Worth Reading Several Times
"I’ve encountered men who will say that they are MRAs, but to listen to them talk, I wouldn’t trust them in the same room with me, forget brotherhood or even any agreement on any basic point whatsoever."It’s kind of hard to buy that you’re for brotherhood with men, when you give props to the video of some guys talking about “you gonna have to kill you some crackas.” The people talking about “real men,” and then using examples of old time street thugs and italian gangsters and such as examples of masculinity do more than make the movement a mockery, they take away internal credibility. If your idea of where masculinity should return to is actual criminality, then most likely you are of a mindset such that I don’t want to deal with you in real life. You have too many men who want to take every deviant, criminal, immoral, unpopular belief, action, and impulse under the sun, stick it onto the “MRA” label, and go “well, I’m disliked because I’m an MRA and I believe X…” MRAism, and the desire to euthanize everyone who isn’t blond haired and blue eyes, are two different things, k? You can’t claim that you’re an MRA, and as part of your rights as a man, you should be allowed to have as many rap video hoes as you want, especially when that’s the kind of thing you’re supposedly protesting.
"While there are a number of men who have their priorities and mission statement regarding Men’s Rights straight, that I would not mind breaking bread with in person, even if I don’t agree with everything they say or do, you have too many nutjobs too, who want to put all of their failings, flaws, and borderline criminal tendencies under the purview of MRAism, and I don’t wish to be known by these people any more than I wish to be known by the feminists."
Here is the Spearhead thread where the original version of this may be found:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/10/04/I would only add, that too many barnacles will sink ANY ship. Furthermore, it is not only the "badness" of the barnacles which weighs the vessel down, but is also the "irrelevance" of them. In plain English, I mean to say that we should limit the range and scope of "MRA issues" for the sake of message discipline (a component of rhetorical discipline).
Not only do we not want to be associated with anything morally toxic or possibly criminal, but we equally don't want to lumber ourselves with (perhaps controversial) "agenda bloating" issues that don't pertain to our core focus.
We don't need to express opinions on every damn topic under the sun, especially considering that we may be called upon to defend those standpoints -- which might be too damn much work, like fighting a war on multiple fronts!
So, don't be afraid to "keep it narrow", and be silent about a lot of things.
Narrow weapons make deep wounds.
posted by Fidelbogen at 2:07 PM
35 Comments:
When you make up an acronym like MRA (men's rights activist), you should spell it out in every post since you can't expect every reader to have read your previous posts. I had to Google search it and Google sent me to another of your articles since apparently nobody else knows what you're talking about. It's frustrating taking that time, plus this time to comment on it.
I agree though. Men should draw a line far short of criminal behavior, but they shouldn't be wearing pink on the football field for the ladies either.
@Anonymous:
Evidently you are not from around here, or you would know what MRA means.
Most of the readers of this blog are MRAS and THEY sure as hell know what MRA means!
So, if you are not up to speed about what MRA means, then I am sorry as hell for your misfortune!
But it's not my problem. . .
Oh, and learn to read more carefully. I did not "make up" the acronym MRA; it occurs in a passage which I quoted from another blog. In other words, somebody else's words!
(Hint: try clicking on the link to the Spearhead, and you will find a ton of MRAs there who know exactly what MRA means, and they will set you straight in 2 minutes if you are interested! ;)
FYI, the acronym MRA has been around for at least 7 years, and no, I did not invent it.
Y'all come back and irritate me again some time, okay? ;)
Cashing Out isn't stating a truth for which many of us need thank him. We've heard from guys like him time and time again. If the prevailing impression he takes away with him is of a band of nut-jobs with a handful of the earnest, then I can't see why he couldn't have quietly departed with his opinion firmly unsaid. He adds no value by telling us what we already know, if we were of a mind to see no other merit in the movement.
I would only add, that too many barnacles will sink ANY ship. Furthermore, it is not only the "badness" of the barnacles which weighs the vessel down, but is also the "irrelevance" of them. In plain English, I mean that we should limit the range and scope of "MRA issues" for the sake of message discipline (a component of rhetorical discipline).
Not only do we not want to be associated with anything morally toxic or possibly criminal, but we equally don't want to lumber ourselves with (perhaps controversial) "agenda bloating" issues that don't pertain to our core focus.
