# Would you ever date a Men's Rights Activist?



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

We don't have MRA in my country as far as I know, however from what I've gathered from here and the internet, it's just a movement made as a reaction to militant "feminists" man-haters more than anything. With that in mind I don't think I would want to date such a person. I'm all for recognizing when men are treated with discrimination because of their gender, like gender roles do, but that's something true feminism has fought for for decades - equality.


----------



## Devrim (Jan 26, 2013)

Nope I would not,
The base this 'movement' is based on,
Has already proven itself to be a warehouse of misogyny for the most part 

Cool if that's your calling,
You just ain't getting with me :3


----------



## Cephalonimbus (Dec 6, 2010)

Mr. Meepers said:


> @_Cephalonimbus_
> 
> I hope you don't mind me replying ^__^
> 
> ...


Sure, i could think of many reasons why a woman might want to advocate men's rights, and i admire people whose longing for justice transcends shallow self-interest... but the reason i'd be curious as to what her motivations would be is because of the associations between MRA and an anti-feminist stance. I don't believe that caring about men's rights automatically makes one an anti-feminist (or vice versa), but "MRA" is a label that does have a negative connotation due to a group of vocal MRAs spouting anti-feminist rhetoric. Basically, i wouldn't want to date someone who contributes to division rather than equity.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

@Veggie, @Boomerang, @killerB, @Napoleptic, @series0

Sorry for all the mentions. Each of you either expressed that you weren't quite sure what I was talking about, or you said something that indicated that perhaps we were talking about different things. So here's a quote from the wiki page that will hopefully give you a pretty clear indication of what I mean by the term MRA: "The men's rights movement contests claims that men have greater power, privilege or advantage than women and focuses on what it considers to be issues of male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression." So I'm just talking about someone who believes something along those lines. No other traits are necessary. I hope that clears things up. I've also edited my OP to include this quote.


----------



## jayyy (May 18, 2012)

civil debates tend to be as far as i can go, not gonna lie. speaking from my own experiences, even platonic relationships have been ruled out since the barely concealed misogyny eventually makes its guest appearance and i don't feel safe in their circles anymore. there are well-intentioned ones out there who often simply don't realize that they're pretty much preaching to the choir everytime they pull out statistics of male victimization and go to lecture feminists about the restrictions of masculinism. "men can be raped too" - yeah thanks, all this time i thought people were only raped because they wore short skirts and showed their tits once. the power differentials thing never occurred to me. tell us more about this crazy phenomenon about how we don't all fit idealized gender roles and the established gender binary. really, i just can't believe no one rushed to defend that man being publicly shoved and beaten by his wife during that social experiment, can't be because men are and always have been perceived as stronger in relation to women and are therefore believed to be capable of defending themselves against the supposed weaker sex.

anyways, i obviously stay far, far away from the douchey sorts that can't seem to see past their white, male, middle/upper class privileges, but i am open to listening to the raised concerns of other sincere individuals committed to gender equality. but as long as they continue to identify as MRAs and subscribe to the movement, then i don't care to date them or remain in their circles. they're free to do their own thing, i'm just so not interested.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

I hesitantly said "likely a dealbreaker" because I wasn't sure what to vote for. 

I would not refuse to date someone purely on the grounds that they identify as an MRA, but if he were anything like 99% of the MRA's I have come into contact with it just wouldn't work anyway. 

I am 100% fine with my boyfriend or husband having different views than me as long as it does not interfere with our goals in life (for example, if I wanted to get married but he refused, or if he wanted kids but I refused). That being said, it might be difficult if he spent his weekends picketing and petitioning for causes I either do not believe in or are strongly opposed to. He would also need to be open minded and non-dogmatic in his approach, to some extent. 

So... In theory, not a deal breaker, but perhaps a deal breaker in practice. There are a few key points that MRA philosophy likes to push that I do not agree with and it could cause problems.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Mee2 said:


> @_Veggie_, @_Boomerang_, @_killerB_, @_Napoleptic_, @_series0_
> 
> Sorry for all the mentions. Each of you either expressed that you weren't quite sure what I was talking about, or you said something that indicated that perhaps we were talking about different things. So here's a quote from the wiki page that will hopefully give you a pretty clear indication of what I mean by the term MRA: "The men's rights movement contests claims that men have greater power, privilege or advantage than women and focuses on what it considers to be issues of male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression." So I'm just talking about someone who believes something along those lines. No other traits are necessary. I hope that clears things up. I've also edited my OP to include this quote.


Indeed, just so. And I think that both feminism and MRM have both an equity-side agenda and a gender centric focus bringing to light real advantages of the opposite gender and real disadvantages of the chosen gender. 

If you are saying that you feel the MRM is MORE unequal in its approach to the issue it deals with, then from what little I know I would disagree. I see the same types of discussions and a similar percentage of wackiness and wishful thinking with spatters of the truth in each. 

When you say 'no other traits are necessary' that flies in the face of the fact that a dozen different MRAs would have a dozen different points of view in addition perhaps to most of what is implied by that first line of text from the Wikipedia definition. Further, not all MRAs would agree with that whole first line, clouding the issue. It's just like feminism in that respect from what I understand. 

What I tried to point out is that the label itself if the issue. Not everyone who wears the label agrees on what it means. And certainly those who don't wear the label have even less of a clue. Agenda blocks like feminism and the Men's Rights Movement are, at the end of the day, separatist and divisive and I think they cause more harm than good. Both of them. Equally.

If you instead speak to wise behavior independent of the gender question you can rid yourself of the label and the lack of integrity wearing it causes. That is just my opinion.


