Jump to content

Amanda, is this you?


Recommended Posts

 

MRAs are the only group more annoying than SJWs!

You're not kidding.

 

It's kind of like a group of guys got together and decided that the best way to fight feminism is to somehow manage to be MORE OBNOXIOUS in every manner that makes the gender studies set so asinine in the first place: playing the victim, exploiting legitimate grievances to bolster their own sense of self righteousness and entitlement, using romantic and sexual rejection as weapons in their stupid little charades, pseudo intellectual posturing, herd mentality and so on.

 

It is virtually impossible for any kind of "woman's issue" to come up online without attracting the MRAs in droves, making all the progressives crazy. MRAs are good in that sense. Feminism has been mainly about sexual hang-ups, mommy/daddy issues and an almost Victorian idealization of women passsing itself off as a gender based civil rights movement for far, FAR too long now. They DESERVE the MRAs.

 

It's everybody else who doesn't deserve them. Especially males like myself who think that the REAL "male privilege" has been merciful exemption from the mollycoddling influence of political correctness.

 

^This, pretty much.

 

MRA's are a bunch of whiny guys who want to be victims and revel in their perceived oppression, blaming women for everything and complaining that they cannot get sex whenever they want it.

 

A perfect example of the MRA mindset: One of their favorite topics is the male suicide rate, and how it has been largely ignored. Okay, this is a valid issue. Suicide is the chief cause of death in men under 50. Certainly an issue to address. So, if the MRA's care so much, you'd think they would be out there working to raise awareness, creating charities, or just raising money for the issue, and all that, right? You'd be mistaken. That would take, y'know, actual work, and we can't have that. Besides, actually doing something to help men would contradict their claims that they are oppressed.

 

Nah, they'd just rather sit on their computers and whine on Reddit about it. Surely that's a more worthy cause.

 

Meanwhile, the only charity in the world dedicated to addressing the male suicide rate, CALM, was founded and headed not just by a woman, but by *shock and horrors* a FEMINIST. *gasp* One of those eeeeevil feminists they hate so much and blame for all their suffering is actually doing more to address a male issue than all the MRA put together. The irony is so thick, you could almost cut it with a knife.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

 

But hey- thanks for um.. thinking of me pong. Question- where do you find this stuff?

 

I'm of the opinion Pong is a member of a Portlandia-but-for-realz message board where all they do is troll and spam each other with crazy sh*t like this all day, and every once in a while, he finds a nugget of gold like this, and sends it our way.

 

It's either that, or he is getting all Jayson Blair on us, and writing some of this stuff himself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

MRA's are a bunch of whiny guys who want to be victims and revel in their perceived oppression, blaming women for everything and complaining that they cannot get sex whenever they want it.

It's a total victim/hate movement, and its adherents are grotesque.

 

Just because you have a dick and are desperately horny does not mean you are entitled to attention (i.e. sex) from women. If that's what you want, what you really really want, and you ain't getting it, see if there are things you can change about yourself that will make you less unappealing. This includes not being a whiny, hateful ***hole. Nobody likes a powerless bitch.

 

Work on yourself, but accept that people like what they like. Don't hate them for it. And if you still can't make yourself appealing, if you try and nobody wants you, lower your standards and/or learn to appreciate the benefits of living alone. Not everybody gets what they want in this life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a total victim/hate movement, and its adherents are grotesque.

 

Just because you have a dick and are desperately horny does not mean you are entitled to attention (i.e. sex) from women. If that's what you want, what you really really want, and you ain't getting it, see if there are things you can change about yourself that will make you less unappealing. This includes not being a whiny, hateful ***hole. Nobody likes a powerless bitch.

 

Work on yourself, but accept that people like what they like. Don't hate them for it. And if you still can't make yourself appealing, if you try and nobody wants you, lower your standards and/or learn to appreciate the benefits of living alone. Not everybody gets what they want in this life.

If you're that horny and deaperate, something's the matter with you. A certain desire for that kind of companionship is, in men at least, natural. But past a certain point it's an ego thing. Men have been measuring their "manliness" by the number and quality of women they bed for far too long now, oblivious to how weak and contemptable this makes them. We really ought to stop it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew a guy - an online friend a while back who got into the MRA thing. We shared a skepticism towards feminism, and a derisive attitude towards its excesses and siliness. Politically, this guy wasn't what you'd call reactionary. A sort of libertarian, right leaning liberal or "South Park Republican" as it were.

 

He was right into it a few months or so, then just stopped posting MRA stuff one day. A short time later, he came out and confirmed what we all know: About one in twenty of them is a genuine humanitarian trying to bring attention to legitimate issues men face. The other nineteen are, in his exact words, "Out to tyranize over women and homosexuals with an iron fist." He also talked a fair bit about thirsty women hanging on to the group and its members.