We don't need to express opinions on every damn topic under the sun, especially considering that we may be called upon to defend those standpoints -- which might be too damn much work, like fighting a war on multiple fronts!
So, don't be afraid to "keep it narrow", and be silent about a lot of things.
Narrow weapons make deep wounds.
"If the prevailing impression he takes away with him is of a band of nut-jobs with a handful of the earnest, then I can't see why he couldn't have quietly departed with his opinion firmly unsaid."
I can't see where he says that this was the PREVAILING impression.
Also, he makes these observations for an entirely different purpose. (See the phrase "internal credibility".)
Finally, I have quoted him in order to highlight my own concerns, which are different from both those which you have mistakenly imputed to him, and from those which he actually entertains.
Fidelbogen, might I suggest a podcast ( number 16?) that addresses the componenets of rhetorical discipline?
http://byrdeye.blogspot.com/2009/06/roll-callsay-oy.html
You link to this guy.
He also has a essay called:
Jewish Pornagenda
I particularly like how he claims that Jews are responsible for porn...(sarcasm)
No offense Fidelbogen...
If you want to "get rid of" the "bad" MRA's...
You are going to get rid of an awful lot of them...
Paul Elam did this a while back - he accused one man of being a pedophile, and accused manhood101 of male supremacy and simply "trying to make a buck"...
Funny how he totally ignored all the racists in the bunch - not to mention the government conspiracy nuts and many other "kooky" characters...
Nope, according to him, just those two were "killing the cause" as he put it.
It was very humorous to be sure!
MRA's at this point, I would say are simply the male counter parts of feminazi's.
And - I do not consider you an MRA - I consider you to be "anti-feminist" - just as your blog name dictates - go ahead and argue - I won't listen.
By opposing evil - we can be assured of not becoming evil.
By making some crap "movement" - evil will seep in.
And - "men's rights" - sounds almost as jack-assed as "women's liberation".
Liberation from what?
What Rights?
JPS
Just
Plain
Stupid
"What Rights?"
This is actually a question which needs a clear answer; I could probably list a dozen rights off the top of my head which are systematically denied to men, as men.
But, there exists no statement to this effect, and I think we need one, if only to redirect people like yourself so you can see what we stand for, no more and no less.
@Snark
"I could probably list a dozen rights off the top of my head"
Then why didn't you?
"there exists no statement to this effect"
Oh - I see.
Just like - "liberation from what" eh?
I betcha there will never be a list.
Its just a bunch of people whining at this point - what their goals are - even they do not know...
Just like the cows in the women's liberation movement - what were their goals - who knows - they obviously didn't.
Look at the damage they did.
". . I could probably list a dozen rights off the top of my head which are systematically denied to men, as men."
Oh. . I suppose one could always argue about the semantics of "rights" in the first place, to wit; what are they in the first place, and on what ground are they demanded/established/enforced?
But that aside, I believe that "equal protection under the law" would top the list, and most of the others would cascade from that.
As for 'MRA', that acronym needs no defense unless you believe that the whole concept of 'rights' is problematic from the git-go.
If you honestly feel that men's "rights" are being violated or compromised, and you are none too happy about this, and you refuse to be silent about it . . then I honestly wouldn't know what else to call you but a Men's Rights Activist/Advocate/Agent/Agitator/
Actuator. .etc.
To be rigorous and thorough about this, I could say some rather tart things about people who go under the banner of "progressive".
Oh yes, that reminds me: I know I've got one or two colorful critters in my link list, but see the disclaimer notice at the top of the stack.
A final note about the 'MRA' moniker.I see the 'men's rights' part of MRA as much in the light of a watchdog principle as anything else. And considering that men and women are now, effectively speaking, opposed political power blocs, 'MRA' (or the MRM) is just a way for men to be political.
Which, under the circumstances, I think they have a "right" to be.
"And - "men's rights" - sounds almost as jack-assed as "women's liberation".
Only when you completely ignore historical context.
If you had started a "men's rights movement" in, let us say, 1959, then yes - THAT would have been jack-assed. But fast forward to 2010, and "men's rights" is one of the least jack-assed things that I can think of.