----------



## Boomerang (Apr 3, 2013)

Mee2 said:


> @_Veggie_, @_Boomerang_, @_killerB_, @_Napoleptic_, @_series0_
> 
> Sorry for all the mentions. Each of you either expressed that you weren't quite sure what I was talking about, or you said something that indicated that perhaps we were talking about different things. So here's a quote from the wiki page that will hopefully give you a pretty clear indication of what I mean by the term MRA: "The men's rights movement contests claims that men have greater power, privilege or advantage than women and focuses on what it considers to be issues of male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression." So I'm just talking about someone who believes something along those lines. No other traits are necessary. I hope that clears things up. I've also edited my OP to include this quote.


The problem, however, is that you've set up in inherent bias in making the topic. You've contextualized the entire argument in a way that can only paint men's rights activists in a completely negative (and incorrect) light. It'd be like if I made a "would you date a feminist" topic and said, "feminists are people who want all men to die. #KillAllMen." To wit, check the wikipedia article itself; the website says plainly that *the neutrality of the article has been disputed* and that the article has undue weight in certain areas. 

I didn't misunderstand what you meant in making the topic, I just recognized that you set it up in an erroneous way.


----------



## doineed1 (May 25, 2014)

Mee2 said:


> Inspired by this thread (obviously). And for once I'm finding myself genuinely interested in people's responses .
> 
> Some quick info on the men's rights movement for anyone who's not familiar. And, for the poll question, assume we're talking about someone who's, perhaps not passionate, but firmly supportive of the movement.
> 
> Edit: There's been some confusion about what an MRA actually is, so here's a quote from the Wiki page that I think sums it up quite well: "The men's rights movement contests claims that men have greater power, privilege or advantage than women and focuses on what it considers to be issues of male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression." So that's the kind of person that I'm talking about.


Why must men be used and abused so much? Men are humans and have emotional needs just like women. 

Is it right that woman see men as sexual and financial objects that are only good for fixing cars and make babies!?


Can we not all live together with out letting our insecurities motivate us to crush someone else? 

Shame the fuck on you.


----------



## L (Aug 12, 2011)

Nope. Same reason I wouldn't date a feminist. 

Every single one of them I've come across in real life are fucking lunatics and highly hypocritical. Granted I haven't come across as many MRA's as I have feminists but still... 

I agree with series0, I've always believed that the label is a big problem.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

doineed1 said:


> Why must men be used and abused so much? Men are humans and have emotional needs just like women.
> *
> Is it right that woman see men as sexual and financial objects that are only good for fixing cars and make babies!?*
> 
> ...


Oh come _on_. 

Also the end part of your post was highly unnecessary. Just a whole lot of ??? in this really..Trying hard to get a reaction?


----------



## doineed1 (May 25, 2014)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> Oh come _on_.
> 
> Also the end part of your post was highly unnecessary. Just a whole lot of ??? in this really..Trying hard to get a reaction?


Oh so now its not okay for a guy to be a drama queen... geeze.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

doineed1 said:


> Oh so now its not okay for a guy to be a drama queen... geeze.


Trolling in the deeeeep..


----------



## doineed1 (May 25, 2014)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> Trolling in the deeeeep..


I don't think that is trolling.. because the information does apply to the topic at hand. Not to mention there are some very valid points made.. 

Unless you feel that men truly don't have feelings.. granted I am not posting this because of personal feelings that I might have.. but ya know what... what about the amazing guys that are out there.. the shy guys.. the kind guys.. the men that all other men should be using as role models? What about them..


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Boomerang said:


> The problem, however, is that you've set up in inherent bias in making the topic. You've contextualized the entire argument in a way that can only paint men's rights activists in a completely negative (and incorrect) light. It'd be like if I made a "would you date a feminist" topic and said, "feminists are people who want all men to die. #KillAllMen." To wit, check the wikipedia article itself; the website says plainly that *the neutrality of the article has been disputed* and that the article has undue weight in certain areas.
> 
> I didn't misunderstand what you meant in making the topic, I just recognized that you set it up in an erroneous way.


Yeah, well you'd have trouble defining "feminist" like that because the Wikipedia article doesn't support it, and if any reliable sources do support it, the majority of them don't. 

Also, I don't know how you're accusing me of painting the MRM in a negative light because I haven't actually said anything about it. All I've done is provide a link to the Wikipedia page - not my fault if it's biased (and if it is, how about fixing it yourself?). You're right that the article has multiple issues, but the quote that I drew people's attention to isn't one of them - it's supported by the majority of reliable sources.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

doineed1 said:


> Why must men be used and abused so much? Men are humans and have emotional needs just like women.
> 
> Is it right that woman see men as sexual and financial objects that are only good for fixing cars and make babies!?
> 
> ...


Where are you getting this from? I haven't even provided my opinion (yet - at least, not in this topic). All I did was link to the Wikipedia article and provided a quote for those who are too lazy to open it.


----------



## doineed1 (May 25, 2014)

Mee2 said:


> Where are you getting this from? I haven't even provided my opinion (yet - at least, not in this topic). All I did was link to the Wikipedia article and provided a quote for those who are too lazy to open it.


Sorry that wasn't directed at anyone person. Its just a statement.


----------



## Sina (Oct 27, 2010)

lol no.


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

doineed1 said:


> Why must men be used and abused so much? Men are humans and have emotional needs just like women.
> 
> Is it right that woman see men as sexual and financial objects that are only good for fixing cars and make babies!?
> 
> ...


Who said/implied that men should be abused? Who said/implied that men have less emotional needs than women?

Who said/implied that men are not whole human beings and/or they don't need to be valued as a whole person?

Who said we can't?


I did not see anyone in this thread say or imply those things. Perhaps you may have just misunderstood them ^__^


----------



## doineed1 (May 25, 2014)

Mr. Meepers said:


> Who said/implied that men should be abused? Who said/implied that men have less emotional needs than women?
> 
> Who said/implied that men are not whole human beings and/or they don't need to be valued as a whole person?
> 
> ...




