, groups of population on the scale similar to the one I described above. Societies compete with each other, just as individuals do, for resources and territory. The stronger society prevails and eventually assimilates or destroys neighbouring weaker societies. This has been the scenario for the human species for all of recorded history. And in all cases, the offspring is the most important resource of any society.
    Now you might say that it is just as biological as the 'classic' natural selection. The difference is, that this happens much faster than biological evolution. Societies learn, adapt and grow as well as perish MUCH faster than species typically do. Hence the process of societal evolution, though not negating biological evolution, plays a role of its own in the development of an intelligent species.
    This pressures any society to optimize it's reproductive behaviour within the biological constraints to suit a scenario like one that I mentioned above.
    We're all living in such societies today!
    
    
    
    
12. Posted by: Adi on 11/18/2010 1:38 AM
    
    Sorry. I forgot to check my numbers before posting.
    Here's the corrected version (the corrected numbers are in bold):
    
    Population 200. 100 male + 100 female.
    Imagine that every woman will have 10 offspring (assuming all will live and be healthy). That is pretty much the most one can expect. In reality it would be far less.
    So the total offspring will be 1000 in number.
    The 100 men will have to copulate at least 1000 times or 10 times each.
    
    Now imagine 90 men die in battle before they can reproduce. Then the remaining 10 will have to reproduce 100 times each which means having sex at least 100 times in a life time. No problem at all.
    
    Now imagine that 90 women die before they can reproduce. The remaining 10 women will have to give birth to 100 children each.
13. Posted by: Adi on 11/19/2010 1:10 AM
    
    Lol. Just had another "fine" example of an MRA. I asked him what hist opinion was on homosexuality and he blocked me on youtube without answering within less than a minute.
    
    Seems like the MRA is so huge and influential that it can afford to alienate it's potential supporters anytime.
    MRA is pretty much doomed. Everyone had better get off this sinking ship - this joke of a Titanic.
14. Posted by: Introspectre on 11/19/2010 5:48 AM
    
    Adi, I had a feeling you were just taking veiled potshots at MRA's. Tell me, are you this critical of feminists with their blatant hatred of men or do they get an immediate pass? Another question do you go looking for homophobic MRA's, because if your seeking them out exclusively you can't blame them for having been found, or put another way, your stacking your results due to the bias in your search. I'm an MRA I'm also heterosexual, yet I have no problem with gay men and if they're accepting and supportive of our issues they're as much an ally as any other. There are several known gay MRA's by the way and I always thought that gay men should be a part of the movement, they're men after all.
15. Posted by: Adi on 11/19/2010 9:39 AM
    
    You BET I'm this critical of feminists - even more so. At least MRA's have a good reason to exist. 90% of my debates have been with dishonest, sexist feminist morons.
    No, I don't go seek out problem cases. Lol. Imagine how full my hands would be. Thanks, but I'll stay the "opportunist issue hunter" that I am.
    
    I know that not all MRA's are homophobic. The problem is not with the MRA cause in principal. It is with the fact that it attracts the conservative homophobic "real man", "old school", "when life was still good" type of guys. They've infested the MRA and together with the whiners, the "I can't find a girlfriend and it's women's fault" type of guys, the MRA is doomed. The only hope I see, is if the honest fighter for equality thoroughly CLEAN up the MRA and send a broad and clear message what they stand for and what they don't.
    
    Feminism could get away with being man-hating but MRA will NEVER get away with any such blunder.
    
16. Posted by: Introspectre on 11/19/2010 5:25 PM
    
    Yes, the neo-con's are a serious problem, part of the issue is that I think they were amongst the first to start raising the alarm about mens issues when more liberal guys like myself were still, (at least partially), buying the feminist line. They feel they own the movement and there using it as a platform to also push far right politics. I'm a little more sympathetic towards the "can't get laid", types because they're often seeking honest affection and women are just plain cold to men who don't play an effective "alpha", they should really consider a man's "humanness" over his worthiness, but that's biology for you.
    
    So I agree with you, just please don't throw the entire movement under the proverbial bus. Men and boys are being maligned and treated unjustly based on a bunch of ideologically supremacist and wrongheaded, indoctrinated conclusions and we have to at least mitigate it somewhat, as its clear that the state and feminists intend to continue and even increase what is becoming virtual persecution. The most well spoken MRA writers tend to take a more thoughtful approach and it seems to me anyway, are actively distancing the movement from the extremists; something feminists refuse to do by the way.
    
    The mens movement is a serious underdog of a movement for those very biological reasons alluded to in earlier posts and "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", policy seems to be in effect, but if you look closely you'll see growing intolerance for the extremists and a core of very intelligent men and women who are concerned deeply about the lives of men and boys.
    
    I don't look to youtube much anymore for insight. There are a few very insightful MRA's there, Manwomanmyth, for one but there are tons of bigots of all stripes permeating that environment, (Diana Boston anyone?), lol.
17. Posted by: Adi on 11/20/2010 12:10 AM
    
    Your first paragraph is spot on. I'm also somewhat sympathetic towards the "can't get laid" guys. Hell I've been on the receiving end of female coldness often enough myself.
    What we forget however, is that men often treat women just as coldly - and on that side, I've found myself too. It is an imbalance of power that brings that about (on a large scale again). It isn't that women always have the upper hand. They don't. But they have it more often than men these days and they certainly have the upper hand during initial contact and that is where guys feel the rejection all the time.
    The problem is, although these guys are right to feel the way they do, there can NEVER be a political initiative on this subject. The sexes have to find their way to interact and nobody from above can do anything about it, nor should they. Besides, we all know the reason women have so much power in relationships is entirely due to so many idiot "manginas" who give it to them. We have met the enemy and he is us! Or do you know any hetero man who has never tried to please a woman beyond what is sensible?
    