By comparison: "women's liberation", in 1959, would have been somewhat jack-assed. But today, in 2010, it is virtually imploding under the weight of augmented jack-assery which has accumulated for nearly half-a-century.
So again: historical context is the thing.
"I can't see where he says that this was the PREVAILING impression."
You're quite right, he doesn't explicitly say any such thing.
What he does is mention encounters with men calling thelseves MRAs that he wouldn't trust himself with in the same room.
He further goes on to mention others that give appeal to race-based killing, gangsterism and who may harbor ideas of masculinity 'returning' to criminality. He also makes it clear that we have too many of these men amongst us, and that somehow the desire to euthanize non-Aryans is significant enough to warrant mention (something I've personally never heard advanced under the MRA banner).
There is a strong suggestion of MRA=bad, and the notion that the lack of internal credibility is what motivates him seems cursory. The MRM is not an army of men unified by common philosophy. It is not an enterprise with a specific goal in mind. It is best described as a growing discontent with men's legal and social status in comparison to women, amongst men of all walks of life
What could be more natural than a lack of internal credibility? What logic demands that it be required?
If internal credibility and a lack of extremism are what Cashing Out demands, then there is nothing stopping him starting his own movement and calling it by another name where these attributes are met according to his standards. Perhaps he would have more success if he stated what his specific objectives were.
Personally, I believe his objections are spurious. It is the kind of argument that would first insist all slaves of the American South remain slaves until they have presented a coherent movement with minimal dissent, no extremists amongst them and ideally a credible plan for reconstructing the Southern economy after the abolition of slavery.
Looking back, are we not now prepared to see that mass discontent arises from something fundamentally at odds with human behavior, and that it is the discontent that we should be reading significance into, not whatever objectionable form it may take?
"Fidelbogen, might I suggest a podcast ( number 16?) that addresses the componenets of rhetorical discipline?"
Hey, guess what?
My next planned podcast is exactly that very thing!
"Then why didn't you?"
Because that kind of question needs to be answered carefully and with due consideration. Or don't you agree?
Fear not, for it is now on my 'things to do' list, my anxious friend! ;)
"Oh - I see.
Just like - "liberation from what" eh?"
To their credit, feminists actually managed to answer that question in a number of ways.
The problem was that they stretched the concept of 'liberation' to the point of absurdity.
Hence, the need for careful consideration when drawing up a list of which specific rights have been violated and need to be claimed back.
Or don't you agree?
"I betcha there will never be a list.
Its just a bunch of people whining at this point - what their goals are - even they do not know..."
Keep in mind that the answers are already out there, and a little reading around the subject on your part would help us to avoid going around in these kind of circles! What I am referring to is a kind of universal document, an articulation of what has already been written by various people, but collected as a number of principles in one place! Something of a ... manifesto, if you will!
Unfortunately, if one of us were to produce such a list, people like you no doubt would sneer and ask us why we think men need those rights or are being deprived of those rights ... hence the need for further elucidation/exposition, which takes up the majority of MRA time!
Fidelbogen said...
"Fidelbogen, might I suggest a podcast ( number 16?) that addresses the componenets of rhetorical discipline?"
Hey, guess what?
My next planned podcast is exactly that very thing
Excellent! Just so you know, I speak very highly of and about you. I still believe your works should be included as a very important component of men's studies curriculum.
@Snark.
"Unfortunately, if one of us were to produce such a list, people like you no doubt would sneer and ask us why we think men need those rights or are being deprived of those rights"
WRONG
I would point out that the only reason such "rights" are being deprived in the first place is because of feminism.
For some bizarre reason, being against feminism - somehow became "men's rights".
IMO - this is a convenient way to get all men in these circles "off target".
A clever rouse if you will.
Funny too - notice that you are already thinking of me as an enemy..."people like me"
"People like me" - what does that mean - what are "people like me"?
People who hate feminism???
I think this is what the whole "men's rights" thing was designed to do.
Take focus off of feminism - and re-direct it...
It looks like its working doesn't it Snark?
Unfortunately, "PEOPLE LIKE ME" see it - and you do not FRIEND FRIEND FRIEND FRIEND.