Hold on.. got to do something for a bit.. I will get all that for you as soon as I am done.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

doineed1 said:


> Sorry that wasn't directed at anyone person. Its just a statement.


From what you said, I have no idea how I was supposed to get that impression.


----------



## doineed1 (May 25, 2014)

Mee2 said:


> From what you said, I have no idea how I was supposed to get that impression.


 You got a apology.. that's about as far as it goes. I don't think there is a need for a philosophical conversation about how I could of posted.. enjoy the rest of your day.


----------



## Boomerang (Apr 3, 2013)

Mee2 said:


> Yeah, well you'd have trouble defining "feminist" like that because the Wikipedia article doesn't support it, and if any reliable sources do support it, the majority of them don't.
> 
> Also, I don't know how you're accusing me of painting the MRM in a negative light because I haven't actually said anything about it. All I've done is provide a link to the Wikipedia page - not my fault if it's biased (and if it is, how about fixing it yourself?). You're right that the article has multiple issues, but the quote that I drew people's attention to isn't one of them - it's supported by the majority of reliable sources.


It's completely your fault for using a biased source, not that it's your fault the article is biased. The neutrality of the article is disputed and is semi-protected until November 5th, 2014, meaning your "how about fixing it yourself" remark is a little misdirected. Futhermore, my accusation of you painting the MRM in a negative light still stands. You didn't *say* anything about it *yourself*, but by using that article, that is what you're supporting. Just because you didn't actively say something doesn't mean you didn't make a statement.

And the quote you used DOES have issues. The sources that quote referenced don't quite contextualize the MRA in quite the way the wikipedia article itself does. Meaning, the sources used don't support the statement made in the wikipedia article, specifically, that part about how men's rights movement contests claims that men have greater power than women isn't stated in either source.

I don't personally support the movement for a couple of different reasons, but I realize that you're doing a disservice in the way you set up this topic.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

series0 said:


> Indeed, just so. And I think that both feminism and MRM have both an equity-side agenda and a gender centric focus bringing to light real advantages of the opposite gender and real disadvantages of the chosen gender.
> 
> If you are saying that you feel the MRM is MORE unequal in its approach to the issue it deals with, then from what little I know I would disagree. I see the same types of discussions and a similar percentage of wackiness and wishful thinking with spatters of the truth in each.
> 
> ...


You're talking as if I wrote that description of the MRM myself. I didn't - I got it from Wikipedia. If you don't think it's accurate, then there's really not much I can do about it. 

I said "no other traits are necessary" because I wanted people to take the definition literally. Regardless, people seem to be reading all sorts of things into my OP. 

While I agree that such labels often cause people to make assumptions about one's point of view (and that doing so is harmful), that still doesn't mean that they're meaningless. It might not be a perfect summary, but again, I didn't write the Wikipedia article.


----------



## Boomerang (Apr 3, 2013)

Mee2 said:


> You're talking as if I wrote that description of the MRM myself. I didn't - I got it from Wikipedia. If you don't think it's accurate, then there's really not much I can do about it.
> 
> I said "no other traits are necessary" because I wanted people to take the definition literally. Regardless, people seem to be reading all sorts of things into my OP.
> 
> While I agree that such labels often cause people to make assumptions about one's point of view (and that doing so is harmful), that still doesn't mean that they're meaningless. It might not be a perfect summary, but again, I didn't write the Wikipedia article.


I'm not saying you wrote the wikipedia article. I'm saying that it was wrong to use the wikipedia article.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Boomerang said:


> It's completely your fault for using a biased source, not that it's your fault the article is biased. The neutrality of the article is disputed and is semi-protected until November 5th, 2014, meaning your "how about fixing it yourself" remark is a little misdirected. Futhermore, my accusation of you painting the MRM in a negative light still stands. You didn't *say* anything about it *yourself*, but by using that article, that is what you're supporting. Just because you didn't actively say something doesn't mean you didn't make a statement.
> 
> And the quote you used DOES have issues. The sources that quote referenced don't quite contextualize the MRA in quite the way the wikipedia article itself does. Meaning, the sources used don't support the statement made in the wikipedia article, specifically, that part about how men's rights movement contests claims that men have greater power than women isn't stated in either source.
> 
> I don't personally support the movement for a couple of different reasons, but I realize that you're doing a disservice in the way you set up this topic.


Apologies, I have no idea how Wikipedia works - I'm not even sure what "semi-protected" means. I'll take your word for it that you can't edit it, though. 

What I did notice, however, is that the quote I used is discussed on the talk page, and that it was specifically approved. But if I've missed something, feel free to point it out. 

Also, feel free to recommend a different summary if you think there's a better one out there.


----------



## somnuvore (Sep 27, 2013)

I'm confused as to why a woman would want to participate in MRA, if not also in WRA. I probably wouldn't date an activist of any sort but it depends on how devoted she is; if she merely acknowledges that there are social issues surrounding both genders, then I wouldn't call her an activist necessarily, but I do find this far more desirable than her only supporting one group and not another, or even treating the other as an enemy; this, I find truly repugnant. This is not even mentioning the sexism and racism involved in some comments in this very thread. To be fair, I wouldn't date most people, since most people are that unaware of their own atrocious behavior in some fashion or another, so the quality of her being an activist in some way or another is not a huge deal; it's the qualities which, more frequently than not, follow that activism that push me away.


----------



## krentz (Feb 28, 2010)

Perhaps as others have stated I am not the person the poll was aimed at, given that I am both male & heterosexual, but I'll answer anyway.

Speaking in generalities, at the very least I would be _more likely_ to date an MRA than a feminist, although I would not be especially comfortable with either group. At the very least, I would find a female MRA to be a fascinating subject because she would have to rise above a lot of pressure and shaming from her female peers and, undoubtedly, a downright venomous backlash from the feminist community. Someone who would be willing to do this would have to have a strong reason for doing so, and I would be very much intrigued to find out what, exactly, that is - although I would also be sceptical as I was interested.

I dislike how there appears to be a lack of unity and cohesion within feminism and there are many different branches that all purport themselves to be proponents of "equality" but all seem to have different opinions of what that means. A 'feminist' could mean anything from a pathologically misandric man-hater (who is likely suffering as a result of traumatic past experiences) to someone who is compassionate and well-intentioned but addresses the prospect of equality from a primarily female point of reference. I do tend to distrust anyone who sees the world through the lens of their ideology because, well, how should I put it: there is an old saying; "if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail". There will be confirmation bias everywhere and it will be all misogyny this, patriarchy that.

At the same time, a lot of the more radical elements of the MRA movement are similarly unsettling, too. I do find that, in general, MRAs are more logical in their approach to male social problems than is feminism; however some of it feels like it is just 'reactionary' against feminism. A lot of men don't feel as though they are able to talk about their problems, and when they do, they are never taken seriously - I relate to this quite well, in fact; however, there is a tendency among certain members to go far in the opposite direction and play the zero-sum game, trying to claim the mantle of greater victimhood for themselves just like certain feminists, not realising that making a war out of gender politics will help nobody to empathise and meet in the middle, and that being a victim doesn't actually help you solve your problems. In addition, there are some MRA's who truly are deserving of the label of 'misogynist' (and not just in the popularised and flippantly applied sense of the word as it exists currently) who seem to have no compassion for women at all, making them all out to be 'sluts' and 'bitches', perhaps not entirely unlike his man-hating feminist counterpart.

So, in conclusion - yes, I'd be open to it. But... still cautious.


----------



## BlissfulDreams (Dec 25, 2009)

I voted for "open to it." Like others have said, it depends on the extent to which they are involved in men's rights advocacy and why they have taken up the cause.

Experiences amongst both genders differ based on things such as the way we are socialized, what we feel we can and can't express, and the myths and values that society holds to high esteem. The attitudes that men and women have to be treated with perfect equality and that any smidgen of inequality needs to be eradicated are both unattractive to me. In my opinion, they are impossible due to the differing of experiences and pretending that these differences don't exist or that one experience is more valid and concerning than the other is a jerk move.

Sometimes the recognition of different experiences requires policies that on the surface can seem to be unequal. This can include benefits such as maternal leave. Some countries don't require employers to pay for maternal leave or have policies that require just the bare minimum. They don't recognize that pregnancy is something exclusive to females and that not providing this benefit is ignorant, especially if someone says "But men don't get that benefit" (then give paternity leave too since it's beneficial for a child to receive care from both parents and we're supposed to be trying to raise healthy children) or "You make the decision to work or be a mother, so don't complain if you can't do both," which is ignorant of the differences in what people consider to be a fulfilling life and of the experiences of working class families.

And so if a man gets involved in men's rights advocacy because he sees a bias in the way society and law are structured and issues that are not being talked about that he has a strong opinion about because they touch home with him, I'd be understanding. Especially if it's about issues such as male circumcision or the courts having a tendency to side with the mother because "children have a right to be with their mothers." I would never hold it against someone for advocating issues such as these, particularly if they themselves were circumcised or separated from their fathers due to a court ruling and had bad experiences growing up with their mothers and felt wronged because of the experience, or they knew someone who had experienced hardship because of these things, unless they were being a jerk about it. It's when they take up men's rights advocacy because they feel that things are owed to them and that "life isn't fair" is when I get annoyed and want nothing to do with them. And this has nothing to do with them being male or their racial background.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Mee2 said:


> Each of you either expressed that you weren't quite sure what I was talking about, or you said something that indicated that perhaps we were talking about different things. So here's a quote from the wiki page that will hopefully give you a pretty clear indication of what I mean by the term MRA: "*The men's rights movement contests claims that men have greater power, privilege or advantage than women* and focuses on what it considers to be issues of male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression."


No, I didn't misunderstand. Also, that's just Wikipedia, it's not like a Webster's definition. I stand by what I said about the types that (often) get grouped into this movement and my appreciation for their honesty. 

The bolded bit - not necessarily. That's kinda just purely misogynistic. It's usually bred from resentment due to subconsciously believing it's opposite, as well, so that was my point about how plenty of insecure "nice guys" are also really misogynists themselves although they don't identify as such. I find them deceptive and lacking in self awareness - traits I abhor more than chauvinism, actually. The battle of the sexes is what it is - it's even human to extent. The struggle for power. Goes back to the Apollonian/Cassandra archetypal marriage (and likely before). Shadiness is it's own ball game.

5 Uncomfortable Truths Behind the Men's Rights Movement | Cracked.com

Hmm, so, going through that article - they prey on the insecure. Unfortunately, a lot of people do this. (Look at some posts on this site, ridiculous the nasty stuff you can find...maybe even some of it by me, lol, added that one to be fair - people who also just appear to hate everyone. If written by a woman or someone gender neutral, however, it is much more likely not to meet direct criticism, it seems. See that all the freaking time. Just an observation). So, I can kind of see where some are coming from although I think it would be best if we just all refrained from preying on the insecure altogether. Except for maybe the insecure who pretend to be the opposite and project like there's no tomorrow. Take those guys down for all I care, lol. My God do they annoy me). 

