nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Mens Rights Thread

Woodward

Ok I'm pretty new here but I havent been able to find a thread on this topic

Are any of you here involved in the Mens Rights or Masculinist Movements? Is there any organised male orientated rights associations in Ireland except for Fathers Rights?

Find more posts tagged with

jane ruffino

Quick Links

Comments

FA Hayek

mzungu wrote: »

AFAIK the MRA is a subgroup of the "Red Pill" community. From looking at the documentary trailer and looking at the link above, it seems the interviewees (mostly) come from the "Red Pill" forums on Reddit.

According to this review, the tough questions were left out: http://www.villagevoice.com/film/warning-you-cant-unsee-the-red-pill-the-documentary-about-a-filmmaker-who-learns-to-love-mras-9172459
I would be suspicious of anything that would try portray him (Elam) in a good light. Especially with a lot of the crapola he has come out with, it would make me question the objectivity of the film.

It was reported that Cassie Jaye wanted to advertise the documentary in the Village Voice but was refused due to the content of the film. If true, the film was never going to get a fair go at a review, which reading it purely plays the man (or woman in this case).

Also, this bit takes the biscuit.

she lets them moan about how hard it is to be a dude in 2016, endorsing their anecdotal complaints about unfair family courts, incidents of men being tricked into being fathers

Does anyone serious want to defend family courts either here in Ireland or the US and the systemic unfairness towards men when they want access to their own children? Its not anecdotal at all. I know people who have committed suicide because they were denied access to their child.

One can speculate if the film was another feminist talking piece say about rape culture would it get such a review?

It does show an inherent insecurity among feminists that they do not even want to let men even talk about issues that effect them. I have often seen a discussion about feminist issue state that 'oh men are free to talk about x,y,z too just at the moment we are talking about woman's issue a,b,c, so can we concentrate on that for now'
But really they do not want people to talk about mens issue, as it takes away oxygen from womens issue. They have a monopoly at the moment and they sure as hell do not want to lose that.

So, in some ways I welcome feminists coming out to ban this movie, they are the ones who are totalitarian and authoritatian, who are so afraid of a 90 minute movie. It lifts the lid on what modern day third wave feminism is for all to see and just drives even more sane women away from their crackpot movement.

mzungu

iptba wrote:

My impression is that "red pill" focuses on relationships (no, I'm not thinking of pick up artists specifically), while men's rights is much broader than that covering all sorts of issues like how boys are treated, fathers' rights, how men are portrayed in the media, discrimination against men, misandry, circumcision, etc.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights gives links to various other forums but not the Red Pill one from the list I am looking at.

sharper wrote: »

Opponents of MRAs/Red Pill tend to use the terms interchangeably

The movie itself is titled "The Red Pill Movie" so there must be some acceptance somewhere within MRA that it is part of that overall movement. Even if, as iptba said above, that "Red Pill" is more on the relationship/PUA side of the tracks.

Of course, it could also have been an editorial decision to run with "Red Pill" as it would have a more ready made audience and easy branding to boot.

midnight city

I think the reason feminists are so desperate to stop a legitimate mens rights movement is they know it would quickly challenge their misandry. The MRA's movement could apply the same threats of boycott when they see male bashing as the feminists currently do.

This woman will be running her own TV show on RTE soon. On twitter she proclaims to be a misandrist. Yet our state broadcaster is giving her a slot on National TV. Which we pay for through the TV license. We all know any man that had misogynist on his twitter account would never work in TV again here.
https://twitter.com/oneilllo?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

If there was a legitimate and well support mens rights movement they would have the clout to lean on RTE. Feminists know this which is why they are so desperate to nip any mens movement in the bud.

py2006

In fairness to her (can't believe I said that) I think the 'feminist/misandrist, depending on the day' in her bio is a dig as she gets called both more so than her declaring she is a misandrist. Am I right?

Sleepy

Oh it's supposed to be a dig alright. It's like that "Male Tears" meme that feminists are so fond of.

mzungu

Wibbs wrote:

Ditto regarding Elam. Though a documentary on this subject would make me very wary of "reviews". Again with the increasing polarisation going on, you're either going to get a feminist/"liberal" nope it's crap, or an MRA/redpill/"right wing" it's brilliant. EG the Village Voice is far more likely to tow the college Right On party line than not.

FA Hayek wrote: »

It was reported that Cassie Jaye wanted to advertise the documentary in the Village Voice but was refused due to the content of the film. If true, the film was never going to get a fair go at a review, which reading it purely plays the man (or woman in this case).

I agree, I wasn't pointing to the review as an indicator of the films merit, more the paragraph that stated that it did not delve into comments made by Elam in the past. Movie reviews in general are a bad indicator to go on, but given the content matter here you will have Brietbart saying its great, The Huffington Post saying it's crap and I doubt it would even be covered by more mainstream (and middleground) publications.

