Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

What are your objections to the MRM?

Hiu
Posts: 1,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2017 8:33:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2017 3:55:08 AM, GoldFyre wrote:
Well, what are they? Real objections please, not "yous guz can't get laid lulz"

There is nothing inherently wrong with MRM with the exception that like any organization, there are always people who use such organizations as a platform for their own bitterness.
keithprosser
Posts: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2017 10:47:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2017 8:33:34 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 3/28/2017 3:55:08 AM, GoldFyre wrote:
Well, what are they? Real objections please, not "yous guz can't get laid lulz"

There is nothing inherently wrong with MRM with the exception that like any organization, there are always people who use such organizations as a platform for their own bitterness.

I understand the conciliatory tone of the above post, but I think it over generalises when it says 'like any other organisation'. Some organisations are based on bitterness and resentment from the get-go. An obvious example would be the KKK. There was no KKK until some whites felt their privileged status was theatened by increased black empowerment. The KKK was founded on resentment about loss of privilege, and I feel the same is true of the MRM. There was no MRM before feminism had eroded male privilege and now the MRM want to turn the clock back and reverse the gains of feminism and restore male privilege. That - I submit - is the fact although of course their public rhetoric does not put things so bluntly.

If the MRM is so keen on equality, why were they so silent when men had clear privileges? It is important to look for subtext and not to rely on the surface content of public utterances. Of course 'subtext' is almost impossible to prove. If someone doesn't agree that there is a sexist subtext to MRM's equality based rhetoric then I can't do much about that - all I can do is hope other people see the subtext more clearly when it is pointed out to them.
GoldFyre
Posts: 998
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2017 12:07:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2017 10:47:35 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 3/28/2017 8:33:34 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 3/28/2017 3:55:08 AM, GoldFyre wrote:
Well, what are they? Real objections please, not "yous guz can't get laid lulz"

There is nothing inherently wrong with MRM with the exception that like any organization, there are always people who use such organizations as a platform for their own bitterness.

I understand the conciliatory tone of the above post, but I think it over generalises when it says 'like any other organisation'. Some organisations are based on bitterness and resentment from the get-go. An obvious example would be the KKK. There was no KKK until some whites felt their privileged status was theatened by increased black empowerment. The KKK was founded on resentment about loss of privilege, and I feel the same is true of the MRM. There was no MRM before feminism had eroded male privilege and now the MRM want to turn the clock back and reverse the gains of feminism and restore male privilege. That - I submit - is the fact although of course their public rhetoric does not put things so bluntly.

If the MRM is so keen on equality, why were they so silent when men had clear privileges? It is important to look for subtext and not to rely on the surface content of public utterances. Of course 'subtext' is almost impossible to prove. If someone doesn't agree that there is a sexist subtext to MRM's equality based rhetoric then I can't do much about that - all I can do is hope other people see the subtext more clearly when it is pointed out to them.

First of all, the top MRA, Warren Farrel, was actually a key feminist in the early days of that movement. He was on National Organization of Women prior to becoming an MRA.

"Farrell came to prominence in the 1970s, championing the cause of second wave feminism, and serving on the New York City Board of the National Organization for Women (NOW). Although today he is generally considered "the father of the men"s movement," he advocates that "there should be neither a women"s movement blaming men, nor a men"s movement blaming women, but a gender liberation movement freeing both sexes from the rigid roles of the past toward more flexible roles for their future"

https://en.wikipedia.org...

I'd encourage you to read some of what Farrell did. He contributed more to feminism than many of the people who blindly follow feminism today.

What happened was feminism began questioning traditional gender roles. That opened up a place for men to question OUR place in traditional society as well. We are only opposed to the feminist movement when it promotes blatant injustice to men. We are more against traditionalism than feminism because traditionalism turns men into slaves. That's why the MRM is a fairly liberal movement. We do not want women to go to the kitchen because we know full well that that kind of social system turns men into pack horse slaves. We don't want that.
neptune1bond
Posts: 469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2017 12:11:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2017 10:47:35 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 3/28/2017 8:33:34 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 3/28/2017 3:55:08 AM, GoldFyre wrote:
Well, what are they? Real objections please, not "yous guz can't get laid lulz"

There is nothing inherently wrong with MRM with the exception that like any organization, there are always people who use such organizations as a platform for their own bitterness.