_"One thread is about a woman giving relationship advice on another thread about what to do after you discover your girlfriend has cheated. She suggested that maybe there were some alternatives to dumping her, and that through communication and healing the relationship could be saved, if he wanted. Apparently, this is the worst thing ever."_​
Ha, yea, try suggesting this to a group of women as a man as well and see how long you last. If you cheat as a man you are obviously lacking a soul or any moral conscience whatsoever. If you forgive as a woman you are utterly lacking in self respect. So why can't that go both ways?

Hmmm, moving on. The gay stuff - yea, that's bullshit. However, there does seem to be an attack on classic gender roles (OBVIOUSLY they're oppressive, right? Actually, no, you could argue that they equal out in their own ways) and backlash against an attack is natural. Doesn't make it right, but we do a lot of stuff that isn't right. Doesn't automatically make us completely detestable human beings.

_Obviously there's nothing remotely "OK" about playing emotional games with your significant other, but at the same time, I'm pretty sure every single person reading this has at some point been in a relationship that featured at least some emotional abuse, especially as a teenager, because *everyone is emotionally abusive as a teenager*._​
The bolded bit - um, yea, you know? One of the reasons that feminazis (yes, as a woman I will use this term, I don't care) annoy the crap out of me. What, we turn 18 and I'm supposed to all of a sudden cheer on the bitches who tried to ruin my life in high school simply because they're women? That part of us that both did this and suffered from it doesn't just disappear. Sometimes it needs an outlet. Better than repressing it and making your ass jealous of the shit that comes out of your mouth like you're Tom Cruise.

_"I know that Southern Poverty Law Center labeled MRAs hate groups," he says, "I don't know that I would. I see the men's rights world as many enraged individuals, coalescing loosely in the 'manosphere' on the Web, with little or no organizational structure, coherent policy initiatives, or plans ... But that's only because my definition of 'hate groups' requires concerted action, and the viciousness of many of their cyberattacks against feminist women make me think that those women who have been targeted might have a different story to tell."_​
So they're complaining, basically, without getting in trouble for it. OMG, how dare them. Totally un date-able.

...Not really.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

[No message]


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

Not likely, for the same reasons I wouldn't date a feminist.


----------



## Sevenblade (May 26, 2014)

No, I wouldn't. To be honest, I don't think I've ever known of one who didn't turn out (sooner or later) to be psycho. There are *tons* of out-and-out wackjobs online, some of whom actually advocate violence against women - and unlike their psycho feminist counterparts, it seems like their audience is in large part comprised of actual woman/child abusers, so the likelihood that they may _act _on this advice is probably greater, if we're honest about it. They seem as unable as their radfem counterparts to follow a logical line of reasoning, but spew a lot of hysterical hatred and unfounded claims (which are usually later debunked by truly objective sources like the CDC or the DOJ).

That said, I would definitely _not_ self-identify as a feminist myself. I'm for equality. I see "isms" as a red flag. A healthy, reasonably benevolent joe (liberal or conservative) probably wouldn't get into a movement like this. Certainly none of the ones I know have, and I've known a lot of great guys. 

So, yeah, I'd steer clear.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

If there was any point to that post other than to insult me, I missed it. 

The post that @Veggie was talking about, by the way, is this one, so feel free to open up and decide for yourself if you think there's anything disgusting about my attitude. For those who are too lazy to open it, I'll summarise that there's nothing there about me breaking up with her (for good reason - I didn't) and the only part that mentions anything worse than insecurity is this, "I'd like to think that I handled those feelings of insecurity fairly well but it would be a lie to say that it didn't lead me to treat her poorly on occasion." 

Edit: Ugh. That quote makes me sound worse than I actually was. I definitely did do things wrong, but they're so mild that I wonder why I even mentioned them. Oh well, at least I'm honest about it, I guess.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

I debated on a gender studies forum for a long while. 

I would say that 80-90% are a combination of trolls & nut cases (so fuck no to them). Not a guy thats like machoist. Hell NO!

That said I talked to a minority of MRAs that were very balanced people that just had a problem with PC bullshit. And reverse discrimination in terms of legalities. They articulate themselves well and did not slander women, feminists, or women's capabilities and mock women. They simply pointed out what & why they advocate for some MRA. I would go out with one a of those very few rare guys no problem. Most guys that say they are MRA really just mean they are traditionalists, that take all their bitterness out on women. And choose to mock women rather then address the fact that most of what they take issue with is society and marketing which is heavily dominated by males and done to gain sales in terms of political correctness. But many of them act like dischieveld nut cases spouting off at all women and come off like whack jobs. (Its just as un refined as the extreme radical feminists they mock)


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Mee2 said:


> If there was any point to that post other than to insult me, I missed it.
> 
> The post that @Veggie was talking about, by the way, is this one, so feel free to open up and decide for yourself if you think there's anything disgusting about my attitude. For those who are too lazy to open it, I'll summarise that there's nothing there about me breaking up with her (for good reason - I didn't) and the only part that mentions anything worse than insecurity is this, *"I'd like to think that I handled those feelings of insecurity fairly well but it would be a lie to say that it didn't lead me to treat her poorly on occasion."*


No, it wasn't to insult you, it was a reminder that this stuff isn't black and white and there's almost (always) personal motivation behind it. I appreciate that you actually linked that post.



Mee2 said:


> Basically, despite my failure to identify anything particularly desirable about dating an attractive woman, I found it very hard to shake the belief that the power balance was strongly in her favour; that I had more to lose than her. It made me very uncomfortable.
> 
> Not only that, mainstream society sees such women as privileged and people feel little remorse for treating them badly, thinking that they're really just evening things out.
> ...
> I guess the point of all this is just to say that attractive women, despite this obsessive idealisation of them, don't really get this enormous advantage that we seem to think they do. The things that they genuinely do come easy for them often aren't all that they're made out to be, and they also come at a cost. Such women are objectified by society, resented by women and men seek to dominate them. Being attractive might still be an advantage -- it certainly is, in some contexts -- *but overall I don't see them as being in a particularly enviable position.*


Okay, so, you're right...you never said that you broke up with her. I came away with that as an assumption, I guess, having reread it, so I apologize. You basically just summed up the MRA attitude with all of that though, without that last line there. However, you also admit to what I bolded in the former post quote. 