 

When he came out with this, he began to be stalked and threatened online by movement loyalists. He was greeted extrenlmely coldly and derisively on their sites, some of which I saw myself. The guy ended up disabling his facebook account and everything.

 

Again, this guy's not exactly an Occupy Wallstreet sort of fellow. If anything, he was to my right politically.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Work on yourself, but accept that people like what they like. Don't hate them for it. And if you still can't make yourself appealing, if you try and nobody wants you, lower your standards and/or learn to appreciate the benefits of living alone. Not everybody gets what they want in this life.

OK, I get that. People are not entitled to either sexual gratification or a romantic partner, and that sounds reasonable enough. But let me ask you a question- do you believe people are ever entitled to anything?

 

I don't mean something like health care, which perhaps has the best argument for an entitlement, since I can envision a scenario where someone is born with a life-threatening condition, and also born poor, and these may be factors that the person has no control over and quite literally mean the difference between life/death. That person probably has the best argument for an entitlement that I can think of.

 

But what about something not like that. Let's say someone is born gay and happens to be born into a backwards/redneck area. He can't find a job no matter where he goes because he's gay. Would you be saying the same thing to him? That he should "accept that people like what they like?" Or that perhaps he should "work on himself," and failing that, learn to live without a job? Should he be entitled to a job? After all, this is not a life/death situation- we can just sign him up on welfare and unemployment and call it a day. Let's say this hypothetical redneck area did just that- they sign gays up on welfare so they're not left improverished but allow full dscrimination because they don't like seeing gays in the workplace. Well.. he can find a way to live without the job- and so can the person learn to live without sexual gratification. Neither life would probably be very fulfilling, but "not everyone gets what they want in this life."

 

So when do entitlements become justified? MRA is out- fair enough (and I may agree), but are any racial or gender or sexuality based anti-discriminatory laws ever justified, and if so, when? After all, at the end of the day, they rest on the same logical line of reasoning as the more annoying MRA people- that people should be forced, by law if necessary, to recognize equal treatment when they otherwise wouldn't. I sense this is, at the end of the day, why most MRA people are frustrated. Don't get me wrong, I find them to be overbearingly annoying, but I don't find them any more annoying, to be quite honest, than the most recent wave of faux-feminism, which is less about highlighting injustice than demanding special treatment by brow beating, neo-puritan witch-hunts, with thinly veiled chants of "MINE! MINE! MINE!" While I can't say I "side" with the MRA folks, I can understand why they may look at this and see a double standard, when they're thinking "hey, I didn't choose to be born ugly."

 

Do you think the MRA people are any different than the fat acceptance people? You know, the people that are constantly complaining that people need to accept that they're fat, and in fact, to criticize the fat is some type of "war on fat?" (their words, not mine).

 

What about the people that are always b-tching about how Hollywood, or the entertainment industry, or whatever, needs to be "realistic" about how they depict body image, or that everyone in the media looks anorexic, or even going more general, people that say- there's not enough X (black people, women, whatever), in so and so film, and too many Y (usually white males)? These people tend to be fat women, but not always. Would it be appropriate to tell these people, hey- "accept that people like what they like" and nobody wants to see fat women on the screen?

 

 

Of course, if you think all of the above complaining is unjustified, and so are most anti-discrimination laws, then fair enough- you'd be logically consistant and I have no further issue. But I would have one last question- is there any time that correction of unequal treatment can ever be justified?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So when do entitlements become justified? MRA is out- fair enough (and I may agree), but are any racial or gender or sexuality based anti-discriminatory laws ever justified, and if so, when? After all, at the end of the day, they rest on the same logical line of reasoning as the more annoying MRA people- that people should be forced, by law if necessary, to recognize equal treatment when they otherwise wouldn't. I sense this is, at the end of the day, why most MRA people are frustrated. Don't get me wrong, I find them to be overbearingly annoying, but I don't find them any more annoying, to be quite honest, than the most recent wave of faux-feminism, which is less about highlighting injustice than demanding special treatment by brow beating, neo-puritan witch-hunts, with thinly veiled chants of "MINE! MINE! MINE!" While I can't say I "side" with the MRA folks, I can understand why they may look at this and see a double standard, when they're thinking "hey, I didn't choose to be born ugly."

Couldn't have said it better myself. The MRAs are a whole lotta chickens coming home to roost. MRAs act victimized by women's absense of sexual desire (at least for them) - while feminists act victimized by the very presence of male heterosexuality (except when they want "it" but we won't say that out loud) - you can decide which is worse because I can't. Make claims to victimhood and grievance the basis of how even basic rights, let alone public sympathy in general are doled out, then don't be surprised if every conceivable demographic slice starts wanting in at some point. Like I said above:

 

Feminism has been mainly about sexual hang-ups, mommy/daddy issues and an almost Victorian idealization of women passsing itself off as a gender based civil rights movement for far, FAR too long now. They DESERVE the MRAs.