I understand the conciliatory tone of the above post, but I think it over generalises when it says 'like any other organisation'. Some organisations are based on bitterness and resentment from the get-go. An obvious example would be the KKK. There was no KKK until some whites felt their privileged status was theatened by increased black empowerment. The KKK was founded on resentment about loss of privilege, and I feel the same is true of the MRM. There was no MRM before feminism had eroded male privilege and now the MRM want to turn the clock back and reverse the gains of feminism and restore male privilege. That - I submit - is the fact although of course their public rhetoric does not put things so bluntly.

If the MRM is so keen on equality, why were they so silent when men had clear privileges? It is important to look for subtext and not to rely on the surface content of public utterances. Of course 'subtext' is almost impossible to prove. If someone doesn't agree that there is a sexist subtext to MRM's equality based rhetoric then I can't do much about that - all I can do is hope other people see the subtext more clearly when it is pointed out to them.

Yes because, you see; when men commit suicide at four times the rate of women (twelve times the rate of women after divorce proceedings), are losing custody of their children and are being denied their visitation, make up 77% of the homeless with little or no services for them, have no right to bodily integrity and not have their genitals mutilated as babies, have 1 form of contraception when women have many, have to be signed up for the draft to potentially be sent to die, make up almost half of the victims of domestic abuse and are not accepted at almost all abuse shelters and are more likely to be arrested than receive help if the police are called, are increasingly the victims of rape but are rarely taken seriously (or taken seriously for domestic abuse for that matter), receive 63% longer prison sentences than women when women are twice as likely to avoid incarceration (this gender sentencing gap is SIX times as large as the racial disparity), 75% of all children diagnosed with ADHD and then drugged up on ritalin are boys (mainly just because of their different learning style and more energetic and active engagement as children),etc., etc., etc.,....

...but yes, the REAL reason that the MHRM exists is because men are losing some ridiculous concept of privilege that doesn't and never has existed for the group as a whole. Because we all know how attributing stereotypes and making assumptions about large groups based on nothing but their skin color or their gender has been such a great thing in the past and has done so much good for society, so lets continue to talk about white privilege or male privilege and pretend that those comments aren't completely bigoted and disregarding people's actual experiences in life. Oh yes, I forgot that somehow homelessness, suicide, rape, abuse, losing your children, etc. magically hurts less because of "privilege". We really need to let all those white male homeless vets know how really privileged they are so they can feel all nice and superior to everyone else as they die starving and lying in their own piss in the gutter in the middle of a winter storm, right? Oh, but yes, the MHRM is ALL just about losing that sweet sweet privilege, because women's problems are the only ones that anyone should care about or that matter, right? Microaggressions and beauty standards that no one is actually forced to follow are SOOOO much more important than any of the problems I mentioned before and rape and abuse only really hurts or causes extreme psychological issues if you have a vagina, right?

I'm so glad that the real truth about men's issues was pointed out and whether or not men should have the right to try and address them or have themselves heard. I guess all men should just sit down and shut up and thank feminists for constantly reminding them that only males are capable of doing bad things and that your pain doesn't matter if you've been unfortunate to be subjected to the unforgivable cosmic accident of being born with them dangly bits. Hey, maybe if we're lucky, some lying feminist will spend 5 seconds out of her two hour talk to pay lip service to men's issues by saying "and men have some problems too, although they're the ones who cause all problems everywhere. So, there you go, I said it. Now men should dedicate all their time to just women's issues", because.....you know......equality and stuff....before she moves on to talk about how all men make it their primary goal in life to suppress women and d@mn it if they just constantly refuse to recognize how their sweet gooey warm fuzzy privilege makes them incapable of pain or feeling anything at all, much less deserving of any compassion or actually having their issues be addressed. Yay feminism! Glad we all know the "subtext" now. And here I was...thinking that suicide, homelessness, genital mutilation, denial of parental rights, rape, abuse, incarceration, etc. also mattered when it happened to men. Silly me.
GoldFyre
Posts: 998
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2017 12:15:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The whole concept of "male privilege" is based on the apex fallacy. They look at the top men in society and say there's male privilege because of how those men are treated. This reveals the underlying truth: most men are not considered real men by women. Only the top men are. The other men are garbage
Wylted
Posts: 25,465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2017 10:55:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2017 12:15:44 PM, GoldFyre wrote:
The whole concept of "male privilege" is based on the apex fallacy. They look at the top men in society and say there's male privilege because of how those men are treated. This reveals the underlying truth: most men are not considered real men by women. Only the top men are. The other men are garbage

There are three sexes in the mind of women. Women alphas and betas.