They are too valuable to be ignored. Once again I thank you for creating this site.
Oh - and P.S.
Giving men the supposed "rights" that many suggest - will not get rid of the original problem to begin with - feminism (and the laws it managed to pass with its media hysteria).
It is like using mouthwash without brushing your teeth...
It is like wearing cologne without taking a shower...
It will not solve the REAL problem...
It will just make things worse in the long run
IMO.
"I would point out that the only reason such "rights" are being deprived in the first place is because of feminism.
For some bizarre reason, being against feminism - somehow became "men's rights"."
Anon: this is POLITICS, and we need to play it BOTH ways!
Attacking feminism on an intellectual level is fine and good. I highly recommend it. In fact, it is my main approach.
But along with THAT, we need to expose what feminism has done -- a big part of which is, doing things to men which men have a "right" to not have done to them! Because it was "not right" that such things were done to them!
Yes, in order to rouse the masses in a political way AGAINST FEMINISM, we need to talk about "men's rights" and all that sort of thing.
How can you talk about feminism's wrongs if you don't talk about men's "rights"?
"WRONG
I would point out that the only reason such "rights" are being deprived in the first place is because of feminism.
For some bizarre reason, being against feminism - somehow became "men's rights"."
I would have to enquire why you are against feminism if you do NOT support men's rights.
After all, you seem at least receptive to the idea that men's rights are being deprived by feminism.
Yet you will not associate yourself with a movement for "men's rights"?
Even if they (the rights) actually are being violated?
So, I have to ask: what is it that you oppose about feminism?
"Funny too - notice that you are already thinking of me as an enemy..."people like me"
"People like me" - what does that mean - what are "people like me"?
People who hate feminism???"
Don't obsess over a throwaway comment, my anxious friend. Enemy is a strong term. Too strong. People who nitpick and create divisions and jump up and down accusing others of all manner of things do not warrant my hate as an enemy!
"I think this is what the whole "men's rights" thing was designed to do.
Take focus off of feminism - and re-direct it...
It looks like its working doesn't it Snark?"
Not at all. The focus nearly everywhere is anti-feminist. As I say, some reading around would serve you well, before you start implying that there is some conspiracy to disguise "anti-feminism" as "men's rights!"
UNLESS, of course, you are referring to e.g. Men's Rights Redditt, where indeed - the majority of professed 'MRAs' are most certainly feminists.
But I suggest you check out the Spearhead if you haven't already. That is one central hub of online MRA activity, and is unapologetically anti-feminist ...
@Snark:
About this 'manifesto' you are thinking of writing.
I'd like to offer a suggestion on how to construct it.
I would recommend building it in 3 parts. First, a preamble that sketches, concisely and keenly, the meaning of 'MRA'. For example:
"The acronym 'MRA' stands for men's right activist, or men's rights advocate, or men's rights agitator, etc etc... An MRA believes that the price of liberty, and all that liberty entails, is eternal vigilance. Accordingly, an MRA is vigilant on behalf of men, because he believes that men have a right to enjoy certain normative standards of freedom, dignity and decency in their lives. Furthermore, an MRA understands that these things will not defend themselves: they must be defended."
Etc etc etc. . in that general vein.
Now comes the good part; the main body of the text. Here, you will need to itemize a number of outrages and injuries that men have suffered due to feminist innovation, and rhetorically query the reader concerning the justice of these matters. So, you would write as follows:
1. 'A' can and does happen to men. Do you feel that men have a RIGHT to not experience 'A'?
2. 'B' can and does happen to men. Do you feel that men have a RIGHT to not experience 'B'?
Etc etc etc.....
So when the reader mentally answers 'yes' to each of these, he/she is formulating, and agreeing to, a list of "men's rights".
Finally, the concluding section (Part 3). Here, you would write somewhat as follows:
"Do you believe that men, as men, have a RIGHT to such and similar things as listed above? And in consequence, do you believe that men, as men, have a RIGHT to exist politically , the better to promote the awareness of such things and secure their unhindered enjoyment? If so, then you fit the objective description of an MRA regardless of what you call yourself."
The 'female privilege checklist' might be good source material for some of this.
