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; } } }

Child Item

Return of Kings, men's opinions

poundapunnet

ROK aims to usher the return of the masculine man in a world where masculinity is being increasingly punished and shamed in favor of creating an androgynous and politically-correct society that allows women to assert superiority and control over men. Sadly, yesterday’s masculinity is today’s misogyny. The site intends to be a safe space on the web for those men who don’t agree with the direction that Western culture is headed.

http://www.returnofkings.com/about

Honestly I nearly hesitate to send any more attention its way, but I'm curious to get some men's views on this. The above mission statement doesn't sound a million bajillion miles away from a lot of opinions I've seen expressed on here, but then the content of the site is absolutely vitriolic. I made the mistake of engaging with people in the comments section yesterday on one article, holy hell, if keystrokes could kill.

I realise it's probably being deliberately provocative to get attention, and that it's not a hugely popular site, but is it actually really an accurate reflection of views held by any significant amount of men? Do ye see the appeal of having a space where women and especially any kind of feminism or political correctness is verboten? If so, is this the kind of space ye want?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

bnt

I went to that site and clicked on the "Game" category. Suffice to say that that site's content strays far, far away from "men's rights" as I understand it, in to bog standard PUA & mysogyny.

Morph the Cat

smcgiff wrote: »

Looks like a piss take to me.

It's not - and there's a another site similar to it for generic lads, called Joe.ie

FunLover18

Reminds me of the Tony Hancock episode where he sets up the Male Suffregettes

GalwayGuy2

QFT.

Oh, ye old folk and your lingo. What does that mean?

Wibbs

bnt wrote: »

I went to that site and clicked on the "Game" category. Suffice to say that that site's content strays far, far away from "men's rights" as I understand it, in to bog standard PUA & mysogyny.

IMH B the PUA stuff is a symptom for the want of a better word for a wider philosophy. Their misogyny - and that's what it surely is - is aimed at a particular type of woman. The type that "did them wrong/broke their hearts". And I'll be honest here I know that broad type and I could well see how they might come to those kind of conclusions. If that's all their experience led them to believe.

You can even see the type of woman writ large in PUA and often MRA philosophy. You could damn near build a "Thundering Bitch"(tm) from their system. THink about the the type who would fall for PUA stuff, "negs" and "Being a bit of a Dick((tm) Wibbs PUA school) and "peacocking" and "shít tests" and all that wilder stuff beyond saying hello to a woman. It's a blueprint for a below normal IQ bitch/wagon/gobshíte. A lot of these guys think *EDIT for clarity* don't realise that when women reply that they wouldn't fall for that guff, they may actually be telling the truth as they're normal non self absorbed human beings who happen to have hair and eyes and lips and tits and bums and legs... oh god legs... I need to lay down...

*intermission*...

The problem is they assign that minority type to all women. Well with caveats. Certain foreign/exotic women are given more of the benefit of the doubt.

Again IMH I reckon one could head off at the pass the more nasty end of PUA/MRA scene early on if you could gather up the type of man prone to preselecting for bitches at 17 and warn them of the signs and how to avoid same like the plague and if they get friendzoned with one then make with the beatings.

I read that site and think; hmmm let's flip it around and imagine a site set up by women, (mostly young) women who have gone through a series of woman beating, controlling nasty bastard men, even preselecting them*. Who then assume - quite naturally, if in error - that all men are woman beating, controlling nasty bastards. Add in a few older more experienced women who didn't learn to avoid such bastards and I reckon you'd have a very similar site indeed, but from the other side. I've seen that kinda vibe in the more scary haired and eyed "feminist" blogs, where you are left wondering "jayzuz, dial it back Luv**. Who pissed in your cornflakes to make you so angry?".

*I'd say we all know an example of that woman. One bastard is unfortunate, three in a row is a pattern and it ain't the men. Oh the men and I use the term broadly are bastards who would be best served in a darkened room and other men breaking out the hurls... but if you find yourself always with bastards that's more on you. Not your fault as such, given childhood shíte is likely influencing you, but at some point you have to see this and get help to break the cycle, because mad thought that this is, most men aren't bastards. They may be temporary gobshítes at times(so are you so quit the sniggering at the back

) but they're not bastards.

** added the Luv to get the real radical Jezebelers twitching. Yep I'm a prick. Shoot me

Wibbs

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Oh, ye old folk and your lingo. What does that mean?

Bloody kids these days *Grandpa Simpson voice* QFT = Quoted For Truth.

[Deleted User]

Wibbs wrote: »

Bloody kids these days *Grandpa Simpson voice* QFT = Quoted For Truth.

