The split among MRAs

Started by Galt, Jan 15, 2012, 02:40 PM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

Galt

1. Men who think the 1950's were OK, and who blame feminists for screwing everything up. Everyone has or her his role, and feminists want to disavow the role of women. Women can do what they want, but they are most naturally homemakers.

The Chivalrists.

2. Feminists demand equality - OK, give it to them.

I don't really care which gender is better at figuring out who can calculate ratios in front of a black hole ... but quit giving it to the girl just because she's a girl.

And I'll get married when there is real gender equality, which means ... I ain't getting married tomorrow.

Galt

I think most members of this site are in Category 1, and most of the members of the site below are in Category 2:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/

poiuyt

There are further MRA sub divisons, whichever category is to be forensically examined as illustrated by discussions raging here:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/01/11/the-impending-doom-of-rino-dads-and-their-daughters/

For instance there are some who would purposefully racialise mens rights activism on these two different categorical grounds.

3.
Believing women and minorities, lined up against working class and middle class white males, are taking too much advantage of affirmative action and their undue victim power.

4.
Diversity MRAs believing white male treachery against all males in favour of their white daughters, is what is bringing all men down and empowering femaleism.

neoteny

The spreading of information about the [quantum] system through the [classical] environment is ultimately responsible for the emergence of "objective reality." 

Wojciech Hubert Zurek: Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical

Galt


real gender equality


What is that?



A start would be to not clearly favor women with goverment policies - like VAWA or affirmative action - and to not clearly favor women with chivalry - like in family court. Treating everyone like people, not splitting the world into slaves and privileged princesses.

neoteny



real gender equality


What is that?



A start would be to not clearly favor women with goverment policies - like VAWA or affirmative action - and to not clearly favor women with chivalry - like in family court. Treating everyone like people, not splitting the world into slaves and privileged princesses.


This sounds reasonable and accordingly there isn't much chance for it.
The spreading of information about the [quantum] system through the [classical] environment is ultimately responsible for the emergence of "objective reality." 

Wojciech Hubert Zurek: Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical

Peter

#6
Jan 16, 2012, 02:10 AM Last Edit: Jan 16, 2012, 02:40 AM by Peter

1. Men who think the 1950's were OK, ...


The total destruction started 1960, but for OK we have to look at other times, for instance when men still could dress



Or, maybe even



or


BM-NByw7VE2PwjfTtsVdeE5ipuqx1AqkEv1

dr e



real gender equality


What is that?



A start would be to not clearly favor women with goverment policies - like VAWA or affirmative action - and to not clearly favor women with chivalry - like in family court. Treating everyone like people, not splitting the world into slaves and privileged princesses.


Indeed that would be a good start but also needed is a greater awareness of how the male sex role automatically places the man into the position of provide and protect and how men follow this meme and all people reinforce it automatically...all except for a handful of mra's.
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

PaulGuelph

I am mostly in the category
Quote
2. Feminists demand equality - OK, give it to them.


If we really tried to implement TRUE equality, then most of the injustice present today would resolve itself.

Another Category of MRAs:

3. People who see pro-male activism as just a component of their fight against liberals. If MRA work is just a part of US politics, then it seems like a very small thing. I desperately want to believe that it is much bigger than that.

Pacman7331

#9
Jan 17, 2012, 09:25 PM Last Edit: Jan 17, 2012, 09:36 PM by Pacman7331
Actually I am on both sides of that split.

There is no real split. It's a false dichotomy.

What you do is give women and men equal rights under the law,
and women will naturally fall back into being house wives simply
by natural (unwritten) law of nature.

The only problem is, there is a real ambient inequality going on, that is motivating the social inequality. Notwithstanding social engineering experimenting. That is, if men and women really did have equal rights, women would still be overprivleged. Why? I'm not sure, but I think it has more to do with human evolution than social order. Humanity IMHO, is still in it's adolecence, therefore we still look to the female (the mother) for nourishment.

Most guys out there IMO, are really stupid dudes, made stupid by their total empty natured lack of integrity or self determination and critical thinking. In other words they are effeminate.

But if there was equal rights for men, it wouldn't keep women from going back to traditional roles, which are far more easy going and relaxed, than today's total chaos.

But in fact you can have both.

Like I said above, the traditional roles are based in natural law, when things start to settle by ending gender warfare and passing a gender equal rights amendment, they will naturally return to their feminine role in time.

Any notion of taking away women's rights to compensate for their overprivledged natural law of nature isn't going to work, we will just have to toil out of that the hard way... No external prohibitions will assist in changing that unfortunate reality.


Galt

Pacman7331,

I see lots of men complaining about women refusing to take responsibility ... for anything.

They get that way for a reason. They may have a chivalrous dad who gives Little Princess everything she wants, and then they move on to the chivalrous husband who shields Little Princess from everything in life (i.e. putting her not only in the housewife role, but in a childlike role).

In fact, that's one of the major MRA themes - that women won't take responsibility. Chivalrous men only complain about it after they personally get bitten in the butt in family court. But the monsters that they create damage OTHER PEOPLE because of their refusal to take responsibility and society's shielding of them.

Back when work almost invariably involved back-breaking work on a farm or in a factory, I agree that women's natural role was probably housewife. They also had a lot of work to do in the home without modern conveniences.

Society has changed. There have been technological advancements. It's not the same situation.

Galt

And frankly, I don't think there is a false dichotomy - I think that you simply think you are right, so the other branch just isn't real.

I continue to believe that some men want the old roles, but are MRAs because they think feminists have taken away the women's role. They want women to go back to their old roles. That is your thinking. Category 1.

The other side does not want the old roles - because society has changed - but they want men to be able to self-actualize too. Men should be able to burst out of their traditional roles in some sense as well (that is VERY threatening to a lot of feminists, by the way). Category 2.

I personally don't like women who take absolutely no responsibility in life, who think that women shouldn't be held responsible for anything, but who think men should be slaves in some sense to them.

Do you?

Cordell Walker

I have come to the conclusion that most of the more pressing problems that MRA's try to address, specifically the legal and economic problems particular to men in our society, are best solved by restoring the constitution and reigning in fedzilla
"how can you kill women and children?"---private joker
"Easy, ya just dont lead em as much" ---Animal Mother

Pacman7331

#13
Jan 17, 2012, 09:49 PM Last Edit: Jan 17, 2012, 10:13 PM by Pacman7331

Pacman7331,

I see lots of men complaining about women refusing to take responsibility ... for anything.

They get that way for a reason. They may have a chivalrous dad who gives Little Princess everything she wants, and then they move on to the chivalrous husband who shields Little Princess from everything in life (i.e. putting her not only in the housewife role, but in a childlike role).

In fact, that's one of the major MRA themes - that women won't take responsibility. Chivalrous men only complain about it after they personally get bitten in the butt in family court. But the monsters that they create damage OTHER PEOPLE because of their refusal to take responsibility and society's shielding of them.

Back when work almost invariably involved back-breaking work on a farm or in a factory, I agree that women's natural role was probably housewife. They also had a lot of work to do in the home without modern conveniences.

Society has changed. There have been technological advancements. It's not the same situation.


Totally agree, Women refuse to take responsibility, because they can.
Women naturally drive towards weakness.

Men unfortunatly haven't learned their own strength. MGTOW, is the dawning of men's strength (so to speak), that is women have no choice but to face up to their own stinking shit, becuase the man's entire life philosophy is it to never get caught depending on women or society (unless to assist fellow MRAs / MGTOWs).

Once women smell their own shit, they are altered by it's smell, they will never go back to being the same. It's like training a dog, until the dog smells the shit, and associates that with bad, the dog doesn't know it's bad. How could it know? it's never smelt it before! It's IMHO litterally that dumb. But men don't know how to train women, instead they are getting their head stuck in their own shit over and over that is: "your a pussy becuase your a pussy begger, and you don't reserve respect" women stick our noses in this over and over again (but of course they have no idea that they do this) which is IMHO actually causing this whole incredibly slow shift in consciousness to take place. Feminism is this in all real measures, women sticking our noses in our own stupidity, but it's not the stupidity they think it is, not that we've abused women for ages, it's that we've been stupid enough to think we could alter or protect their fallible nature.

I have the theory that men had at the outset long ago in the past given women super high prilveldge in order to protect them from being corrupted. In older times it was wide spread common knowledge that women are very easily corrupted (take on bad personality traits or habits) and once done are turned into ravaging whore bags that never return from hell (which thereby caused instability in society). Unfortunatly with time that precaution has backfired, and they all became whores nonetheless, which is what we have today.

Our strive for protection of them from their lower nature (for both theirs and our sakes) has actually become the river of decadance that is now fully unleashed on today's humanity.

What men have to do is find a way of letting women out of the protective shield of men, and as soon as that happens the ladies will be much more amiable. Men have got to learn how to live fulfilling ecstatic lives without female proximity. And I think we are...s l o w l y.

So yea it's a false dichotomy.

Galt,

I'm not saying I disagree with your inital post, just that the two camps though seemingly opposed do ultimatly have totally compatible visions, and in fact need each other. IMHO.

Galt

I think that some of the old roles ("be a man") are correct, but they are correct because they are moral attributes that PEOPLE (i.e. EVERYONE - MAN AND WOMAN) should have.

You should live up to agreements. You should not find your way through life by mooching off others and so on.

I guess the old model was that men had to live up to these precepts, but women were given a pass. Because they're women.

I don't buy that today, and I wouldn't want a woman who thinks that she doesn't have to take on any responsibility (with the accompanying idea that someone else - the man - will have to).

Men give up their dreams to support women today, and I am questioning if it is worth that. Is a gold-plated vagina attached to a childlike, morally reprehensible person worth sacrificing your life for? I don't personally think so. And lots of men are under the illusion of something else, and then they have cold water thrown in their face in family court. It isn't family court in some cases - the problem was always there.

Go Up