There was a piece of research done on the MRA of r/mensrights on Reddit which showed that they are mainly White, Young and Atheist. Now I know there was a bot entering values so it should be discounted but I do think there are is a fairly large representation of MRA or their ideas that are vocal among atheists.
This one’s by Grimachu and there are problems with this. And the major one is the request for dialogue while simultaneously excusing bad behaviour. This has always been a problem.
See the notion is that we are at fault. That FTB is a monolith. Never mind the fact that I noticed the slymepit coo gleefully over my stance against certain A+ members and indeed feminists over FGM without realising that feminism is itself not a monolith.
And while MRA may have become a slur, it is a slur brought on by the actions of MRA. The MRA have not worked to help men but to fuck over women. While Grimachu starts off here we will see what this entails later in the dialogue.
‘MRA’ has become a slur to be hurled at anyone of dissenting opinion in the arguments over gender etc in much the same way as ‘feminist’ used to. Maybe we’ll see that change over time (the shift to MHRA -Men’s Human Rights Activist – is hopeful). It says nothing, it’s just an ad hominem shut-down attack in the same way ‘fedora’, ‘neckbeard’ and other nonsensical terms have become. None of it adds anything to the debate, but these slurs tend to go ignored while trolling gets taken seriously and treated as though it were people genuinely involved in the debate.
Except if MRA actually were dedicated to men’s health, welfare and the various discrepancies of power they would not be raising so much fuss.
We need more support for male victims of rape. No one is saying not to this. People will however say no when you demand the closure of women’s shelters or if you demand women’s shelters also take men when the entire point is that women’s shelters are gender segregated because a lot of women are running FROM men.
Sure there are ad-hominem attacks such as “Fedora” but frankly? The Pick Up Artist/Men’s Rights Activist combination is well seen and well noticed. Enough to realise that there is a fair overlap.
And we have taken your side seriously. The problem is what they issue as “AHA” moments are frightfully out of touch with reality.
As with our engagements with religion, we find that people are perfectly happy for us to be skeptical in our examinations of any faith but theirs. We are not, it seems, allowed to be skeptical of feminism. As an ideology it seems to be considered beyond criticism, beyond challenge. Any challenge to its ideas, even the crazier ones, is treated as though it were heresy. Little wonder, then, that people like Thunderf00t, frequently criticised for his skepticism of feminist claims, have taken exception to it.
Thunderfoot? Really? My last tangling with Thunderfoot was over a video from India that he blundered into and floundered about like a tazed octopus.
He literally didn’t understand the context of a video or the entire joke. That the women in a video were reciting REAL statements made by famous Indian politicians to excuse rapes. Of women being blamed for wearing leggings under their salwar kameez rather than baggy trousers. Of women being blamed for wearing jeans, talking to boys, going out after dark and eating chinese food.
Thunderfoot blundered into that with a spiel about defensive clothing which is laughable because it assumes that there is no rape if you wear a burkha and about body language using a mountain lion as an example.
And you want me to take him seriously? That some idiot who has no idea about the actual battle in India for better treatment of women and the victims of rape blundered into something and flailed about while the MRA applauded a topic that they had no idea about.
This is the literal dialogue. Women with little rights demanded more rights. Thunderfoot mocks them. MRA titter about it.
I also expect better from Patheos than to use fallacies in attacking something they don’t like. What possible difference does it make that MHRAs are white, (racism), young (Ageism), male (sexism) or conservative? An argument stands or falls on its merit, surely? Ah, but then according to some of these people you can’t be racist to whites, sexist to men etc etc. Pure bunk and another idea that should be subject to robust critique.
Because it shows how detached from reality the dialogue is if the most well off and benefited group from society thinks it has it the worst. It also shows the entrenched racism within it since places like the Spearhead exist which bemoan the loss of the “White lady” to the dastardly coloureds.
It also shows the lack of diversity within it and indeed the lack of any outside views. It is the same as the Republican party. It literally is a poisonous circle jerk that deludes its followers into think the world sucks for men due to dastardly women rather than the world benefits men but has a couple of hand grenades since benefits and power do not come without responsibility.
There’s another false assumption in the article that mass attacks by trolls are somehow the actions of MHRAs or other atheists rather than… trolls. It’s never been adequately explained to me why people think this. I’m sure there’s some crossover of course, but who benefits from treating trolls like they’re serious threats and genuinely mean it? Well, you need only look at how Sarkeesian, Criado-Perez and Watson have profited from their victim status (legitimate or not) to see why someone might take trolling more seriously than it deserves.
Speaking of this, Melody Hensley has come under concerted attack recently. Why? She’s publicly a feminist (a popular troll target because feminists react), she’s publicly an atheist (another popular target for trolls), and she’s claimed to have PTSD – a dubious claim and another big red rag to trolls.