The dudes who are being used for emotional affairs and being no sex, those friends zoned, and your typical nice guys are all betas.
NHN
Posts: 1,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2017 11:20:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2017 3:55:08 AM, GoldFyre wrote:
Well, what are they? Real objections please, not "yous guz can't get laid lulz"
What Hiu said.

I would also add objections which place MRM in tinfoil territory, since it deploys "the unnecessary assumption of conspiracy when other explanations are more probable" (David Aaronovitch, Voodoo Histories).

There are a few pointers that should be taken into consideration, which all indicate that there is something fundamentally wrong at the core of this movement:
1. The MRM is populist and antielitist in nature and "belief in the conspiracy makes you part of a genuinely heroic elite group who can see past the official version" (op. cit.).
2. In each case, studies highlighted by the MRM suffer a "death by footnote"; meanwhile, the use of particular lingo renders its explanations void in an academic settings.
3. The MRM--which is a movement in name only--uses argumentation through ambiguity and determined flexibility, appearing to outsiders as a coalescence of emotional impulses.
I am fascinated by the idea that our civilization is like a thin layer of ice upon a deep ocean of chaos and darkness.
--Werner Herzog
Hiu
Posts: 1,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2017 12:17:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2017 10:47:35 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 3/28/2017 8:33:34 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 3/28/2017 3:55:08 AM, GoldFyre wrote:
Well, what are they? Real objections please, not "yous guz can't get laid lulz"

There is nothing inherently wrong with MRM with the exception that like any organization, there are always people who use such organizations as a platform for their own bitterness.

I understand the conciliatory tone of the above post, but I think it over generalises when it says 'like any other organisation'. Some organisations are based on bitterness and resentment from the get-go. An obvious example would be the KKK. There was no KKK until some whites felt their privileged status was theatened by increased black empowerment. The KKK was founded on resentment about loss of privilege, and I feel the same is true of the MRM. There was no MRM before feminism had eroded male privilege and now the MRM want to turn the clock back and reverse the gains of feminism and restore male privilege. That - I submit - is the fact although of course their public rhetoric does not put things so bluntly.

If the MRM is so keen on equality, why were they so silent when men had clear privileges? It is important to look for subtext and not to rely on the surface content of public utterances. Of course 'subtext' is almost impossible to prove. If someone doesn't agree that there is a sexist subtext to MRM's equality based rhetoric then I can't do much about that - all I can do is hope other people see the subtext more clearly when it is pointed out to them.

Before I answer the rest of your post I wanted to address your assertion regarding the KKK. First off the KKK was not based on the bitterness of whites because of "black empowerment." Blacks still had no power, even after post-civil war era. The KKK was organized by ex-confederate soldiers yet they held great social-political resentment towards African-Americans who sided with the Union League. There was no loss of white privilege because it was still there and it still exists even today. The KKK had a distorted view of reality one quipped with extreme nationalism"so in further reference I"d use a better analogy than the one you just made. As far as my opinion on the MRM I believe their main focus is on the rights of men who have been failed by a biased system. I do not think MRM seeks to turn back the clock, I think you are mistaking the MRM for pickup artists which are totally different methods of seeing reality.
keithprosser
Posts: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2017 1:17:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2017 12:17:36 AM, Hiu wrote:
Before I answer the rest of your post I wanted to address your assertion regarding the KKK. First off the KKK was not based on the bitterness of whites because of "black empowerment." ...

Thanks for the comment, Hiu. I am not a historian so I will not argue with you over the root causes of the KKK. That is not to say I wholly retract what I said, but I accept the causes of the KKK were more complex than I implied.

I think you are mistaking the MRM for pickup artists which are totally different methods of seeing reality.

I don't think I am mistaling the MRM for pickup artists. Anecdotally while feminism threw up a few anti-male militants, the net effect was to give women more scope for sexual expression and feminism is far from a disaster for the savvy seducer!