I always thought it meant Quite F**king True!

I didn't know what LMGTFY meant, so I googled it.

OT, I had a quick look at that site and needed a shower. Ugly thoughts and ugly words all over the place.

Czarcasm

Wibbs wrote: »

Bloody kids these days *Grandpa Simpson voice* QFT = Quoted For Truth.

Candie wrote: »

I always thought it meant Quite F**king True!

I didn't know what LMGTFY meant, so I googled it.

OT, I had a quick look at that site and needed a shower. Ugly thoughts and ugly words all over the place.

Given Wibbs was quoting a reference to textile mills and the industrial revolution I was thinking "Quaker Factory Textiles"

GalwayGuy2

I've seen that kinda vibe in the more scary haired and eyed "feminist" blogs, where you are left wondering "jayzuz, dial it back Luv**. Who pissed in your cornflakes to make you so angry?".

Jesus Wibbs, that post was a bit of a rant.

I just quoted this because I recently came to the same revelation. I honestly wish I could see those sexist people as, you know, inhuman misandrists. But, I honestly can't. You just really, really feel bad for some of the writers on Jezebel, Guardian, Etc.

It's kind of like that article about the bus driver comments a while back? If you go down to the part about the train, and the short skirt, you can see classic signs of anxiety issues.

These websites are pretty sad for everybody to be honest. Having fear of men/women generates fear for men/women and this leads to hatred for men/women.

Wibbs

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Jesus Wibbs, that post was a bit of a rant.

Eh for me GG that's more like a haiku. Boards.ie pay me by the letter, so blame them

I agree with you. Anger comes from somewhere, regardless of gender. Sometimes the anger is justified, but when it's consistent it's usually more internal and personal than external and universal. The problem is this interweb thingy all too often makes the former look like the latter.

hatrickpatrick

Haven't read anything about this specific movement yet, but roadway speaking I do support the idea of fighting the increasing marginalization of masculinity, particularly in young people.

Seeing ads about abusive teen relationships directed solely at young boys and seeing so many boys being drugged and medicated for being boys and having lots of energy is pretty soul crushing.

RDM_83 again

Pushtrak wrote: »

Supportive of the nanny state? You'll need to expand on that one.

Ah I meant stuff like restrictions on advertising e.g the ban photoshopping of images idea as a frivolous idea to on the more serious end the idea of gender quotas.

Pushtrak wrote: »

I've seen hypocrisy levelled as an accusation. An example being, 'feminists want equal rights, but don't hit me because I'm a girl'. I wouldn't advocate going out hitting anyone so was never too swayed by that one. Any better ones you can think of?

I think its a fairly valid criticism when violence against men has a level of tacit acceptability in the media and wider society.
e.g A slap in the face for causing offense acceptable F to M, completely unacceptable M to F.

In terms of the view built up from online reading each site is a different subset of posters and none is representative of wider society as a whole but each does represent a subsection (of the computer literate) population.

Trying to find a link to how Fathers for Rights are viewed has proved rather unsuccessful considering I just keep finding things about them committing actual criminal offenses!
But I think a good illustration of my point about how the fringe of MRA is viewed as dangerous in a way that the worst sections of radical Feminism is not is the fact that the Southern Poverty Law Center (which is a fairly well respected rights organization) describes some of them as hot beds of dangerous hatred.
Even in their justification/reply to the controversy this decision shows their hypocrisy with allowing someone with some pretty obnoxious beliefs to dismiss concerns

Cathy Brennan owns the domain RadFem Hub. “I don’t hate men,” she told me. “I have a father, I have a brother, I have a son. The war that Paul Elam is waging is in his head. I worry about women and children and the increasing violence in our society.” When I asked her what she thought of Solanas’ “Scum Manifesto,” she laughed. “I view it as A Modest Proposal-type work of literature, a satire. It’s brilliant, but it’s not my personal bible.

LINK
This manifesto is by a repeated attempted murderer, the person being interviewed has been accused of inciting hatred towards transgender people. But these issues are apparently harmless and not worth official censure or condemnation.

Pushtrak wrote: »

A person is overly sensitive when they care about something the accuser doesn't. It isn't really an informative label or descriptor.

Not really, while it can be used to dismiss someones valid opinion and we can't assume the impacts of seemingly trivial actions on people, over sensitivity is sometimes a valid criticism. For example Mary Whitehouse is a good example of oversensitivity (the stuff about violence e.g campaigning against Dr Who not the homophobic stuff).

Pushtrak wrote: »

Supportive of the nanny state? You'll need to expand on that one.

Ah I meant stuff like restrictions on advertising e.g the ban photoshopping of images idea as a frivolous idea to on the more serious end the idea of gender quotas.

Pushtrak wrote: »

I've seen hypocrisy levelled as an accusation. An example being, 'feminists want equal rights, but don't hit me because I'm a girl'. I wouldn't advocate going out hitting anyone so was never too swayed by that one. Any better ones you can think of?

I think its a fairly valid criticism when violence against men has a level of tacit acceptability in the media and wider society.
e.g A slap in the face for causing offense acceptable F to M, completely unacceptable M to F.

Sorry my point wasn't clearer but it boils down to the fact that in retrospect the conversation was interesting aside from simply being a good ramble on because here was a smart woman complaining about feminism while at the same time doing a job that probably would have been considered "mans" work a few decades ago and still definitely wouldn't be a job conductive to being a "girly" girl (no offense meant but I can't think of a better way of describing what quiet physical work in mud etc while wearing PPE is).

Pushtrak

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Ah I meant stuff like restrictions on advertising e.g the ban photoshopping of images idea as a frivolous idea to on the more serious end the idea of gender quotas.

First I'm hearing of that, and the example I found is one I'd very much support.

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-moves-toward-banning-use-of-photoshop-in-cosmetics-ads-2011-12

Without that, it'd be tantamount to false advertising.

Not really, while it can be used to dismiss someones valid opinion and we can't assume the impacts of seemingly trivial actions on people, over sensitivity is sometimes a valid criticism. For example Mary Whitehouse is a good example of oversensitivity (the stuff about violence e.g campaigning against Dr Who not the homophobic stuff).

She is a case in point against social conservatism/religious beliefs, no?

Sorry my point wasn't clearer but it boils down to the fact that in retrospect the conversation was interesting aside from simply being a good ramble on because here was a smart woman complaining about feminism while at the same time doing a job that probably would have been considered "mans" work a few decades ago and still definitely wouldn't be a job conductive to being a "girly" girl (no offense meant but I can't think of a better way of describing what quiet physical work in mud etc while wearing PPE is).

That brings to mind an article I was reading somewhere about the gender wage gap. It was a research paper written by feminists. They mentioned that in interviews, women who were unemployed were generally saying the gender wage gap is the fault of men.

They interviewed someone they described somewhat nebulously as 'high skilled professional' or something as I recall. Her thoughts were that women generally went in to part time work more frequently and went for different types of jobs. It seems all the evidence paints this way. I stopped reading as the writers of the piece immediately discarded that. I'll not be able to link to it unfortunately. First, I don't have the link, and second, it was on JStor which I have access to for uni.

phill106

Was going to join but wife won't let me

Cantona's Collars

phill106 wrote: »

Was going to join but wife won't let me

Off with her head!!!

Sleepy

TBH, I think it's a natural backlash against feminism. That's not to say I agree with everything they espouse but I can understand where they're coming from. They're the male equivalent of the extremists among feminists. The only difference is that the nutjobs on the other side have far more feminists to claim to speak on behalf of that appear quite happy to leave them rant rather than deriding them as the misandrists that they are.

This kind of group are exactly what happens when you try to create equality by advancing the case of one side of a demographic split. In the US you can see the same sort of reaction against "affirmative action" policies etc. brought in to appease the "African American" caucus: the increase in support for white supremacist groups.

If we want equality, it's quite simple to attain: remove all references to gender, race, sexuality, religion from our laws and society will eventually catch up to that legal framework.

anncoates

If a name could high five another guy, flick his arse in the shower with a wet towel knot and go WOOOAAAHH, Return of Kings would surely be it.

Wibbs

Naw AC they're way too homophobic for that.

Femme_Fatale

Sleepy wrote: »

TBH, I think it's a natural backlash against feminism.

Yes, it's understandable that there was going to be a backlash against militant, fanatical feminism.

That's not to say I agree with everything they espouse but I can understand where they're coming from.

Noice. They go on about how much women are the enemy and you "can understand where they're coming from"?

They're the male equivalent of the extremists among feminists. The only difference is that the nutjobs on the other side have far more feminists to claim to speak on behalf of that

Oh they'll grow, no doubt.

happy to leave them rant rather than deriding them as the misandrists that they are.

Kinda like your take on these lads.

If they were actually fighting for men's rights rather than using these grievances as a stick to beat all women (not just feminists, women) you'd have a point. It's quite baffling that you'd read some of the stuff on that forum about "sluts" and the like, and say you "can understand where they're coming from". I see you're still saying crazy feminists = all feminists too, even though that's the very same as saying crazies like these guys = all men's rights activists.

