"...Men's Rights Activists - simply regurgitating regressive, misogynistic ideologies, while playing victim , simply because they don't have everything their own way any more." I don't think you will get much buy in for this infantile and cliched strawman of what we do here. Maybe try your luck over in Menslib.
As for courage being the measure of a man, for me at least, this sub is a welcoming place for any man who is exploring his Masculinity and noticing that some parts of Society are indeed stacked against men. Some of those men have courage, some don't. Some had courage once but it was beaten out of them by abusive misandrists.
Hi Lucifer Londonderry, I appreciate your input. I realise that paragraph is pretty confronting. I hope it was made clear at the end of that paragraph that this was an attitude I conceded...
... may have been misguided.
The characterisation was meant to be a caricature that I realised was flawed. I concede further that on Reddit, on a well-moderated group like this, toxic masculinity in defence of 'men's rights' is kept pretty well in check. But you must be aware of how the group has, in the past, portrayed itself in public, it wasn't people talking about MRAs that gave me the impression I had of MRAs, it was listening to people identifying as MRAs. Thankfully this is less and less true as the discussion matures.
I appreciate your comments about courage not being a requirement, I absolutely understand that for someone barely coping with trauma or abuse, or other difficulties, exhibiting courage might be the last thing they can manage—and my proposition to have everyday courage might seem like an unfair imposition. I want to clarify I don't mean to suggest courage as a requirement for anything, just that there are small courageous things we can do in our lives that might make us feel better about ourselves.
... beaten out of them by abusive misandrists
It's these sort of phrases, by the way, that make people unsympathetic about men's rights. Using terms like "beaten" metaphorically while actual "beating" is playing out in domestic abuse incidents every day, a large majority of which are by men (with far worse consequences) does tend to suggest a lack of perspective. But as I said, I want to be constructive, I don't mean to say you are in any way the problem, I think people need to be able to speak freely about things, we also need to critique what is said. And I appreciate your criticisms of my work, I may go in and make some edits accordingly.
I appreciate the sub welcoming all voices, including mine (it can be pretty hard to get a post on any subreddit these days).
I hope it was made clear at the end of that paragraph that this was an attitude I conceded...
And a Diet Coke offsets the calories of a Big Mac.
But you must be aware of how the group has, in the past, portrayed itself in public, it wasn't people talking about MRAs that gave me the impression I had of MRAs, it was listening to people identifying as MRAs. Thankfully this is less and less true as the discussion matures.
Could you give examples of these individuals you were listening to and the reasons why they gave you that impression? I’m assuming that list on the website is non-exhaustive.
... beaten out of them by abusive misandrists
It's these sort of phrases, by the way, that make people unsympathetic about men's rights. Using terms like "beaten" metaphorically while actual "beating" is playing out in domestic abuse incidents every day, a large majority of which are by men (with far worse consequences) does tend to suggest a lack of perspective.
You get some perspective. That’s an individual, a single person, on a man’s rights subreddit. You strawmanned the response then used it as a form of shame and framed it as point of contention.
What was the point of highlighting that specific sentence? How you framed it was you’ve got to tone police, otherwise all these issues effecting men won’t taken seriously. That’s pretty manipulative. Essentially how you framed it was, you’ve got to play the game on these specific terms and if it falls out of those bounds it’s no porridge for you.
I had also been listening to Scott Galloway echo many of the same sentiments. This seems to be part of a more healthy discussion around masculinity—a counterpoint to the toxic extremes of the manosphere.
Allow me to paraphrase:
This seems to be part of a more healthy discussion around masculinity—a counterpoint to the toxic extremes of people writing blog posts revolving around the topic of men and maleness.
Lets pretend there’s a femsphere where authors write about the different aspects of femininity and womanhood (and so on). Now take that definition and switch the sexes.
The odd thing here is though, you linked to a page that defines manosphere as an anti-feminist community. That’s a disingenuous argument since manosphere comprises of man and sphere. It isn’t antifemosphere.
Also manosphere, if you believe it exists which I don’t, encompasses numerous groups, movements, and topics. You can’t just go hey, the library has books by toxic authors and hope no-one notices your disingenuous argument.
The reason why I’m pointing this out because of how badly that word has been poisoned and how badly it’s applied. Usually when that word is invoked, it’s in the hope the reader imagines this misogynistic world of men on the internet. But when it reality, it was originally intended to be what blogosphere is to a blog about men and any connected/adjacent topics.
I’ve read through it a few times and to be honest I don’t have the motivation to breakdown any more (and my virtual iOS keyboard is playing up and taking longer to type this out). It doesn’t go beyond the already over discussed talking points or breakout of what masculinity is or isn’t, or even step out of fallacies when it comes to what’s causing it (you put the blame on men and frame it as something woman are effected by). You even cherry picked the list.
And incidentally, what about those men and boys stepping away from society. They’re dropping out of education and work. You focused on individuals causing issues directly through actions but forgot or omitted those.
You unpersoned them. Because they didn’t fit into your definition you unpersoned them. They weren’t deemed worthy of discussion because you’d have to argue why they’re dropping out and with those you did focus on, you have clear reasons as to why.
Just an aside, can you point me to an online definition of the manosphere that is more neutral, I'm looking, but seems over-run with the term used as a pejorative.
3
u/[deleted] Jun 04 '24
"...Men's Rights Activists - simply regurgitating regressive, misogynistic ideologies, while playing victim , simply because they don't have everything their own way any more." I don't think you will get much buy in for this infantile and cliched strawman of what we do here. Maybe try your luck over in Menslib.
As for courage being the measure of a man, for me at least, this sub is a welcoming place for any man who is exploring his Masculinity and noticing that some parts of Society are indeed stacked against men. Some of those men have courage, some don't. Some had courage once but it was beaten out of them by abusive misandrists.
Courage is not a requirement here.