I hate the vilifying of the MRA outlook because it leads women to believe that this crap isn't happening and sets us up for failure, imo...or settling for total douches (like, the lame kind) who aren't self-aware (I suppose you are after all) and anti-depressants because the other ones r totl asshats gurl ya kno?


----------



## killerB (Jan 14, 2010)

Mee2 said:


> @_Veggie_, @_Boomerang_, @_killerB_, @_Napoleptic_, @_series0_
> 
> Sorry for all the mentions. Each of you either expressed that you weren't quite sure what I was talking about, or you said something that indicated that perhaps we were talking about different things. So here's a quote from the wiki page that will hopefully give you a pretty clear indication of what I mean by the term MRA: "The men's rights movement contests claims that men have greater power, privilege or advantage than women and focuses on what it considers to be issues of male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression." So I'm just talking about someone who believes something along those lines. No other traits are necessary. I hope that clears things up. I've also edited my OP to include this quote.


 
If we are going by that definition, then I don't much care for anyone who would think they deserve more than the other, or pity, because of what hangs between their legs. Unfortunately, that is not uncommon for Radical Femininsts, and apparently Radical MRA supporters, to believe. I have no respect for either faction. However, just because you advocate for womens or mens rights, does not mean you are radical, and I don't believe that everyone who does so is. If a male wants to fight for his rights, to see his children, to not be the first ones blamed when there is a domestic assault called in, or even for acknowledgment that rape does happen to males, I support that 100%. Just like I support the fight for women to get paid equal for equal work, equal promotion, and to have the right to their own bodies.

It's a matter of degrees for me, and you go too far either way, and I am not interested.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Sevenblade said:


> No, I wouldn't. To be honest, I don't think I've ever known of one who didn't turn out (sooner or later) to be psycho. There are *tons* of out-and-out wackjobs online, some of whom actually advocate violence against women - and unlike their psycho feminist counterparts, it seems like their audience is in large part comprised of actual woman/child abusers, so the likelihood that they may _act _on this advice is probably greater, if we're honest about it. They seem as unable as their radfem counterparts to follow a logical line of reasoning, but spew a lot of hysterical hatred and unfounded claims (which are usually later debunked by truly objective sources like the CDC or the DOJ).
> 
> That said, I would definitely _not_ self-identify as a feminist myself. I'm for equality. I see "isms" as a red flag. A healthy, reasonably benevolent joe (liberal or conservative) probably wouldn't get into a movement like this. Certainly none of the ones I know have, and I've known a lot of great guys.
> 
> So, yeah, I'd steer clear.


Wait... Are you talking about the CDC study on rape victimization?

Cause there are a lot of people on the feminist side who have an issue with how the information is obtained. Their definition of rape erases victims who weren't penetrated, which is most male victims with a female perpetrator.


----------



## Fleetfoot (May 9, 2011)

I could date one, but it would have to be something that would be talked over for sure...because there are some things I agree with and other things not so much. But, the same goes for "feminism". 

This line - "The men's rights movement contests claims that men have greater power, privilege or advantage than women"

That's a deal-breaker. 

Granted, there's double-standards for both genders. With certain misguided thoughts of what people think "feminism" is (i.e. I am a woman therefore I am better than you), that's basically what that first statement is saying...which is childish.


Honestly, it really does depend on the individual. I would certainly hope something like this wouldn't define their entire being, in that case it would be a deal breaker.


----------



## So Long So Long (Jun 6, 2009)

No.


----------



## ForsakenMe (Aug 30, 2010)

I chose deal breaker. Why would I want to date someone who hates my gender?


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

I wouldn't date anyone who wouldn't identify as something else first. I don't want a staunch gender crusader on either side. Really both of the movements can get ridiculous.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

Mee2 said:


> Yeah, good luck with that though. You know what such people call themselves? Feminists .


Sure, but most feminists are focused on the women's rights to break gender barriers, not the other way around or even both ways. 
The way I see it, they are both dependent on each other, because society consists of both groups and you can't break one gender stereotype without automatically breaking/challenging the other. 

On the other hand, the original definition of feminism is equality for all independent of gender. However, since the extremist feminist gets more exposure in media than the more mainstream feminist does, it takes focus away from the largest and most influential part of the feminist spectrum. 
One can wonder whether this rather selective exposure is accidental or not, but the press does a pretty bad job in general to give any in-depth portraits of anything. Media is focused sensationalism rather than realism, because that's what (they claim) sells. In the same way, we seldom hear positive news about male politicians (unless it's blatant campaigning); more often it's about the men who got caught having extramarital affairs than about a man who actually is a humanitarian and a positive change-agent.

I forgot to mention what I voted earlier: "_Certain/almost certain deal breaker_" for me


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

Donovan said:


> ... really, i wouldn't want either: a self-identified feminist or mra. again, real life varies greatly from what you can find on concentrated internet facets, but most people i meet in real life that are all about "a cause" follow it selfishly. this isn't bad in itself, as this self-identified aspect can span the edges of the negative stereotypes, just as it can dip into a healthy level of self-interest as one is growing and defining themselves. if it's the former, i have no interest--if it's the latter, i'm more interested in just being friends, as these sorts of "self-interested causes" tend to ask everyone else in their vicinity to bend to toward their views (or better yet, _their perspective_ on certain views); = problems.


This is a good point, but again, IRL people are much less open than online. I don't inform people at work that I'm a feminist unless it's relevant and at that point we generally already know each other well enough that they don't have an issue with it (and some seem pretty surprised). Similarly I don't bring up the fact that I'm an atheist at work either - not a smart move to do so here in Kentucky, because you will get judged if you are not a Christian of some sort. 

Anyway, I think that it ought to be pretty obvious to people where I stand if we have ever discussed about gender issues, but people's expectations as to how a 'true feminist' should live, talk and act vary depending on their personal interpretation of what feminism is. 

I know that most of the ladies I hang out with at work are feminists. They are all highly educated, married with kids and lead, from the outside probably interpreted as, a fairly traditional lifestyle (even though the women do work full-time). As far as I have seen, most of the men that are married to these women are very happy.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Swede said:


> Sure, but most feminists are focused on the women's rights to break gender barriers, not the other way around or even both ways.
> The way I see it, they are both dependent on each other, because society consists of both groups and you can't break one gender stereotype without automatically breaking/challenging the other.


I get that we need male perspectives, and we definitely need to have more of a discussion about how patriarchy hurts men (because it definitely does). But such discussions are already in line with feminism because the idea that patriarchy even exists is a very strong feminist perspective. MRAs deny the existence of patriarchy - sometimes going as far as saying that our society is, in fact, matriarchal - so the idea that MRAs and feminists can work together to achieve the same goal is, I think, false. 

As a side note, here's a website that discusses men's issues from a feminist perspective. I'd like to see more websites like this, honestly: Welcome to XY online | www.xyonline.net.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Swede said:


> I apologize in advance for my ignorance, but how can a person be considered raped without penetration? That is to a huge extent why rape is so disgusting - someone forces their person not only on you, but into you. It's a whole other level of abuse.
> 
> Rape, at least IMO, is a part of the broader term sexual abuse.


Rape isn't disgusting because people are penetrated, it's disgusting because some fuckwit who thinks they're entitled to your sexuality forces themselves on you, strips your clothes off, and takes away your sense of control, security, and basic bodily autonomy. And that the most guarded and special part of your bodily autonomy, your sexuality is taken from you in that moment.

The violation of bodily autonomy doesn't come from penetration. It comes from you having absolutely no control over what happens to you, and sometimes even watching as your body itself betrays your personal wishes. Wanna know why rapists often make their victims orgasm in the act? Because it's extremely traumatizing, and by manipulating those feelings, they make victims less likely to report.

Male victims of rape feel the same trauma whether or not there was penetration. In fact, male rape victims often experience _greater_ trauma if the perpetrator was female. Why? Because everyone blames it on them. No one believes them at all because "he must have wanted it because it made his pee-pee tingle".

It's a chauvinistic mindset not supported in psychology, propagated by extremist radical second-wave feminists, based on the view that women can't be agents, and therefore anything they do has less of an effect on others.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

Torai said:


> Rape isn't disgusting because people are penetrated, it's disgusting because some fuckwit who thinks they're entitled to your sexuality forces themselves on you, strips your clothes off, and takes away your sense of control, security, and basic bodily autonomy. And that the most guarded and special part of your bodily autonomy, your sexuality is taken from you in that moment.
> 
> The violation of bodily autonomy doesn't come from penetration. It comes from you having absolutely no control over what happens to you, and sometimes even watching as your body itself betrays your personal wishes. Wanna know why rapists often make their victims orgasm in the act? Because it's extremely traumatizing, and by manipulating those feelings, they make victims less likely to report.
> 
> ...


I agree in part with what you are saying, but I still believe that there is a difference between penetration and non-penetration, as explained below. 

That said
a) a woman can penetrate a man by inserting parts of her body or an object into the man's anus or mouth. IMO, there is a difference between someone grabbing my breasts or butt and someone putting their fingers into my mouth because there is a difference in the level of intrusion, but again, that is my personal opinion. 

b) Now, if we assume that a man is forced to get an erection and then is taken advantage of by a woman, I can see how that could be comparable to penetration, even though the man is in this case forced to penetrate. In that case, your explanation above applies 100%. 
My reasoning still applies (in my mind); exchanging bodily fluids elevates the level of intrusion. It leaves something of the perp behind that is hard to wash away, physically and mentally. In addition, the victim now has to deal with the fact that s/he can have been given a disease and/or deal with an unwanted pregnancy.


I have been lucky enough to not have experienced rape or obvious sexual abuse, but I can imagine a lot of the feelings and struggles in the after-math. I have been physically abused, but never sexually abused.
However, I have been felt up by strangers in public traffic* (they usually go for very young kids, because they are less likely to take action), but I would not compare that to rape even though it probably would be labeled as sexual abuse. It is disgusting for some of the reasons you state above, but the levels are not comparable to me - I'd rather get felt up in the subway a hundreds times than have some one shove their privates into my body, independent of their gender. 


*The reason why I say "obvious sexual abuse" is because the people that intimately touch others in crowded spaces do it in a very inconspicuous manner. Like many bullies, they often act in a way that makes you wonder if what you felt really happened or if it was just accidental and you are imagining things.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Swede said:


> I agree in part with what you are saying, but I still believe that there is a difference between penetration and non-penetration, as explained below.
> 
> That said
> a) a woman can penetrate a man by inserting parts of her body or an object into the man's anus or mouth. IMO, there is a difference between someone grabbing my breasts or butt and someone putting their fingers into my mouth because there is a difference in the level of intrusion, but again, that is my personal opinion.
> ...


Being touched on the penis isn't comparable in any way to being touched on the breasts or buttocks. It's as intimate a region as the anus.

And pregnancy is a big deal in rape cases, but we're talking about penetration, which can be anal.