Should she be trolled? No. Is it understandable that she is being? Yes. Can we separate the trolling from the scoffing, skepticism and arched eyebrows? Sure we can. What about the claim itself? PTSD from social media? That sounds unlikely in the extreme and little wonder that a great many people who do suffer from PTSD and other forms of mental illness (myself included) are incensed by what we see as her trivialisation and devaluing of a very real and present problem for a lot of people.
Ah yes. The bad behaviour of MRA is due to trolls. But Atheism + is due to the movement. Good to know.
Since I defended Melody Hensley I have received hate mail. I ignore most. The one that got me was the charming man who tried to trigger my PTSD with balloon explosions. Rather droll, since my net is poor and “popping balloons” in the title made me turn it off. Had my volume been turned up and I not paid attention it may have shocked me a bit. But the goal was to try and trigger my PTSD.
I had a frank admission of my trigger and an anti-FTB/Melody/MRA/wanker tried to trigger me. Sure it was half arsed but what sort of person would do that?
You say troll? But then how are you willing to ignore the trolls hiding within your movement? A serious threat? For fuck sake man if you did that to a fucking veteran it would be on the fucking news. You would be declared the king of wankers and prince of douchebags.
No I am afraid if your argument is that people cannot suffer mental trauma from the Internet then your target being Melody Hensley is fucking small potatoes. Take on Dan Savage and it Gets Better. Go tell those poor gay kids who are bullied to suicide that the Internet can be turned off and “it is just trolls”.
No. You picked on Melody because the conflation of MRA and Atheist would agree with your harassment. And you wanted to trigger her. That was the goal of all of this. Watson? Really? She just said “do not approach women in closed spaces where you traditionally do not engage in socialisation”. Is your game so reliant on Elevator Sex?
So your statement is “we shouldn’t respond to injustices”. Then what’s the damn point. What the fuck are for? Your response to racism is to stay quiet. Mine’s to point out that it is bad. I get lumped with more racism thanks to that. Your statement is “see trolls”.
Mine is this.
If you stand quiet and don’t oppose the status quo of harassment, bigotry and douchebaggery then the status quo remains. You are merely propping it up. Those trolls exist and are validated by the fact that you keep silent.
And she didn’t get PTSD from social media. She got it from constant online harassment. And my PTSD is as real as any veteran’s and as painful and as harsh. And honestly? I am not insulted by some drone pilot saying he has flashbacks of people lying dead after a strike when all he did was watch it on TV (I know really how difficult the job is. I am just using the same sort of dialogue).
After all? You cannot get PTSD from TV.
Here’s a radical idea I want to present. So long as we all agree about religion being wrong, let’s agree about that and work on that problem – debunking creationism, promoting skepticism, secularism and freethinking. If we don’t agree on what political party to vote for or whether same sex marriage should be legal or not, who gives a fuck? We can campaign on those individual issues with people who agree with us there.
Which is always how FTB and A+ has worked.
I have held no guns to people’s heads to force them to donate to the victims of acid attacks or to Afghan women’s shelters.
We don’t NEED to be a homogenous whole.
That’s not to say we can’t have this debate, but let’s make it a ‘goddamn’ debate, not a slagging match.
My door’s always open to sensible debate and there are no sacred cows here. Let’s extend that to the rest of the community.
What is there to debate? Your side are sending me more hate mail than the fucking Animal Libbers and Religious Bigots combined. I get more Atheist Hate Mail than anything else. And there is only one reason I wrote this.
They mirror the worst of feminism in many respects, though there are exceptions. Girl Writes What is great…
Yeah… But No.
See I took you seriously until you ran with the bizarre notion that GWW is a sensible voice about Men’s Rights when she is better known around me as the lady who made me break FTB’s record post size for a gigantic post about the drivel she sprouted. It is gigantic because she effectively tried to Gish Gallop an argument.
You have a problem here… And it isn’t A+ who at worst can be considered annoying. It isn’t Suey Park who at worst can be considered weirdly dismissive and reactionary. It isn’t Anita Sarkeesian who at worst can be considered as looking too much into a simple game. It isn’t Rebecca Watson who I frankly have spoken to once and who seemed charming and nice. I don’t know. Does she sacrifice men to the great vagina of feminism? Whatever evils she is alleged to have commit then….
It is the MRA whose entire dialogue is entrenched in the notion that women are all out to get them thanks to feminism. Rather than society is patriarchal and for a long time, men had a major advantage. In losing the advantages men are made to realise that there are some disadvantages to being top dog too. Rather than try and equal out the disadvantages, the MRA are all about opposing the equalisation of advantages.