Women in general are very fond of emphasizing just how redundant and unimportant men are to them, at least on a more personal intimate and - above all - sexual level. They're quite fond of portraying themselves as "untroubled by bestial thoughts and lusts of the flesh" as would have been claimed in Victorian times. In this manner, they come across as morally superior, more socially evolved and advantaged in personal relationships: women have what men want, after all. I think it also introduces a lot of "mother-son" as opposed to "adult-adult" dynamics into heterosexual relationships, which on a deep subconscious level might be what some people of both sexes want.

 

Now I know that this is mainly a whole lot of posturing and hides an insecure frame of mind towards intimate relationships. Understandable, people in general and women especially risk much in such affairs. But these MRA types, they don't get that. They get as insecure and fearful as all hell when women start with the feminist posturing and maternal moralizing. MRAs don't handle it well, naturally, but the feminists are quite cognizant of the fact they're stirring a hornet's nest here. Exploit people's insecurities and weaknesses long enough, and bad things will start happening sooner or later. Like I say, they deserve the MRAs. They deserve each other. It would make a good premise for a sit-com, some third wave feminist and an MRA. A sort of up to date take on Al Bundy vs. Marcie D'Arcy in Married With Children

 

As to your broader question of entitlements in general and when they become justified, that's a whole other matter. What I will say, though, is that I think Carrie's on to something here. And that something is that the MRAs and sundry groups like them are the symptom of a deeper problem in western, but in particular American culture: the exploitation of public sympathy through claims of victimhood, oppression, grievance and so forth to rationalize and get away with what is actually pretty crappy behavior: guilt tripping people, demanding special privilege and prerogative, silencing dissenters and those they disagree with, enabling their own discrimination against groups that fall outside their own charmed circle of preferred groups.

 

What about the people that are always b-tching about how Hollywood, or the entertainment industry, or whatever, needs to be "realistic" about how they depict body image, or that everyone in the media looks anorexic, or even going more general, people that say- there's not enough X (black people, women, whatever), in so and so film, and too many Y (usually white males)? These people tend to be fat women, but not always. Would it be appropriate to tell these people, hey- "accept that people like what they like" and nobody wants to see fat women on the screen?

Exactly, and that's the deeper problem here. Who decides which whiny social justice warriors get empathy and which don't? In my experience and observation, it's drawn up along political lines in general. Progressives sympathize with the groups with heavy democratic voting records - surprise surprise. Conservatives seem less disposed to this sort of thing, but when they do engage in it, the "victims" tend to be groups like Christians being persecuted, and the like. Each side, quite naturally, accuses the other of "playing the victim" and so on. And just imagine the kind of cultural landscape we'd be navigating if we tried to appease everyone? We might have to settle on a balance of some kind - criticize egregious cases of media portrayal of groups in a consiatently negative fashion, discrimination that deprives people of the essentials of life, but from there leave personal preference basically alone. Hard to say. No easy answers.
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I get that. People are not entitled to either sexual gratification or a romantic partner, and that sounds reasonable enough. But let me ask you a question- do you believe people are ever entitled to anything?

In the relationships you freely choose to engage in with other individuals, I think it's pretty simple. No, you are never entitled to anything, though you are entitled to legal protection from certain things.

 

So Bob doesn't have to let your unemployed ass sleep on his couch just because you were friends in high school, and Suzie doesn't have to agree to go out on a date with you just because you finally worked up the courage to ask her out. If you put Bob or Suzie in the hospital when they say "No way, creepy unemployed dude!" they are entitled to protection and perhaps compensation from you (hopefully you go to jail for awhile, too).

 

I believe that when you move beyond private relationships that codes of conduct and special treatment are helpful to society. So...

But what about something not like that. Let's say someone is born gay and happens to be born into a backwards/redneck area. He can't find a job no matter where he goes because he's gay. Would you be saying the same thing to him? That he should "accept that people like what they like?" Or that perhaps he should "work on himself," and failing that, learn to live without a job? Should he be entitled to a job? After all, this is not a life/death situation- we can just sign him up on welfare and unemployment and call it a day. Let's say this hypothetical redneck area did just that- they sign gays up on welfare so they're not left improverished but allow full dscrimination because they don't like seeing gays in the workplace. Well.. he can find a way to live without the job- and so can the person learn to live without sexual gratification. Neither life would probably be very fulfilling, but "not everyone gets what they want in this life."