This old CF post might also be inspirational:
http://tinyurl.com/2cpnsda
"Giving men the supposed "rights" that many suggest - will not get rid of the original problem to begin with - feminism"
Of course it will. The problem of feminism is that it has deprived men of their rights. Had feminism not done this, I would not find it to be a problem.
And, if we achieve men's rights, as we set out to, then feminism will not be a problem any more for me.
Because it won't exist!
But anyway, you must tell me what it is you oppose about feminism - what is it feminism has done wrong, if not depriving others of rights?
"@Snark:
About this 'manifesto' you are thinking of writing."
To tell the truth, Fidelbogen, it has been on the cards for quite some time; I am writing a lot more than a manifesto, actually, and before long I will be in contact about the fruits of my labours over the months since I closed my blog.
Yes. We are close to the time!
"I'd like to offer a suggestion on how to construct it."
Your suggestion is brilliance! And it certainly will be incorporated into my plans.
@snark.
As I said. Men already have those rights.
Supposedly - they are innocent until proven guilty - but feminism is trampling on that...
(At least - all the "mras" I have spoken to - and the list some of them have provided to me...
If we achieve those rights...
The feminists will just find new ways to trample on them again.
Plain and simple.
Get to the root of the problem.
IM humble O
"The feminists will just find new ways to trample on them again.
Plain and simple.
Get to the root of the problem."
"Getting to the root of the problem" would consist of. . what exactly, in your view?
Writing clever treatises with ingenious intellectual arguments against feminism?
Just that alone, and nothing else?
I'm sure the feminists will be knocked over by THAT. . eh?
"The feminists will just find new ways to trample on them again.
Plain and simple.
Get to the root of the problem."
This is actually a good point.
It seems clear, then, that we must not only claim back violated rights, we must also develop the means to stop feminism from arising again.
To me, the two goals complement each other. You have as much as said so yourself! That without the latter, the former would be pointless.
"Narrow weapons make deep wounds."
So - why not focus only on getting rid of feminism - getting rid of just one thing.
I would like to point out that "men's rights" encompasses too many things...
And some of those - not all "mras" are in agreement with.
Take for example - selective service.
Many MRA believe that women should not be in the army period (as they bog men down - or do not possess the physical strength to actually engage in combat). Others believe that they should - and should have to register for selective service.
Sorry, but it seems like the MRM spectrum is "not a narrow one" to begin with.
Getting rid of feminism is.
"Writing clever treatises with ingenious intellectual arguments against feminism?"
Isn't that what you do Fidelbogen? (And you do it well I might add).
One thing I noticed about the recent story of 33 MEN trapped in a mine - the news actually said "33 men" - not "33 miners".
I would have to say that the purposeful omission of the word "men" in the media (when they are hurt or injured but not when they have committed a crime) is a result of feminism.
Is the media now saying "men" instead of "miners" because of what is being pointed out to them?
Perhaps the manwomanmyth videos - as well as other essays written against this ARE having an effect?
What do you think Fidelbogen?
Or should we instead of focusing on eliminating feminism - continue to divide ourselves by focusing on rights - you know - rights like selective service, circumcision, game, etc...
How's that again?
KEVIN DRISCOLL NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES
I don't know what to say, I am just too happy right now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=4tCWg46JqBY&feature=channel
@ Snark
"Just like the cows in the women's liberation movement - what were their goals - who knows - they obviously didn't.
Look at the damage they did."
Which is precisely why we need to be careful of who we allow to speak for the movement. Earlier today I made a similar comment on FRS. The feminist movement was lead by the misandrists in the movement. Had feminists simply stuck with equal rights for women and worked solely towards that end, no real damage would have been done to men. Everyone would have benefitted. But the man-haters became the leaders of the movement. they were the ones who pushed it forward and did the damage. If they had been weeded out of the feminist movement, there would be no real need for the MRM ("men's rights movement" for the anacronysmically challenged).
TDOM
Snark, why did you close your blog? How can I access the lost writing formerly there?
@Anon11:24:
"So - why not focus only on getting rid of feminism - getting rid of just one thing."
In the long run. . that is exactly what we are doing or attempting to do. Trouble is, you make it sound extremely simple, and in reality it's complicated as hell. You see, in order to 'get rid of just one thing' (feminism), you must take in the big picture and look at a LOT of different things. Oh how i WISH that it were simple!
