Is it possible to be both a MGTOW/MRA and a socialist?

No. MRAs seem to think women are to blame, not porky.

If MRAs actually focused on real issues like the courts being biased in favour of the mother when concerning access to their children, or boys not doing as well in school as girls. There's maybe a few more things but holy fuck stop with the false-rape accusation, spermjacking, friendzone bullshit.

Didn't mean to post with the shitposting flag on.

Why is that both feminists and meninists loudest and most obnoxious adherents are both similarly fat and unnattractive?

Can't we just couple them off and be done with it?

Of course not. It's obsessive nonsense. I don't believe a single one of them could even understand any basic socialist concepts.

Triple-dubs of truth.

I don't disagree with what they say they stand for when it's along the lines of ending inequality any more than I disagree with feminism when it's about that, but like with the other side of the horseturdshoe, there are a bunch of thirsty, salty nutbars tacking on a bunch of bullshit that has more to do with entitlement than with gender equality.

Yes.

For those who don't know:
MRA stands for "men's rights activist/advocate." Most of the MRAs I've heard from are pretty much just that. They tend to be more right wing but I'm pretty sure that's because liberals are too busy being feminists. Some of them would be more than happy to argue that men's rights activism/advocacy is an action as opposed to an ideology, and you become an MRA by doing something to support the rights of men, same as you would become a WRA when you support the rights of women. Rights are a spooky concept but they're easy for normalfags to understand and they certainly are compatible with socialism, which could be framed as the right of workers (men and women both) to control the value of their labor. I've been following these people for a while now, and I've never seen the supposed hatred of women. There's a tendency among them to be careful not to say something that might be interpreted as such, and many of the more prominent MRAs are women, who have more cred with idpolers as not being woman haters.

Again for those who don't know:
MGTOW stands for "men going their own way." It's an umbrella term for men who have voluntary given up on having relationships with women, to some degree or other. It ranges from men who simply refuse to marry because they see the institution as against their interests all the way to men who avoid contact with women in general. There are even some who want to live off the grid to avoid engaging with a society they (correctly) realize only wants to exploit them. There are a lot of obnoxious douchebags who spout a lot of hateful shit about women for views on opinionstube. These are a minority who live off drama and the angst of men who have realized that broadly speaking, society sees them as tools to be exploited and women are socialized to see them that way too. There are plenty of smaller time MGTOW (middle aged men especially) who are not in it for the attention and just want to share their relationship experience and advice with other men who are in a bad place.

Pick up artists tend to get lumped in here as well but those guys are a separate group that has mutual dislike and often contempt with MRAs and MGTOWs. These are the people you're looking for if you want the "women are holes for me to fuck" types.

Uh… MRAs do talk about the stuff you say they should. I don't think I've ever seen them mention the friend zone as an issue. False rape allegations and spermjacking are real structural problems though. They affect fewer people than, say bias in courts (not just family courts but criminal courts as well), but that doesn't mean they aren't problems. It's a lot easier for a man to go to prison due to a false rape allegation than for someone to go to prison for false allegation of another crime, and there are men who have their lives disrupted for years because of it. The lucky ones get exonerated, and even then many people see them as pariahs.

As for spermjacking I'm sure that's very uncommon but the fact that it's possible is a problem. It points to the larger issue that men have no legal control over reproduction. That might not be such a big deal except if a woman is pregnant with his child (and in some places this doesn't need to be proven, she just has to declare a man the father) he is legally obligated to pay for the child whether or not he has interest or involvement in the child's life or if he even has the means to pay child support. Men routinely go to prison for failing to make these payments, often after having their car seized or some other punitive measure after missing payments. It's basically the same situation as when very poor people take out loans. The reason why people highlight spermjacking (which I haven't seen much of tbh) is because it's one of the most egregious scenarios, and is completely legal. Another on that gets similarly discussed is that a man could be raped by a woman (or a teenage boy screws his teacher), she gets pregnant, and now he's paying child support. Again, not saying it's likely but it is perfectly legal and holes like this indicate a lack of attention or care regarding the impact of the institutions involved.

If you're an egalitarian and you do your best to reject spooks, sure.
If you're just going to shit everything up the same way the feminists have, then please don't.

If anything I've seen far more gender-based hatred coming from the feminist camp. I've never actually seen one of these mythical woman-hating MRAs.

Me either, but you know what I have seen? Feminists distorting the words of MRAs to mean something they don't (Dave Futrelle aka Manboobz does this for a living) and mislabeling non-MRAs as MRAs.

Pic related is a perfect example. He's a batshit pick-up artist who really does only see women as sex objects, but he's not an MRA. He has said multiple times that he isn't, and he views the men's rights movement as pathetic virgins. That doesn't stop feminist rags from calling him an MRA though, because to them "MRA" just means "the bad men."

...

I'd definitely fall under that umbrella and I have actually voluntarily turned down potential relationships with women, but it's partly because my sexuality is fairly atypical and I'm not actually interested in vanilla sex.

MRA MGTOW is just bullshit idpol

How come leftypol can have an adult discussion on issues affecting men but have a tantrum when women's issues or race issues are brought up.

Is it because you're all kissless virgins?

This thread will derail soon, dont you worry.

Because this is the kind of shit that gets posted by people who want to have an "adult discussion" about womens' issues.

That's bullshit, it's because leftypol is deeply hypocritical, then wonders why normies don't listen to them.

This is how things generally play out

Said no over ever, but keep fighting that idpol-windmill of yours.

If by that you mean to ask if it is possible to be critical of the arbitrary gender roles imposed on men and be a socialist… then, of course, yes, it is possible. The only sound socialist position on these issues is to advocate the abolition of gender inequality in any way or form.

If by that you meant to ask if it possible to be part of that ridiculous bunch of retards whose only objective seems to be to compete for the idpol trophy with tumblr feminists and be a socialist, then no. Stop whining about women and read Marx.

Look at all these responses:

If this was a feminism thread you'd be crying your fucking eyes out about how Holla Forums is racist and sexist and evil and horrible. Oh wait, you're still doing that even now.

This is why you people are fucking cancer. Please go and shit up somewhere else, like reddit.

Yeah buddy I just imagined all the bigotry and hatred of women on this board. That's why anyone posting an an-fem flag is guaranteed 400 replies.
I'd post with the anfem flag now if I knew how.

Pointing out the obvious isn't fucking crying. You know Tumbr used to get on my nerves too until I saw how much it triggered GG and crpyto bigots like yourself.

Alot of idpol is just minorities complaining about being discriminated against BECAUSE OF WHITE IDPOL!

Keep getting triggered by minorities with the gall to comlpain about anything cause it's not class concious, but somehow this MRA MGTOOW bullshit is?

You all need to learn some basic fucking adult skills like empathy and listening instead of getting triggered all the time because you IDENTIFY with the white people SJWs are scrutinizing.

Have you even read the fucking thread? Did you just read OP and get so immensely triggered that you just had to post an angry response about how bigoted everyone is, complete with random capitalization no less?

It is really no surprise that every thread involving feminism turns to shit. The common factor is you.

Here, I will do it for you. According to you I should be getting 400 replies and if I don't it's because the typical response to an-fem posters has more to do with the content of their posts being bait and not the flag.

Yes, voluntary. It's also possible to be both incel and a MGTOW, because you've resigned yourself to not trying to have relationships with women.

Yeah its called having autism

Holla Forums gets triggered by feminism because 90% of the "feminist" posts here are people baiting. It doesn't matter anyway, because feminism is a supremacist ideology. So is a lot of racial politics. If people want to advocate for women's or minorities' rights, there's no issue except that it probably ignores class (and men's rights has this problem as well).

laughing at stupidity isn't getting triggered

Ngl this looks like a chart you would find on feministing. Cept with the genders flipped.

Not surprising´, As both parties love to play the victim. It´s the logical conclusion of idpol.

MY GOT, the first non-butt hurt counter argument.

I'm against feminism and race politics that's divorced from class too.

But it's still possible to recognize the loooong history of racism and sexism in this country and see that we are still very much living with the effects of that.

But leftypol get butt hurt at ANY mention of racism and sexism. Look at how all the feminists and anti-racist are smeared as posting bait or being supremacists.

There are TONS of statistics that show that these classes are oppressed base on their identity and not their relationship to the MoP.

I swear to go it's like listening to a bunch of Republicans when leftypol talks about sexism and race. They point to a couple of black porkies and MLK and declare racism and sexism over with.

i think it's literally impossible for a board on a chan to not have some form of a/pol/ogia. even one like this

...

muh spooky feminazis bring up court favorabilities and false rape too. it's completely relevant to feminism and how we see women as more weak and deserving of protection. mras hijack this and use this as an excuse to make muh celebrity rape scandals into fuel for their persecution complex. i still see people on here and 4chan defending cosby just because he's bill cosby

No projecty pwease.

There are TONS of statistics that show the exact opposite and Holla Forums will just love to share them with you.

No projecty pwease

The old ad hominum attack. I called out your ass backward violent sociopathic theories. Go set some cats on fire with your Holla Forums buddies or something. You ain't going to get anyone to buy into your foolishness here.

You mean un sourced not peer reviewed bullshit.
I told you guys he was a Holla Forumsyp

...

"How do you do, fellow leftists?"

No go away neckbeard

I will personally find an extra cold spot in the gulags for you retards…

On a serious note, the MRM and MGTOW are filled with pure reactionary additueds towards women, it really is (almost) incompatible by design…

wew lad

There was r/socialismmasculism like two years ago but it was stillborn

We need to bond with MRA to redeem ourselves and be more equalitarian.

...

Trying to please the other side of the IDpol coin just because we dislike the much larger and common feminist side doesn't make it any less identifiable and cancerous.

Identity politics in the trash, both left and right, male and female, black, white, yellow, what have you.

identiarian, i was too quick with spellcheck..

When will it end?

I think MGTOW would be easy to convert to socialist. In socialism gender quotas won't be needed so this makes it possible for entirely male or entirely female co-ops to exist. Also if there is no large class divide gold diggers would no longer be so common. This would appeal to them if you present it this way.

You keep lumping sexism and racism together even though they're very very different. And feminism very much is a supremacist ideology.

That's true for racial minorities and the sexual minority which is men.

Pretty sure you're just making this up. I can't recall seeing people make these kinds of arguments here outside of obvious bait. Looks to me like you're setting up a false dichotomy between "anti-racists like me" and "Republican bigots."

Is it possible to be a retard who calls themselves a "socialist"? Sure.

What does feminism actually do to try and fix this, since they have a lot more institutional power than the men's rights movement?

I will defend Bill Cosby because I've never seen evidence to support a guilty verdict, and the burden of proof belongs with whomever makes a positive claim. I've listened to testimonies of some of the women who accused him and they all described a situation in which they were willing participants.

Oh god so much fucking this…Holla Forumss despise of feminism is pretty retarded
usually its

Ive seen people here unironically call rosa luxemburg idpol…its a fucking mess…
i guess its what happens if you take imageboard """culture""" and mix it with leftists…

welcome to the post-political ideological field

Pretty much this.

MGTOW sure I guess, but a good socialist should be an MRA. The whole point of socialism is that people have a "right" to control the means of production, sometimes with other things included like "right to work." I dunno, last I checked men are people, so if you give people more rights you give men more rights.

Western civilization and the left by extension are mired in a lot of spooks about gender. Most people are blind to problems that men face "man up" etc. Women's lib did a lot to ease some of the shit that gender roles did to women, but men haven't had anything like that. I know people will immediately jump on the "feminism helps men too" line but that's pure ideology. Show me any examples of feminism actually doing something to men's benefit. Why are there still so few domestic violence shelters for men? Interpersonal violence is a systemic problem. Most abusers were themselves victims of abuse in the past. Sheltering battered men and helping them recover would reduce the number of men who batter women, so why doesn't feminism help fund men's shelters too? Could it be that feminism is a bourgeois controversy farm? Could it be that a large number of feminists just hate men and are ok with hurting some women if it means they get to hurt men too?

I want the polyps to leave.

Are you saying feminism isn't overrun with identity politics? What real issues does feminism address currently? You guys seem to be doing nothing but whining "why don't people on my board agree with me?"

...

So what you are telling me is to take communism… make it into not communism… and sell it to "normies" as communism?

what a genius idea

I have literally only ever seen feminists talk about false rape and court favorabilities when calling out other feminists on their bullshit. I've seen MRA's and MGTOW talk about it at length, and I've not actually seen much in the way of persecution complex talk with rape scandals.

Are you under the impression that Holla Forums is an accurate representation of MRA or something?

That sure is IDpol. I find it funny that some on Holla Forums will throw the entire MRA movement under a bus in the same manner Holla Forums throws Holla Forums under the SJW bus.

I really don't understand how MRAs got the reputation they did, it must just be a "neutral" effect where people want to seem smart by saying "both" sides of an issue are evil extremists. From everything I've read about MRAs and MGTOWs 90% of them just want better gender equality for situations where men get fucked over like child custody or circumcision. It's one of the most benign and reasonable sociopolitical movements I've ever seen.

No, I'm saying you have to explain communism to normalfags in terms they will actually be able to understand. Nobody is going to swoop in like an animu version of Stirner, snap their fingers and de-spook everyone. Most people are operating within a very warped worldview, and you have to take that into account when trying to communicate radically different ideas to them.

...

Dude what? Its "mans rights activists". They are just as identity politics as feminists.

You don't need to build your identity around your sex, equal rights are a normal thing to advocate for and anyone who tries to convince you you need to be part of some sort of special identity focussed movement is trying to peddle more than you wished for.

No im not saying that, im saying that it is counterproductive to dismiss everything remotley feminist as spooky idpol
Ok, liberal and """radical""" feminism do have a tendency to focus on unimportant bullshit but proletarian and actual radical left feminism does adress actual real problems…
combatting sexualised violence, and challenging the current hegemony in regards to gender etc.
just as an example…
Its not all the shitty SJeW strawman you see perpetuated by reactionary clowns on youtube…

Dude, it's the same shit you see with [pick an ideology]
Feminists do it with MRAs. A lot of Holla Forums does it with Holla Forums.
Holla Forums is irredeemably shit, but that doesn't make everyone posting here who's not fully on board with communism (let alone one user's version of it) is a Holla Forumsyp. For fuck's sake this is one of the top boards. Anybody can see it and come post here.

1 guy = all MRAs

If you actually read the context of that article you would see that he was just doing a gender flip of something that feminists were saying to illustrate how insane it is.

Besides, Paul Elam is a bandwagoning faggot who's just in it for the money.

you seem to be in denial

Ever looked at red pill theory communities?

imo he's a polyp thinking that lefties can be converted to his special flavor of anti-women idpol

I honestly have no idea what you're saying in relation to my post.

That's not what identity politics means. Targeting problems faced by a particular demographic isn't idpol. Idpol is when you pit one identity against another. MRAs don't say women are the enemy, they say society is structured in a way that disadvantages men. Feminism is idpol in part because very prominent feminists claim that men are oppressing women rather than women's problems being a systemic problem.

I honestly see nothing wrong with this.

...

OK, so here's some advice - when people try to dismiss feminism as a whole as useless idpol, you can respond by pointing out what left feminism is actually doing that solves real problems. Even with this post where you say you give an example, I've still not seen what left feminism actually does to set it apart from liberal feminism.

Those are pick-up artists. They have the same thing to say about MRAs that feminists do, i.e. that they're a bunch of neckbeard manbabies.

we talk to different MRAs then…

I'm saying the guy you replied to is just labeling people he disagrees with as Holla Forums.

1. That quote is taken out of context, and it was written largely because he knew people would take it out of context. See
2. He's specifically talking about women who are domestic abusers and telling men (sarcastically) to fight back using similar language that feminists use to describe beating men unprovoked.
3. Paul Elam is a cynical asshole who wants to make money off a social movement and shouldn't be taken as a representative of the people he's taking advantage of.

Or you're trying to apply a label to something that it doesn't fit.

They use completly differnent means even if their goals can be similar…
the liberal answer is to have meaningless debate…

radical left feminism?
sets up self defense workshops and starts educating about consent (for that specific example)
thats a bit different

they also use very different theory, a liberal feminist would not incoopreate hard anti capitalism into thier theory…
wether they are socialist, communist or anarchist feminists (yes they do actually exists…)
they are still socialist, communist or anarchist, and it obviously shows…

No dru MRA :DDDDD
the guys all self identify as MRAs.

Got a link? Whether or not it's identity politics would depend on what they're teaching.

Got a link?

Most of the time when somebody calls another person an MRA it's as a scare word synonymous with ebul woman hater. You saying they (unspecified people you've talked to) are MRAs doesn't really mean anything at this point.

fpbp

Ok…then maybe, if my anecdotal evidence dosnt count, (wich to be fair, it kinda dosnt) maybe just look at the average MRA…spend half an hour on twitter and youtube each and look through a few MRAs at random…youll be suprised what you see…

India, cant find the link right now…

I already do this. Maybe you should try it or stop labeling people as MRAs when they're MGTOWs or PUAs. You sound like you get your idea of what the men's rights movement is straight from We Hunted the Mammoth aka Manboobz aka Dave Futrelle. Actual MRAs tend to be pretty averse to saying anything that might be construed as sexist, because there are people writing at feminist rags who do it for their job.

a lot of people are more than one…and the ideas and additudes intersect…

Most of the time they don't. Especially not with PUA/MRAs. PUA/MGTOW are usually incompatible by definition. The MGTOWs who also identify as MRAs tend toward the "I'm just not going to get married" end of the MGTOW spectrum because the others have basically given up on any hope of improving society. The ones who think women are the enemy and that it's female nature destroying everything think the MRM is a joke because it's muh human nature and can't be fixed.

The kinds of arguments used to smear the MRM tend to rely heavily on conflating these groups. Yes, there are some intersections, but that doesn't mean you can say MRA = MGTOW = PUA. Neither does it make the conclusion that MRAs embody the worst qualities present in either of the other two because some overlap exists.

Conflating a group as diverse as MGTOW with some other group is even more negligent. There are centralized organizations for MRAs and to a lesser extent PUAs to use, but MGTOW is by definition decentralized and just a bunch of men doing their own thing under a vague and broad definition. