Men's Rights Movement (sic)

68 posts / 0 new
Last post

I'm a scientist myself. But oh man, don't even get me started on the essentialist BS that people call "science" when it comes to studies that make claims about the nature of men and women, and the ridiculous way they get reported by the media. 



Isn't your casual dismissal of biology reverse essentialism?  How is understanding men and women through the lens of class struggle - exclusively - not essentialist?

Here is an excellent article from an independent observer about men's rights:

This woman also is an excellent source of information regarding the growing men's rights movement:


Oh and Maysie:  fuck off.









By Shmigen it wasn't particularly nice getting to know you but then I don't much like misogynists especially ones that tell my friend Maysie to fuck off.



shmigen, you're in the wrong forum.  Wrong web site.  I'd tell you to fuck off, but then I might have to ban myself.  I'll content myself with banning you.


I won't dignify the dearly departed Shmigen with a full-on discussion, but here is what I mean by essentialist BS.

Let's say a scientific study is produced that shows a small but statistically significant difference in colour perception between the men and women in their sample.  No gene analysis, no measurement of testosterone levels, no brain scans, all they have to go on is gender and the data they took about colour perception. OK, great, they found a perceptual difference. I believe them so far.

Then the scientists get quoted in the media as making conclusions about neurons, embryogenesis, testosterone, innate sex differences and evolutionary driving forces. None of which they can really conclude from their data. Something about hunter-gatherers even makes it into newspaper coverage.

And then a bunch of MRM dudes take the tenuous non-conclusions derived from that correlation and wave around "Hey look! Men are this and women are that and feminism is wrong BECAUSE SCIENCE!". Or to quote a female physicist I know: "It bothers me most when that tenuous link is used as Scientific Proof that I'm a certain way because I have lady-chromosomes."

Of course there are physiological differences between men and women (and as many studies have shown, there is a broad spectrum in between that also has much to be studied). But it takes a certain kind of chutzpah to claim that a collection of measured differences between groups equals a foundation for how we should treat one another. The same ideas were used to justify institutionalized racism.


Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Nice exlpanation and elaboration, lefty investor. It is a proud testament to the brave and bold legacy shmig(g)en bequeathed unto us.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Catchfire in the OP wrote:
 Gosh I hope this isn't a troll magnet.

This is all your fault, damn you.

kropotkin: Kiss

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Had a post written up, but had to wander off to deal with life in the middle of it. I see tli has covered it all, only better. :D


In a hilarious coincidence, today's Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal has an example of almost exactly this. (Knowing the type of content and humous normally found in SMBC I can relatively confdiently believe this is poking fun at men who say idiotic things about women and call it science/reason, rather than perpetuating...)


By kropotkunt1951, it wasn't particularly nice getting to know you but then I don't much like misandrists, especially ones like your friend Maysie, who can fuck off. 

lefty, I expected something with a little more...gravitas.  However, I'm guessing you are an undergrad and a comic was all you could come up with.  Your initial post was about a hypothetical scientist who makes a discovery, then draws an inference from that.  But rather than provide a source, or anything solid, you provide a comic.  Not much to go on.  So in a hilarious coincidence I went ahead and found one for ya:

Now it is odd that on a forum about men - specifically - you are hostile to contrary viewpoints.  Weird.  Does that mean your mind is already made up?  Could it be that feminism views men and women as blank slates, tabula rasa?

Executive summary:  this post is about men's rights activists, who openly challenge feminist historiography but more importantly, use natural science to explain phenomena.  Note that the article I linked to above does not make absolute claims.  It merely states that this *could* be the reason why men and women are the way they are.  Oh, but the people at the Rabble might get butt hurt from this.  Sniffle sniffle.  It reinforces patriarchy.  YAWN.




Time to change the automatic membership system, maybe?

This one clearly has nothing better to do on a Saturday evening than to go to great lengths to demand attention.



Catchfire Catchfire's picture

I'm just going to delete all future replies, like I did this one.


Catchfire wrote:
I'm just going to delete all future replies, like I did this one.

Saves the rest of us the trouble of dismantling mansplaining. :)



[url=]Fuck You, Men’s Rights Activists[/url]

Jezebel wrote:
Fuck you, first of all, for making it nearly impossible for decent men struggling with abusive partners or unfair custody arrangements to get the help they need and deserve. You have forever tainted those issues with your rage-filled, obsessively anti-woman horseshit, to the point where it's become difficult for any rational, compassionate person to trust a man who claims he's been screwed over in family court or abused by a female partner, even if he has.

That's right—I fully understand that those things happen. I fully believe that men in those situations deserve help, and I know they're generally less likely to ask for it than women are, not to mention less likely to find help there for them when they do go looking. I get how our society's ridiculously rigid ideas about masculinity mean that men are brought up to believe needing help will make them look weak, especially if it's a woman who's terrorizing them. I know those same suffocating standards also encourage men to stifle strong feelings and any nurturing tendencies, which deprives them of the right to experience the full range of human emotions without shame. That completely fucking sucks! You know how I know all that, and why I think it sucks?


That's the thing, MRAs. By and large, American feminists are really into equality, involved fathers, justice for all, dismantling bullshit gender roles, and helping folks leave dangerous relationships. We would be the natural allies of MRAs, if MRAs were sincerely committed to the causes with which they claim to be chiefly concerned.


Lindy West: [url= I Admit That ‘Hating Men’ Is a Thing, Will You Stop Turning It Into a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy?[/url]

Part One: Why Feminism Has "Fem" in the Name, or, Why Can't We All Just Be Humanists?

Part Two: Why Claiming that Sexism Isn't Real Is a Sexist Thing to Say

Part Three: Why People Being Shitty to You Is Not the Same as You Being Systematically Disenfranchised

Part Four: A List of "Men's Rights" Issues That Feminism Is Already Working On

Part Five: I'm Sorry That You Are in Pain, But Please Stop Taking It Out on Women


theleftyinvestor wrote:

Keeping women disempowered is not an acceptable solution to improving the lives of men.

This could be a poster in the coffee-break rooms of every traditionally male workplace.


jas wrote:

theleftyinvestor wrote:

Keeping women disempowered is not an acceptable solution to improving the lives of men.

This could be a poster in the coffee-break rooms of every traditionally male workplace.

Hah, that did turn out particularly quotable didn't it?