Wibbs

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Noice. They go on about how much women are the enemy and you "can understand where they're coming from"?

Add me to that list, however with this caveat; as I reckoned before these guys have a slanted worldview with a huge confirmation bias that selects for a particular kind, a subset of woman and that particular subest is a) more likely to fall for PUA/Alpha guff and b) more likely to be the thundering wagons these guys describe. After a while all the women these guys interact with tend to be this type. The normal woman out there will shy off the PUA stuff so they'll label her a feminist, so never get to interact beyond trying to the legover(tm) in a club.

The antifeminist backlash bits? Well I have some sympathy there and it's not just "radical/militant" feminist stuff either, it's more everyday background noise than that. Even givens for many. Examples?

The gender paygap. There isn't one in the west. Not when you compare like with like and hours worked.

Domestic abuse. Nearly half of all domestic abuse that is reported the woman is the attacker. How many mens support and shelters have we heard about?

Rape culture. Usually built on the bedrock of the one in four women will be raped at college stat. Turns out it's a nonsense, a fudge, where the "researcher" applied her beliefs to a half baked sample size.

Going on suicide stats men are far more affected by divorce than women. Three times more likely to take thier own lives going through one(women's suicide stats stay stable).

Women are shortchanged in the medical field. Nonsense. Compare the money just aimed at breast cancer compared to all male speciifc cancers (testicular, prostate etc).

Women are shortchanged in education. Funny how more women than men are graduates and that number increases year on year.

Men's fatherhood rights? Good luck anyone defending that one.

The list is long enough. Now luckily in Ireland we're a lot more chilled about much of this stuff, but it's way worse in the US where these yahoos are based. While their anger and daftness is well risible in spots I can defo see how an American male might have more than little bit of WTF. Look at the US schools were youngfellas of 6 and 8 have been suspended for "sexual harrassment" because they kissed a girl on the cheek. Or the amount of male kids on meds for dodgy behaviour. Like I say you can see where some of this comes from and how some men, particularly in the US are overreacting against it.

Sleepy

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Yes, it's understandable that there was going to be a backlash against militant, fanatical feminism.

Nope, all feminism. The moderates give the fanatics their platform and, no doubt, their funding. Feminism will never achieve equality simply because it's not striving for it.

Noice. They go on about how much women are the enemy and you "can understand where they're coming from"?

TBH, I barely glanced at the link. One look was enough to get the idea: it's an MRA version of Jezebel. I'm not going to browse either site for long lest my visit to the site is confused with support for their bile. Wibbs made the point more eloquently than me but my take on it would be that understanding the position someone makes an irrational argument from doesn't mean I agree with or support them. For example: I can understand why those with poor education feel aggrieved that "fordiners" are "taking their jobs" but whilst I understand him/her, I still believe that it's their own fault if they failed to get a sufficient education (or simply behave in a civil enough fashion) to make them employable.

Oh they'll grow, no doubt.

How do you mean? You believe the male rights movement will grow? Just the nut-job extremists? Or both?

As long as feminism is given such influence in our society, I expect they will. If we could get the moderates on both sides to form an egalitarian movement, however, I can only see the nutjobs on both sides finding themselves without much of an audience.

If they were actually fighting for men's rights rather than using these grievances as a stick to beat all women (not just feminists, women) you'd have a point. It's quite baffling that you'd read some of the stuff on that forum about "sluts" and the like, and say you "can understand where they're coming from". I see you're still saying crazy feminists = all feminists too, even though that's the very same as saying crazies like these guys = all men's rights activists.

MRA extremists will refer to women as sluts in the same way that Feminist extremists will refer to all men as rapists.

If I wasn't clear enough in my OP: these guys are morons. What you have to ask yourself though is the following: would they exist if those of us who wanted equality sought it together instead of dividing along (predominantly) gender lines?

Burky126

It could be worse.The site could of been called 'Return of Jedi...'

Pushtrak

Sleepy wrote: »

Nope, all feminism. The moderates give the fanatics their platform and, no doubt, their funding. Feminism will never achieve equality simply because it's not striving for it.

That doesn't seem quite in line with reality. Feminism on the whole is largely taken as a certain type of radical feminist. The moderates can't give a platform to fanatics as they aren't even recognised as a group. If a group is seen to be a radicalised movement, there can be no moderate providing a platform element at play.

TBH, I barely glanced at the link. One look was enough to get the idea: it's an MRA version of Jezebel.

The consensus seems to be that it is significantly worse than that, actually.