First of all, a lot of people who say they "can't get jobs" are completely full of ****. A more accurate statement is "I am having trouble finding the job I want at the pay I think I deserve in the four hours I spend looking for work each week." Let's get that out of the way right now. I realize honest long-term unemployment happens (and I realize this is a separate issue), but am generally very incredulous when somebody tells me they "can't find a job." That being said...

 

Supposing an entire class of qualified people can't get a real job in some hypothetical redneck town because of bigotry, I say burn down the churches, lynch the bosses, and start over. An employer is welcome to privately hate gay people all they want, and is welcome not to have personal relationships with them if they choose. Allowing those private hang-ups create a class of permanently unemployed people fosters angry idle hands, puts an unfair strain on taxpayers, and creates stupid, artificial limitations on a community's skills and talents.

 

Remember, though, we're talking about a systemic problem here. We're talking about a place with an entire class of people not being able to find work at all, which I consider very harmful to the "greater good," and problematic enough to require a blowtorch.

 

If we were talking about people who simply desired a specific type of job when other work was available (e.g. unattractive, overweight Arby's workers demanding employment as underwear models because "equal" or "realistic" representation is going to save the world or whatever), I'd say piss off. Similarly, if we were talking about an isolated incident (e.g. Billy Bob's grocery store hasn't had an openly gay employee in 57 years, what gives?), I'd say "Don't shop there and let nature take its course."

So when do entitlements become justified? MRA is out- fair enough (and I may agree), but are any racial or gender or sexuality based anti-discriminatory laws ever justified, and if so, when? After all, at the end of the day, they rest on the same logical line of reasoning as the more annoying MRA people- that people should be forced, by law if necessary, to recognize equal treatment when they otherwise wouldn't. I sense this is, at the end of the day, why most MRA people are frustrated. Don't get me wrong, I find them to be overbearingly annoying, but I don't find them any more annoying, to be quite honest, than the most recent wave of faux-feminism, which is less about highlighting injustice than demanding special treatment by brow beating, neo-puritan witch-hunts, with thinly veiled chants of "MINE! MINE! MINE!" While I can't say I "side" with the MRA folks, I can understand why they may look at this and see a double standard, when they're thinking "hey, I didn't choose to be born ugly."

I think the enforcement of equal treatment become justified when systemic unequal treatment -- regardless of talent or qualification -- prevents a class of people from political representation, employment, and the hope of ever owning property.

 

Note: I'm not talking about people with the right to vote not being represented, but being actively thwarted via intimidation and dirty tricks. I'm not talking about people being denied the job of their choice, but being denied jobs they are qualified for (with no superficial requirements such as "must look appealing in underwear," or "must be able to stand for 4+ hours and lift 80lbs over your head") solely on the basis of their race, gender, religion, weight, sexual oritentation, etc.

 

Do you think the MRA people are any different than the fat acceptance people? You know, the people that are constantly complaining that people need to accept that they're fat, and in fact, to criticize the fat is some type of "war on fat?" (their words, not mine).

Similar, but different. MRAs feel that something they are entitled to (vaginas, respect, control, sandwiches) has been "taken away" by a corrupt society, while the mythical, rose-colored 1950s the fat acceptance people look back on exists in only a handful of paintings; they never had anything worth taking away in the first place.

 

What about the people that are always b-tching about how Hollywood, or the entertainment industry, or whatever, needs to be "realistic" about how they depict body image, or that everyone in the media looks anorexic, or even going more general, people that say- there's not enough X (black people, women, whatever), in so and so film, and too many Y (usually white males)? These people tend to be fat women, but not always. Would it be appropriate to tell these people, hey- "accept that people like what they like" and nobody wants to see fat women on the screen?

It is their right to be upset, I suppose. I have no doubt that for some people, never seeing anybody who look like them in heroic roles can be disheartening, perhaps even somewhat damaging to the psyche. At the same time, entertainment that goes beyond clever allegory into making ham-fisted social statements and/or making "social corrections" inevitably sucks. Every. Time. Don't I have a right not to have my intelligence insulted?

 

 

Of course, if you think all of the above complaining is unjustified, and so are most anti-discrimination laws, then fair enough- you'd be logically consistant and I have no further issue. But I would have one last question- is there any time that correction of unequal treatment can ever be justified?

Logical consistency is overrated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't read that wall of text; I have a feeling it's its own thread though.

 

Will read later when Amanda feels like less of a chore.

Oh come on. For me, that's basically a concise post.

 

You get my central point. Your argument is well taken, but are you willing to extend the same logical reasoning to other groups claiming to be aggrieved? If not, why not? Let's flip the characters a little bit, and are you singing the same tune?

 

You know how I feel about consistency. If you're not, IMO, you have to have a good reason why you aren't. Otherwise you're just monkeygirl with less typos.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...