Jan_de_Bakker

Thank you modern 3rd wave feminists for getting this movie banned from some theatres.
You have brought great publicity to it, I had not heard of it and would probably never have seen it.

Now I will definitely see it and spread the word to as many people as possible - as will thousands of other men.

I will even get the BluRay.

So again thanks to your whining and shutting down free speech - it has nicely backfired on you.

Now let's try and campaign for REAL womens issues - like the rights of Saudi women maybe ?

Nah ... go and chase some disgusting white male pig who dared to use his privilege to compliment a lady on
her top - how dare he ... get that pig fired and ruin his life!!!

You go GIRLS!!!

Outlaw Pete

Excellent interview with the director of the Red Pill.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itSTzV29bS0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpGzgFX_X4I

Hopefully the IFI or the Lighthouse will show it.

JRant

https://twitter.com/bewarmers/status/793813919798353922

The reaction from the child at the end is hilarious.

Outlaw Pete

Ah Kate is it.. UK's most successful feminist rent-a-gob.

If you want a good laugh search YouTube for her on BBC's ]The Big Question' and especially so if either Milo or Peter Hitchens are on it with her.

py2006

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ah Kate is it.. UK's most successful feminist rent-a-gob.

If you want a good laugh search YouTube for her on BBC's ]The Big Question' and especially so if either Milo or Peter Hitchens are on it with her.

Ah yea Kate Smurthwaite, you only have to look at her to see something isn't quite right. Appearances aside, if you listen to her rant talk on ANY subject matter its all mile a minute and a bit crazed and sweet jesus does she dislike men.

But one of the few occasions that I would be kind of on her side:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRzPv1xKDI0

JRant

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ah Kate is it.. UK's most successful feminist rent-a-gob.

If you want a good laugh search YouTube for her on BBC's ]The Big Question' and especially so if either Milo or Peter Hitchens are on it with her.

Think I've seen those 'panel discussions' featuring her before.

Insufferable attitude from her every time I see her. Goes straight to hysterical mode at the drop of a hat.

grumpynerd

they're always called kate or katie. with their posgrads in creative writing and womens studies.

iptba

Some people on Twitter may find this account of interest:
https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview

It's run by anonymous academics who highlight questionable output from some researchers in the social sciences such as some feminists. They often highlight the interesting bits so it isn't simply posting big articles that would need to be read through.

Here's one article on it:

The perilous whiteness of … pumpkins?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-perilous-whiteness-of-pumpkins/article32293466/

py2006

iptba wrote: »

Some people on Twitter may find this account of interest:
https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview

It's run by anonymous academics who highlight questionable output from some researchers in the social sciences such as some feminists. They often highlight the interesting bits so it isn't simply posting big articles that would need to be read through.

Here's one article on it:

Thanks for that. Having a bit of fun reading down through some of them:

https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview/status/776718289355628544

iptba

Another from the same account:
https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview/status/809465128718573569

um7y1h83ge06nx

That twitter post seems like a p*ss take. :rolleyes:

So now a diverse group of people means women only? You would really wonder if they truly believe what they are saying or are they just trying to keep themselves relevant and in job.

seamus

Poe's law. I genuinely can't tell if that's a serious or a sarcastic tweet.

But looking through, I find this

https://twitter.com/meijessica/status/809465602318434304

To which the account responds, "Good point". So thankfully it's a sarcastic tweet.

silverharp

NewRealPeerReview is a great account, it was set up by a group of academics to highlight the Post Modernist gibberish coming out of Gender studies departments and the like

Zulu

seamus wrote: »

Poe's law. I genuinely can't tell if that's a serious or a sarcastic tweet.

I took it as sarcastic.

iptba

Roland Salty Rifle wrote: »

That twitter post seems like a p*ss take. :rolleyes:

It's a p*ss take/being sarcastic. If one follows the account, it's clear where they are coming from.

Save

iptba

(UK)

Ex-husbands who don't pay up after divorce could face lose their driving licenses or passports

- The only penalty a wife can ask for now is for husband to get prison sentence
- Proposals mean husbands who don't pay could be banned from driving for a year
- It was also recommended that judges have powers to confiscate passports
- Justice Secretary Liz Truss will decide if these should form the basis of new laws

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4035280/Ex-husbands-don-t-pay-divorce-lose-driving-licenses-passports.html

I'm not sure I'm against this but it would be good, if they are going to give sanctions for this, that at the same time they also consider sanctions for parents who get in the way of allowing the other parent have access to their child(ren).

iptba

iptba wrote: »

Although it's called "The Red Pill", my impression is it doesn't focus on that community.