    One reason I sometimes take an extreme side in my opinion is that I like to hear the counter arguments and then I usually settle somewhere in the middle. The other reason I attack the MRA so harshly is because it seriously needs a kick in the tail. All the MRA's who are serious know exactly what I'm talking about. MRA is a movement that should be fighting with manginas and pseudo MRAs. Those are our two enemies. Not women and not female feminists. All we need to do with feminism is expose the truth.
18. Posted by: Introspectre on 11/20/2010 12:59 AM
    
    Mangina's certainly have a way of overvaluing female attention don't they? I agree we should concentrate on educating men on clarifying their purpose and also getting the truth out there. One issue I've noticed here in Canada and elsewhere however, is that as soon as men try to expose the truth, feminists call it hate speech and government, police,courts and media all seem to work together to demonize men and counteract the MRA message. Another sign of many men being fools, they allowed a hate movement to entrench itself in the system for utterly cynical reasons sigh.
19. Posted by: Adi on 11/20/2010 9:04 AM
    
    Yup. And that is exactly why it is not healthy to spend a lot of time/energy on it. Remember, unlike women, we have to earn our value with performance so, unless you are very wealthy, it's better to focus on your own success.
    
    I still speak up when something bothers me and will vote and act as best as I can to support the real equality but making it a mission in life is just not for me.
20. Posted by: Pankaj on 12/15/2010 9:10 PM
    
    I am not even an egalitarian, let alone a men's rights activist. But this is a troubling post even for me. So, are you now disparaging Men's rights movement?
    
    I notice you are not denying that fathers can be genuine victims of the system instituted by feminists. So what is wrong with those fathers organizing themselves? If you did not know, there is a separate "Father's Rights movement".. at least in its focus ONLY on fathers.
    
    The propaganda cartoon (i say that very carefully) puts together some truths and some lies. Here it goes.."My wife left me, my kids hate me".. well that is often true of the fathers that the FRA movement is trying to help. What follows is a crafty tissue of lies. "I don't know why" followed by "HATE HATE HATE". The picture itself shows a balding old man, in a ragged bath robe with a pot belly sitting in front of a computer in a dark room. Clearly prompting the suggesting the man's own fault for his troubles.
    
    Let me start with accepting the picture just as it is meant be be. IF you were put in his position today.. would you be immune to intense dislike, even hatred of something/someone? Unless you are gods or perfect beings, the answer is very clear. Does this mean anyone who hates anything does not have a point, should be somehow dehumanized, disparaged and righteously neglected? In other words, considered in popular terms - "losers"? Sure you build up a career, a family and a home and then loose it all to a feminized courts, your kids be taught to hate you .. then claim "thinking about gender issues hindered me quite substantially for a while". Well tough guy.. the man in the picture has already has lost everything he had worked for while "unhindered" like you are now, except that he probably did it without ever coming to see the potential problems waiting for him in the future.
    
    I won't even go into whether it is HATE that characterizes what MRAs talk and say. There is enough bitter feelings out there which can be shaped and presented as hatred. Is there anything wrong with hating what is being done unjustly to you? Is there anything wrong with hating who is doing unjust things to you? Where do you draw the line? I am not going to debate that as it is mostly a personal choice and often made in states of extreme despair verging on mental torture. But as far as I can see, there is nothing approaching SCUM. What the cartoonist is presenting is not a new thought.. but the same one that most people who have spoken for any sort of equality for men face. I find it puzzling that you folks forgot this mantra being used against you sometime ago. Did you just forget these tactics or were you just BITTER misogynists back then?
    
    There is genuine disagreement of what you do about what is portrayed as MRA activism. Converting feminists over in their "openminded" style of Glennsacks was quixotic to the extreme. I distanced myself from MRAs on the issue of activism, for the simple reason - I saw the attempt to form a men's rights political lobby to steer democractic law making as a unattainable and imperfect goal which would take too long and too much effort and will only produce inconsequential temporary gains.. i.e perpetual activism against perpetual injustice.
    
    The meaningless and endless debates and protesting around is not going to SOLVE the problems was pretty clear to me from the start. So, I did what I could - suggest an alternative solution. I was getting some converts too.. before the mainstream activists ganged up against me and my approach(mostly lawyers.. vested interests anyone?) as too right wing, too political etc. So I took my own ways and still advocate them wherever I can. But, I, thank god, had the decency to let men (who are not MRAs) voice their concerns(even hatred) whether under the MRM banner or elsewhere, and not join the disparaging of them in anyway.
    
    Its a luxury of the young and unaffected to look down upon the older victims. Enjoy it while you can, I still hope yourselves don't end up like the older folks in the cartoon. Some of you folks are celebate folks. Well, good for you! IF you like things that way. But, wise folks who are giving up on a fundamental natural instinct and need, just to avoid the consequences these old, BITTER, folks face.. should think twice and wisely not join the "MRAs are just lonely, old, bitter and hateful men" band wagon.
21. Posted by: Mark on 12/15/2010 11:26 PM
    

    I am not even an egalitarian, let alone a men's rights activist. But this is a troubling post even for me. So, are you now disparaging Men's rights movement?

    
    
    It's just a frame from a comic to which I link in full. I've not made any comment on the contents of the comic and the opening sentence was meant sarcastically. The frame is clearly chosen to be provocative of the complete comic, which I thought I would bring to the attention of the people who read this blog, if I were to suddenly come out against MRAism then I would certainly not do so by means of linking to a comic.