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

Torai said:


> Being touched on the penis isn't comparable in any way to being touched on the breasts or buttocks. It's as intimate a region as the anus.
> 
> And pregnancy is a big deal in rape cases, but we're talking about penetration, which can be anal.


Yes, you have a valid point and I agree. It is comparable to being touched between the legs for a woman, IMO. Trust me, that happens on the subway too. (And I don't doubt that boys are touched in the crotch area on the train either.)
But your statement does verify that you agree that there are indeed different levels of intrusion, you are elevating the intrusion of touching penis over breasts and butt. Note that I am not saying that you are wrong, just observing that you are applying hierarchy to levels of sexual abuse, just as I did in my post.

In regards to the second sentence, there was a reason why I stated that "_exchanging bodily fluids elevates the level of intrusion. It leaves something of the perp behind that is hard to wash away, physically and mentally. In addition, the victim now has to deal with the fact that s/he can have been given a disease and/or deal with an unwanted pregnancy._"
I specifically added pregnancy last because we were talking penetration and rape for men and women. However, let's not just disregard that the fear of an unwanted pregnancy exists and that it is a very real fear; I know that I have thought about what I would do in that kind of situation. Sure, pregnancy doesn't apply to men, but it doesn't make that reality any less valid, as I hope you agree. My statement was not made from the "a rape for a female victim is worse than for a male victim". If this is your impression, please go back and reread my post.

I am equally sure that you are aware that many female rape victims are actually raped anally. I would never say that it makes the experience any less terrifying, just because the risk for pregnancy isn't an issue in that case.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Torai said:


> Being touched on the penis isn't comparable in any way to being touched on the breasts or buttocks. It's as intimate a region as the anus.


I don't read this place in months and I click on this thread, skip to the end and people are earnestly constructing Bad Touch Hierarchies to prove their point that sexual assault is as much a problem for men as it is women without a shred of irony. God I love this forum.


----------



## killerB (Jan 14, 2010)

ForsakenMe said:


> I chose deal breaker. Why would I want to date someone who hates my gender?


That's like saying Feminists hate males. I don't think that MRA advocates hate women.


----------



## killerB (Jan 14, 2010)

Torai said:


> Rape isn't disgusting because people are penetrated, it's disgusting because some fuckwit who thinks they're entitled to your sexuality forces themselves on you, strips your clothes off, and takes away your sense of control, security, and basic bodily autonomy. And that the most guarded and special part of your bodily autonomy, your sexuality is taken from you in that moment.
> 
> The violation of bodily autonomy doesn't come from penetration. It comes from you having absolutely no control over what happens to you, and sometimes even watching as your body itself betrays your personal wishes. Wanna know why rapists often make their victims orgasm in the act? Because it's extremely traumatizing, and by manipulating those feelings, they make victims less likely to report.
> 
> ...


Agreed.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Shahada said:


> I don't read this place in months and I click on this thread, skip to the end and people are earnestly constructing Bad Touch Hierarchies to prove their point that sexual assault is as much a problem for men as it is women without a shred of irony. God I love this forum.


You misread my point. I was trying to say something along the lines of "You know, a handjob is sex and jacking someone off without their consent is rape".

Unless you're actually going to argue "it is only rape if they were inside of you".

But honestly, I really don't care about your opinion.


----------



## ForsakenMe (Aug 30, 2010)

killerB said:


> That's like saying Feminists hate males. I don't think that MRA advocates hate women.


All of the so called MRAs I've met are strictly misogynist and happy to be that way. I want no part in that mess, thank you very much. I do know of the injustices inflicted upon the male gender, and I stand up for those issues, but many of those MRAs are only concerned about throwing women under a bus instead of taking personal responsibilities for their own lives. The minute a feminist or an MRA plays the victim, my cheek turns the other way and I label them a child.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Some MRA's don't hate women in the same way some white nationalists aren't racists and are just really concerned about their country or whatever.


----------



## killerB (Jan 14, 2010)

ForsakenMe said:


> All of the so called MRAs I've met are strictly misogynist and happy to be that way. I want no part in that mess, thank you very much. I do know of the injustices inflicted upon the male gender, and I stand up for those issues, but many of those MRAs are only concerned about throwing women under a bus instead of taking personal responsibilities for their own lives. The minute a feminist or an MRA plays the victim, my cheek turns the other way and I label them a child.


Fair enough. I feel the same way.


----------



## killerB (Jan 14, 2010)

Shahada said:


> Some MRA's don't hate women in the same way some white nationalists aren't racists and are just really concerned about their country or whatever.


This exact attitude is exactly why many Feminists make me ashamed to be a Feminist.

Please don't bother to engage me. This thread is turning into a male bashing thread, and quite frankly I refuse to participate in the shaming of males. Count me out.


----------



## finesthour (Jun 12, 2014)

It makes me sad to see that Men's issues are defined by the MRA community. Dr. Martin Fiebert studies men who become victims of abuse but he isn't an MRA type. My speech professor bluntly said that she doesn't care about men with eating disorders and women just nodded as if she was making some kind of moral stand. The novel "Paper Bullets" is perhaps more valuable for its ability to show that conflict between men and women can sometimes be based on false dilemmas than for its story telling.


----------



## laura palmer (Feb 10, 2014)

under by dead body
not even that
my dead body has more self respect then that
im the radical feminist everyone hates, no one wants to date me, let alone a MRA


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

killerB said:


> This exact attitude is exactly why many Feminists make me ashamed to be a Feminist.
> 
> Please don't bother to engage me. This thread is turning into a male bashing thread, and quite frankly I refuse to participate in the shaming of males. Count me out.


Really? I see MRA bashing (which I approve of), but not male bashing (which I wouldn't approve of).


----------