Here's an extended preview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK7n_XA40V8

Some feminists are continuing to try to block screenings of this:

Now playing at a theatre near you: Attack of the feminist killjoys

A small family business has fallen victim to a blatant attack against free speech, with so-called feminist keyboard warriors swamping it with negative customer reviews over a decision to screen a controversial men’s rights documentary.

From:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/film/now-playing-at-a-theatre-near-you-attack-of-the-feminist-killjoys/news-story/39a0e3c56c80b281f45fdc2d0e6bcae2

In October last year, the owner of Melbourne’s Kino Cinema cancelled the Australian premiere of the film after receiving a 2000-signature online petition. The premiere eventually went ahead at another secret location; a Sydney screening the following month was similarly scrapped.

Sn@kebite

iptba wrote: »

Some feminists are continuing to try to block screenings of this:

From:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/film/now-playing-at-a-theatre-near-you-attack-of-the-feminist-killjoys/news-story/39a0e3c56c80b281f45fdc2d0e6bcae2

It's quite ironic really isn't it. Feminists say they want it blocked because "it's hate speech" (even though it includes interviews with very prominent {rich, white female} feminists). But the thing is if it was just misogynistic drivel surely allowing it to be screened would show it is hate speech which would support their claims and damage men's movements. So the question becomes.. a very rhetorical, what are feminists so afraid of?

NI24

^^^
I'm not exactly sure why the poster above would think hate speech would damage any movement, let alone a men's movement. The KKK, the eugenics movement, nationalist movements, even Trump's campaign all employ various forms of hate speech and just generally crazy ideas and they thrive. If anything, hate speech tends to draw in more recruits.

orubiru

NI24 wrote: »

^^^
I'm not exactly sure why the poster above would think hate speech would damage any movement, let alone a men's movement. The KKK, the eugenics movement, nationalist movements, even Trump's campaign all employ various forms of hate speech and just generally crazy ideas and they thrive. If anything, hate speech tends to draw in more recruits.

Does it really matter? Why can't I decide for myself if it's hate speech or not?

Why have people taken it upon themselves to say to the rest of us "you can't watch this documentary because it contains hate speech and is sympathetic towards people who spread hate speech".

Have the people trying to block the screenings of the documentary actually seen the documentary? If not then what grounds are there for trying to stop others from seeing it? It's just a documentary so what's the big deal?

No. Let me watch the documentary and I'll decide for myself.

masculinist

Sn@kebite wrote: »

It's quite ironic really isn't it. Feminists say they want it blocked because "it's hate speech" (even though it includes interviews with very prominent {rich, white female} feminists). But the thing is if it was just misogynistic drivel surely allowing it to be screened would show it is hate speech which would support their claims and damage men's movements. So the question becomes.. a very rhetorical, what are feminists so afraid of?

Hillarys hate speech backfired didnt it . Calling half the population Deplorables.

Wibbs

orubiru wrote: »

No. Let me watch the documentary and I'll decide for myself.

Indeed. I have always held the opinion that any question can be asked and questions about current societal givens should be asked. If they can be answered to the satisfaction of those of rounded mind, then where is the problem? If the purveyors of any current "truth" call for censorship, my usual conclusion is insecurity over their position, or ignorance of it beyond the accepted "wisdom".

Every stupid idea in history that became a current societal given has called for censorship of questions. From slavery to racism, to ironically equality of the genders. It was only by constant questioning(and basic economics) did these ideas become untenable.

More simply; if some tenets of current feminism are so obviously right, what are some of these advocates of same so afraid of?

JRant

NI24 wrote: »

^^^
I'm not exactly sure why the poster above would think hate speech would damage any movement, let alone a men's movement. The KKK, the eugenics movement, nationalist movements, even Trump's campaign all employ various forms of hate speech and just generally crazy ideas and they thrive. If anything, hate speech tends to draw in more recruits.

Indeed, it's such a good tactic that it has been employed by the modern feminist movement to great effect. They know it works and don't want the men's right groups getting a slice of their victim pie so will, rather ironically, use hate speech to shout down their opponents.

All ideologues use these tactics and the feminists have reached Jedi knight status in its use.

Sn@kebite

NI24 wrote: »

^^^
I'm not exactly sure why the poster above would think hate speech would damage any movement, let alone a men's movement. The KKK, the eugenics movement, nationalist movements, even Trump's campaign all employ various forms of hate speech and just generally crazy ideas and they thrive. If anything, hate speech tends to draw in more recruits.

It also depends on who is defining what hate speech is. But I don't agree with you. I think maybe not initially but it does damage things. I think moderate feminists have an awful time defending their movements due to the damage the radical feminists are doing. And on of the reasons (imo) Trump rose and succeeded is because of the anti-male bigotry with in radical feminism and the constant persistant attacks on men from within it. The 'mansplaining' crowd, now men can't even sit correctly or we're manspreading. It is a backlash against their bull****, and there is also a load of bull**** within Trump supporters.