I think the 'male gender' does have legitimate concerns, although on balance I am glad I was born a bloke not a lass! But whether the MRM et al are effective as change-makers or are in effect little more than on-line arenas for male posturing and misogynistic wingeing is debatable - indeed I take it to be the actual subject of this thread. The problems men face in modern society deserves its own debate.
GoldFyre
Posts: 998
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2017 1:26:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2017 10:55:44 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/28/2017 12:15:44 PM, GoldFyre wrote:
The whole concept of "male privilege" is based on the apex fallacy. They look at the top men in society and say there's male privilege because of how those men are treated. This reveals the underlying truth: most men are not considered real men by women. Only the top men are. The other men are garbage

There are three sexes in the mind of women. Women alphas and betas.

The dudes who are being used for emotional affairs and being no sex, those friends zoned, and your typical nice guys are all betas.

I don't think betas are human in their schema
GoldFyre
Posts: 998
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2017 1:28:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2017 11:20:56 PM, NHN wrote:
At 3/28/2017 3:55:08 AM, GoldFyre wrote:
Well, what are they? Real objections please, not "yous guz can't get laid lulz"
What Hiu said.

I would also add objections which place MRM in tinfoil territory, since it deploys "the unnecessary assumption of conspiracy when other explanations are more probable" (David Aaronovitch, Voodoo Histories).

There are a few pointers that should be taken into consideration, which all indicate that there is something fundamentally wrong at the core of this movement:
1. The MRM is populist and antielitist in nature and "belief in the conspiracy makes you part of a genuinely heroic elite group who can see past the official version" (op. cit.).
Well of course the MRA is antielitist. Feminists and alphas are the elite, so why would an mra not be anti elitist?
2. In each case, studies highlighted by the MRM suffer a "death by footnote"; meanwhile, the use of particular lingo renders its explanations void in an academic settings.
So because academics ignore these studies, they shouldn't count?
3. The MRM--which is a movement in name only--uses argumentation through ambiguity and determined flexibility, appearing to outsiders as a coalescence of emotional impulses.
What does this even mean?
NHN
Posts: 1,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2017 11:45:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2017 1:28:28 AM, GoldFyre wrote:
At 3/28/2017 11:20:56 PM, NHN wrote:
1. The MRM is populist and antielitist in nature and "belief in the conspiracy makes you part of a genuinely heroic elite group who can see past the official version" (op. cit.).
Well of course the MRA is antielitist. Feminists and alphas are the elite, so why would an mra not be anti elitist?
The point is not that antielitism is flawed in itself; it's a stance like any other. The point, rather, is that antielitism is devised as a source of legitimacy--the underdog's truth--that is meant to validate the MRM.

It also falls too closely in line with the alt-right's Frankfurt School conspiracy theory, "Cultural Marxism," which is the pervasive source of anything from campus feminism to the emasculation of men to BLM to "white genocide" (http://en.rightpedia.info...).

2. In each case, studies highlighted by the MRM suffer a "death by footnote"; meanwhile, the use of particular lingo renders its explanations void in an academic settings.
So because academics ignore these studies, they shouldn't count?
Death by footnote regards inaccuracies and spurious studies and accounts misused for confirmation of the preexisting narratives. The point is not that they are simply ignored by academia but that they are flawed and ultimately dismissed.

Not verification but falsification is the main guideline of a scientific approach.

3. The MRM--which is a movement in name only--uses argumentation through ambiguity and determined flexibility, appearing to outsiders as a coalescence of emotional impulses.
What does this even mean?
I'll break it down. First off, the MRM is not a movement: there is no central organization, no registry of members, etc.

Second, determined flexibility is a term relating to the ambiguous nature of the data used to support a particular claim. Since there is no theoretical framework in play, MRM proponents consistently reconstruct their conclusions after the fact. Re: shoehorning.

Third, in the absence of an academic and/or theoretical basis, the MRM's conclusions are drawn from a set of emotional reactions which coalesce into a xerox of grievances.
I am fascinated by the idea that our civilization is like a thin layer of ice upon a deep ocean of chaos and darkness.
--Werner Herzog
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2017 2:37:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2017 11:45:17 AM, NHN wrote:
At 3/29/2017 1:28:28 AM, GoldFyre wrote:
At 3/28/2017 11:20:56 PM, NHN wrote:
1. The MRM is populist and antielitist in nature and "belief in the conspiracy makes you part of a genuinely heroic elite group who can see past the official version" (op. cit.).
Well of course the MRA is antielitist. Feminists and alphas are the elite, so why would an mra not be anti elitist?
The point is not that antielitism is flawed in itself; it's a stance like any other. The point, rather, is that antielitism is devised as a source of legitimacy--the underdog's truth--that is meant to validate the MRM.

It also falls too closely in line with the alt-right's Frankfurt School conspiracy theory, "Cultural Marxism," which is the pervasive source of anything from campus feminism to the emasculation of men to BLM to "white genocide" (http://en.rightpedia.info...).

2. In each case, studies highlighted by the MRM suffer a "death by footnote"; meanwhile, the use of particular lingo renders its explanations void in an academic settings.
So because academics ignore these studies, they shouldn't count?
Death by footnote regards inaccuracies and spurious studies and accounts misused for confirmation of the preexisting narratives. The point is not that they are simply ignored by academia but that they are flawed and ultimately dismissed.

Not verification but falsification is the main guideline of a scientific approach.

3. The MRM--which is a movement in name only--uses argumentation through ambiguity and determined flexibility, appearing to outsiders as a coalescence of emotional impulses.
What does this even mean?
I'll break it down. First off, the MRM is not a movement: there is no central organization, no registry of members, etc.

Sounds like BLM.

Second, determined flexibility is a term relating to the ambiguous nature of the data used to support a particular claim. Since there is no theoretical framework in play, MRM proponents consistently reconstruct their conclusions after the fact. Re: shoehorning.

Reeaaallllyy sounds like BLM.

Third, in the absence of an academic and/or theoretical basis, the MRM's conclusions are drawn from a set of emotional reactions which coalesce into a xerox of grievances.

Please separate MRM from Feminism, BLM, and... well, pretty much any non-movement movement of the modern day.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
NHN
Posts: 1,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2017 2:46:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2017 2:37:03 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Sounds like BLM.
No. BLM is an actual social justice movement that addresses actual concerns, from police violence to racial discrimination.

Second, determined flexibility is a term relating to the ambiguous nature of the data used to support a particular claim. Since there is no theoretical framework in play, MRM proponents consistently reconstruct their conclusions after the fact. Re: shoehorning.
Reeaaallllyy sounds like BLM.
No. The academic support for the claims made by BLM is solid.

Third, in the absence of an academic and/or theoretical basis, the MRM's conclusions are drawn from a set of emotional reactions which coalesce into a xerox of grievances.
Please separate MRM from Feminism, BLM, and... well, pretty much any non-movement movement of the modern day.
I am. Feminism is both a movement and a philosophical school of thought, while BLM is a social justice movement. Most of the concerns highlighted by the MRM are as phony as the "reversed SJWs" of the alt-right.
I am fascinated by the idea that our civilization is like a thin layer of ice upon a deep ocean of chaos and darkness.
--Werner Herzog
Anonymous
3/29/2017 2:48:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Tbh all talk about MRM comes along usually with really cringy stuff being said. The stuff about the two genders of man falls within this as well.

It's obviously reasonable to ask for equal rights where men are being denied, however, no one ever will dispute this.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2017 2:53:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2017 2:46:00 PM, NHN wrote:
At 3/29/2017 2:37:03 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Sounds like BLM.
No. BLM is an actual social justice movement that addresses actual concerns, from police violence to racial discrimination.

Paternity fraud, imbalance in sentencing from male to female convicts, alimony biases.... these are not "real"? And given your previously listed criteria regarding organization structure, etc, BLM falls well short of that bench mark, too.

Second, determined flexibility is a term relating to the ambiguous nature of the data used to support a particular claim. Since there is no theoretical framework in play, MRM proponents consistently reconstruct their conclusions after the fact. Re: shoehorning.
Reeaaallllyy sounds like BLM.
No. The academic support for the claims made by BLM is solid.

To BLM members, sure. BLM's answer to a given situation is to attribute that which isn't quantifiable to be racism. That is far from solid.

Third, in the absence of an academic and/or theoretical basis, the MRM's conclusions are drawn from a set of emotional reactions which coalesce into a xerox of grievances.
Please separate MRM from Feminism, BLM, and... well, pretty much any non-movement movement of the modern day.

I am. Feminism is both a movement and a philosophical school of thought, while BLM is a social justice movement. Most of the concerns highlighted by the MRM are as phony as the "reversed SJWs" of the alt-right.

Ipse dixit. You literally just repeated that what it was, however based on your criteria for what makes a movement haven't actually gotten there yet.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
GoldFyre
Posts: 998
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2017 3:08:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2017 2:48:39 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
Tbh all talk about MRM comes along usually with really cringy stuff being said. The stuff about the two genders of man falls within this as well.

It's obviously reasonable to ask for equal rights where men are being denied, however, no one ever will dispute this.

Not true. Feminists banned DNA tests in France and Germany because men were using them to diestablish paternity when they found out their wives were cheating and tricking them into raising other men's children
GoldFyre
Posts: 998
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2017 3:10:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2017 11:45:17 AM, NHN wrote:
At 3/29/2017 1:28:28 AM, GoldFyre wrote:
At 3/28/2017 11:20:56 PM, NHN wrote:
1. The MRM is populist and antielitist in nature and "belief in the conspiracy makes you part of a genuinely heroic elite group who can see past the official version" (op. cit.).
Well of course the MRA is antielitist. Feminists and alphas are the elite, so why would an mra not be anti elitist?
The point is not that antielitism is flawed in itself; it's a stance like any other. The point, rather, is that antielitism is devised as a source of legitimacy--the underdog's truth--that is meant to validate the MRM.

It also falls too closely in line with the alt-right's Frankfurt School conspiracy theory, "Cultural Marxism," which is the pervasive source of anything from campus feminism to the emasculation of men to BLM to "white genocide" (http://en.rightpedia.info...).

I'm pretty sure that MRAs have said that traditionalism caused these issues for men, not cultural Marxism.
2. In each case, studies highlighted by the MRM suffer a "death by footnote"; meanwhile, the use of particular lingo renders its explanations void in an academic settings.
So because academics ignore these studies, they shouldn't count?
Death by footnote regards inaccuracies and spurious studies and accounts misused for confirmation of the preexisting narratives. The point is not that they are simply ignored by academia but that they are flawed and ultimately dismissed.

Not verification but falsification is the main guideline of a scientific approach.

Do you have proof these studies are false?
3. The MRM--which is a movement in name only--uses argumentation through ambiguity and determined flexibility, appearing to outsiders as a coalescence of emotional impulses.
What does this even mean?
I'll break it down. First off, the MRM is not a movement: there is no central organization, no registry of members, etc.

Second, determined flexibility is a term relating to the ambiguous nature of the data used to support a particular claim. Since there is no theoretical framework in play, MRM proponents consistently reconstruct their conclusions after the fact. Re: shoehorning.

Literally any other modern or past political movement is like this. That's how beliefs evolve over time. Feminism calls this "waves"
Third, in the absence of an academic and/or theoretical basis, the MRM's conclusions are drawn from a set of emotional reactions which coalesce into a xerox of grievances.

Warren Farrell is an MRA academic
Anonymous
3/29/2017 3:14:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2017 3:08:33 PM, GoldFyre wrote:
At 3/29/2017 2:48:39 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
Tbh all talk about MRM comes along usually with really cringy stuff being said. The stuff about the two genders of man falls within this as well.

It's obviously reasonable to ask for equal rights where men are being denied, however, no one ever will dispute this.

Not true. Feminists banned DNA tests in France and Germany because men were using them to diestablish paternity when they found out their wives were cheating and tricking them into raising other men's children

I really have no clue what conditions lead to that law being passed in the two countries, but I agree it's completely stupid. I wonder what it is that made it acceptable.

What I said is that I don't think anyone would rationally defend that law,
GoldFyre
Posts: 998
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2017 3:36:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2017 3:14:05 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 3/29/2017 3:08:33 PM, GoldFyre wrote:
At 3/29/2017 2:48:39 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
Tbh all talk about MRM comes along usually with really cringy stuff being said. The stuff about the two genders of man falls within this as well.

It's obviously reasonable to ask for equal rights where men are being denied, however, no one ever will dispute this.

Not true. Feminists banned DNA tests in France and Germany because men were using them to diestablish paternity when they found out their wives were cheating and tricking them into raising other men's children

I really have no clue what conditions lead to that law being passed in the two countries, but I agree it's completely stupid. I wonder what it is that made it acceptable.

They said they were protecting families from DNA tests.
What I said is that I don't think anyone would rationally defend that law,

It still passed, and now men are being eradicated from the gene pool and they don't even know it .
Anonymous
3/29/2017 3:46:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2017 3:36:41 PM, GoldFyre wrote:
They said they were protecting families from DNA tests.