"I would like to point out that "men's rights" encompasses too many things...
Yup. Too many things, and yet, oddly, not enough things.
"And some of those - not all "mras" are in agreement with."
Ain't it the truth!
Many MRA believe that women should not be in the army period (as they bog men down - or do not possess the physical strength to actually engage in combat). Others believe that they should - and should have to register for selective service.
I have never yet, in all my various outspeakings, said anything whatever upon this subject. So, I reckon I'll make a statement now:
I think that men and women in combat together on the front line is the most horridly idiotic idea imaginable. And I don't think that the feminists truly want this to happen any more than I do; they just want the symbolic, psychological victory of striking down the rules which presently rule out such a thing. But in all honesty, they would much rather see MEN in the line of fire getting arms and legs blown off -- while at least leaving such a career avenue open to the occasional adventuresome tomboy who gets the notion. (This, in principle, would also breach one of the final and most primordial bastions of male space.)
Sorry, but it seems like the MRM spectrum is "not a narrow one" to begin with.
Again, yes. I would allow that there is much deadwood and fat to be trimmed.
Getting rid of feminism is.
"Getting rid of feminism" is only conceptually narrow. In theory. But the necessary extensions of practice to make it happen would put you back in the broad spectrum again. You would at least need to THINK about a lot of things, and FACTOR a lot of things.
[Continued in Part 2]
[Part2]
@Anon11:24:
"Writing clever treatises with ingenious intellectual arguments against feminism?"
Isn't that what you do Fidelbogen? (And you do it well I might add).
Yeah, I guess I do that pretty well. BUT. . it's not all I do. The conceptual strtetch of my thoughts -- my planning mind, reaches further.
If the ONLY thing you do is deconstruct feminism abstractly, on paper, then you might as well be tinkering with Lego toys in your basement for all the worldly good it will do you. How on earth will this "get rid of feminism"? What will you do, throw your Lego constructions at the feminists, and watch them melt away like the wicked witch in the Wizard of Oz?
Well as any seasoned MRA will tell you, that doesn't work.
"One thing I noticed about the recent story of 33 MEN trapped in a mine - the news actually said "33 men" - not "33 miners".
This is good to hear, but. . I wouldn't read too much into it yet. One robin does not a spring make...
"Is the media now saying "men" instead of "miners" because of what is being pointed out to them?"
Perhaps the manwomanmyth videos - as well as other essays written against this ARE having an effect?
I don't doubt that "MRA" efforts are making themselves felt at some level of the mental collective. Whether the case you have cited is directly traceable to this, is a separate question I wouldn't bother to entertain at the moment.
What do you think Fidelbogen?
Or should we instead of focusing on eliminating feminism - continue to divide ourselves by focusing on rights - you know - rights like selective service, circumcision, game, etc...
Circumcision and Game: two more things I have never talked about.
But anyhow. . are we REALLY "dividing ourselves"? Or are we just developing an articulated system of specialists and task forces?
How's that again?
What the side needs as much as so-called 'narrowness', is rhetorically disciplined coherency of intention in the eyes of the world.
Or maybe I should just say "message discipline".
In the end it all comes back to the old, old question of "how do you herd cats?"
Or better: do you even herd them AT ALL?
I think it is safe to say that the non-feminist revolution is an ORGANISM (like feminism many ways), and that organisms follow organic laws of operation and development. They cannot be regimented or centrally controlled, but only influenced.
Anonymous
@ 11:24 AM
Are you by any chance a feminist or do you have a real desire to fight/counter feminism? I ask because you have attacked two known agents of counter-feminism change that I admire and respect. If you are a feminist, you will lose. If you are here to counter feminism, ask you questions without attack.
@Anon12:32:
Y'know, I don't actually FEEL attacked. (Maybe I should?)
In fact, I wish that the other Anon would come back and carry on with the discussion. I am curious to know more about what this person is saying, and I welcome the opportunity to clarify my own position.
I took the tone of the posts as a little hostile. No need for such if Anon is wanting to learn. My intent wasn't to drive them away but to better understand where they are coming from.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home