BraziliaNZ

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Haha! looks like you'll have to ban me then for being a 6'1, 14 stone whiskey drinking gay who lifts and can weld and all that.

I'd love to see you try to out masculinise me in fairness, OP

Well he could easily show you up as a fairy by having sex with a real woman

seenitall

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

Well he could easily show you up as a fairy by having sex with a real woman

LOL, I bet you wouldn't be so quick to say that to his face.

Sounds like that website would be just your kind of thing.

[Deleted User]

Holy crap that's a terrible website. Is it definitely not satirical? I've read Jezebel a couple of times and it has its fair share of loonies but I've never seen anything as bad as some of the crap on ROK there.

6. A woman’s value is mainly determined by her fertility and beauty. A man’s value is mainly determined by his resources, intellect, and character.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

strobe

Serious stench of "poor me, the pretty girls never want to be my girlfriend... ****ing bitches" off that whole site.

Not shocked they have a section of the site dedicated to 'game'.

Wallowing in that level of self petty and bitterness can't be good, mental health wise.

You'd almost petty them if they didn't all come across as so consistantly unlikable.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Holy crap that's a terrible website. Is it definitely not satirical? I've read Jezebel a couple of times and it has its fair share of loonies but I've never seen anything as bad as some of the crap on ROK there.

Well H as I said if you went back a couple of centuries(if even that) or look to more patriarchal cultures today then that opinion would hold quite a bit of weight.

Where women had little political power(if any), men were seen as the the "providers" and women as the "babymakers"(elder women beyond such were valued as wise). Even in pre farming cultures where the gender roles were well delineated, if more a shared burden, female fecundity was highly valued. About the earliest portable art our ancestors created were fertility statues(or most likely to be). Hell look in things like the bible and talk of "barren women" and god laying on the hands, dirty deity. Of course no one suggested the bloke could be the one shooting blanks... Look at Mary FFS. The mother of God. Ultimate oneupmanship among her mates on a coffee morning that one.

Look at Henry the Eighth. Kept going through women to find one that would pop out a male heir for him. He helped something as monumental as the reformation along with this need. It was a big deal.

These guys are out of date and making the rookie mistake of thinking cultural and technological changes don't affect nature. They assume it's all one way. They're probably into Paleo diets for the same simplistic reasoning. Bless.

Few examples? Reliable contraception means planned parenting is possible in ways our ancestors wouldn't have fathomed. It means women can be freed from their wombs and have sexual enjoyment and safety more like mens. Don't forget a century ago in the west a scary number of women died in childbirth. Go back to the middle ages and it was a bloodbath. Because of the massive drop in childhood mortality(1 in 4 Victorian kids didn't see their teens), women and indeed men can choose to have fewer kids and have them later when they're more established. DNA testing means women(and men) playing away can be more easily spotted. Egg freezing and artificial insemination has shifted the landscape even more. Never mind that women now have more political and social agency than ever before. Some might argue in some areas more than men. Big changes.

Yes many of these are ahead of the cultures curve, but not that far ahead and we will catch up. The human mind and culture is very plastic in nature. We went from hunter gatherers living in small mobile bands to living cheek by jowl in cities within remarkably few generations.

Wibbs

strobe wrote: »

Serious stench of "poor me, the pretty girls never want to be my girlfriend... ****ing bitches" off that whole site.

Yes though with at least some of them judging by a brief sniff at the forum attached, it's more a case of "poor me, the pretty bitches never wanted to be my girlfriend, now I get the pretty bitches because of "game" and keeping them at arms length*, therefore women are all bitches". The problem is(among many) is they've just exchanged getting nowhere with bitches to getting somewhere with them. The target hasn't changed, but they think the target equals women as an entire gender.

* Much of this "game" guff can be condensed down to "treat em mean, keep em keen". Again that works(even on men). It actually does, but only with... well, morons, or actually fragile people.

Femme_Fatale

Sleepy wrote: »

Nope, all feminism. The moderates give the fanatics their platform and, no doubt, their funding.

Using that logic, the same thing applies to moderate men's rights activists (which I don't agree it does, because I am able to separate the loons from the normal people).

How do you mean? You believe the male rights movement will grow? Just the nut-job extremists? Or both?

Both.

MRA extremists will refer to women as sluts in the same way that Feminist extremists will refer to all men as rapists.

I know they will, what's your point?

If I wasn't clear enough in my OP: these guys are morons. What you have to ask yourself though is the following: would they exist if those of us who wanted equality sought it together instead of dividing along (predominantly) gender lines?

I already acknowledged that this is a backlash against militant feminism (by people who also hate moderate feminists - and women full stop) but misogyny has always existed.