Aye, the intent was probably just to stop from careless DNA tests by anyone anywhere, it makes sense that they wouldn't allow people to steal your DNA information randomly. I really doubt it was made with this specific case of parents testing their children in mind. It should probably be re-evaluated.

If your wife doesn't allow you to DNA test yer child (assuming you have a reason to doubt her), you already have a problem however, lol.
What I said is that I don't think anyone would rationally defend that law,

It still passed, and now men are being eradicated from the gene pool and they don't even know it .

That's a very poetic way to put it.
NHN
Posts: 1,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2017 5:37:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2017 3:10:31 PM, GoldFyre wrote:
At 3/29/2017 11:45:17 AM, NHN wrote:
It also falls too closely in line with the alt-right's Frankfurt School conspiracy theory, "Cultural Marxism," which is the pervasive source of anything from campus feminism to the emasculation of men to BLM to "white genocide" (http://en.rightpedia.info...).
I'm pretty sure that MRAs have said that traditionalism caused these issues for men, not cultural Marxism.
You say tomato, I say tomato. It's largely an extension of alt-right topics.

Not verification but falsification is the main guideline of a scientific approach.
Do you have proof these studies are false?
Put differently, empiricist verificationism is a defunct scientific approach. Re: Popper.

Second, determined flexibility is a term relating to the ambiguous nature of the data used to support a particular claim. Since there is no theoretical framework in play, MRM proponents consistently reconstruct their conclusions after the fact. Re: shoehorning.
Literally any other modern or past political movement is like this. That's how beliefs evolve over time. Feminism calls this "waves"
Belief/doxa is irrelevant in a scientific context, as is its nomenclature.

Third, in the absence of an academic and/or theoretical basis, the MRM's conclusions are drawn from a set of emotional reactions which coalesce into a xerox of grievances.
Warren Farrell is an MRA academic
Like gender studies, men's studies is a hermeneutic discipline that falls under the umbrella of continental philosophy, which doesn't involve the rigor of natural sciences. Acting as if it did is spurious.
I am fascinated by the idea that our civilization is like a thin layer of ice upon a deep ocean of chaos and darkness.
--Werner Herzog
GoldFyre
Posts: 998
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2017 6:56:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2017 5:37:54 PM, NHN wrote:
At 3/29/2017 3:10:31 PM, GoldFyre wrote:
At 3/29/2017 11:45:17 AM, NHN wrote:
It also falls too closely in line with the alt-right's Frankfurt School conspiracy theory, "Cultural Marxism," which is the pervasive source of anything from campus feminism to the emasculation of men to BLM to "white genocide" (http://en.rightpedia.info...).
I'm pretty sure that MRAs have said that traditionalism caused these issues for men, not cultural Marxism.
You say tomato, I say tomato. It's largely an extension of alt-right topics.

MRM has been around since at least the 1980s. No way is it alt-right, which developed in 2016.
Not verification but falsification is the main guideline of a scientific approach.
Do you have proof these studies are false?
Put differently, empiricist verificationism is a defunct scientific approach. Re: Popper.

Second, determined flexibility is a term relating to the ambiguous nature of the data used to support a particular claim. Since there is no theoretical framework in play, MRM proponents consistently reconstruct their conclusions after the fact. Re: shoehorning.
Literally any other modern or past political movement is like this. That's how beliefs evolve over time. Feminism calls this "waves"
Belief/doxa is irrelevant in a scientific context, as is its nomenclature.

This isn't responsive to the fact that other movements are exactly the same.
Third, in the absence of an academic and/or theoretical basis, the MRM's conclusions are drawn from a set of emotional reactions which coalesce into a xerox of grievances.
Warren Farrell is an MRA academic
Like gender studies, men's studies is a hermeneutic discipline that falls under the umbrella of continental philosophy, which doesn't involve the rigor of natural sciences. Acting as if it did is spurious.

I fail to see why this is an argument against it since feminism is exactly the same
neptune1bond
Posts: 469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2017 8:44:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2017 5:37:54 PM, NHN wrote:
At 3/29/2017 3:10:31 PM, GoldFyre wrote:
At 3/29/2017 11:45:17 AM, NHN wrote:
It also falls too closely in line with the alt-right's Frankfurt School conspiracy theory, "Cultural Marxism," which is the pervasive source of anything from campus feminism to the emasculation of men to BLM to "white genocide" (http://en.rightpedia.info...).
I'm pretty sure that MRAs have said that traditionalism caused these issues for men, not cultural Marxism.
You say tomato, I say tomato. It's largely an extension of alt-right topics.
Besides what GoldFyre pointed out about the modern men's rights having been created many years before current concepts of the "alt-right", there are records of concepts of men's rights and possible men's movements appearing in at least the mid-1800s that I have observed.

Not verification but falsification is the main guideline of a scientific approach.
Do you have proof these studies are false?
Put differently, empiricist verificationism is a defunct scientific approach. Re: Popper.

Second, determined flexibility is a term relating to the ambiguous nature of the data used to support a particular claim. Since there is no theoretical framework in play, MRM proponents consistently reconstruct their conclusions after the fact. Re: shoehorning.
Literally any other modern or past political movement is like this. That's how beliefs evolve over time. Feminism calls this "waves"
Belief/doxa is irrelevant in a scientific context, as is its nomenclature.
And the scientific context is currently useless and irrelevant in the majority of political and social circumstances. Academic hard sciences have failed to weigh in on the majority of these subjects simply because we currently lack the ability to definitively come to any useful conclusions in the political or social realm using its methods. This is where the scientific realm falls completely impotent, otherwise I would be right along side you in saying that we should simply go with what is proven on that basis. It just becomes a necessity that people have to live their lives and come to their own conclusions in the meanwhile using the best that we've got. It isn't realistic or even slightly reasonable for people to just not engage in politics or care about suffering or the well-being of themselves, their family, and other people until scientists finally start making enough headway in these realms to come to a definite conclusion on how we might proceed. A healthy amount of skepticism is always useful, but since your arguments apply to almost all political and social attitudes, the only logical conclusion from your argument is to do absolutely nothing in those areas. This line of argumentation leads nowhere useful because you don't bother to suggest a better way of doing things or anything currently available with which to replace the system we have. So, we agree that there's a problem. Now what?! Do you have something better or actually useful to add or just pointless nay-saying?

Third, in the absence of an academic and/or theoretical basis, the MRM's conclusions are drawn from a set of emotional reactions which coalesce into a xerox of grievances.
Warren Farrell is an MRA academic
Like gender studies, men's studies is a hermeneutic discipline that falls under the umbrella of continental philosophy, which doesn't involve the rigor of natural sciences. Acting as if it did is spurious.
See above.

I also find it interesting that you referenced the emotional involvement of the members of the MHRM multiple times (that also equally applies to any other social or political group). Cold hard facts only take relevance to the human condition through emotions and desires, otherwise they simply do not apply and fade into obscure irrelevance. In fact, it is only through emotional motivations and the application to the human experience that scientific inquiry came about at all. The entire body of scientific knowledge that exists today is funded completely through the emotional involvement of the public and is perpetuated through the emotional involvement of scientifically minded individuals (just like anything else in the political or social realm). It is because of those who work through emotional involvement with the public and various politically minded individuals that science, academic institutions, and pursuit of truth exists at all. "Motivation" in itself is an emotional reaction, even in the fields of scientific inquiry. The "pursuit of truth" also is an emotional concept that only retains any value or interpretation as a "virtue" through a hermeneutic context rather than a scientific one and is only pursued through the interpretation of its importance. In fact, the entire body of scientific knowledge that exists today was only discovered through its conception as virtuous and its value in the application to people's lived experiences, your entire argument rests on taking for granted that the idea is so popular (even among the ideological) that it is automatically assumed to be true, thus verifying (in an unscientific way) the value of science. The only reason we even apply our learned scientific truths is almost always out of a concept of the virtue of "knowledge and truth" and the application to the betterment of our lives. If it weren't for an emotional concern or involvement in the pain, suffering, or pleasure of people (the very same motivation for almost all social and political ideas), what science do you honestly think would even exist at all? Your point of view also puts you in the very precarious and nonsensical position of proving with any of the "rigor of natural sciences" why we should actually value (or at least choose) disregarding all political and social involvement for the current scientific impotence in those realms instead of valuing human life, quality of life, and the alleviation of human suffering until better scientific knowledge comes along. How do you prove that your standpoint is correct, scientifically? Also, how do you prove scientifically that science itself has a purpose outside any emotional context and outside any subjective interpretation? So, I value human life and experience in an emotional context, can you say anything different about your value of science even in the realms where it doesn't currently apply?

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.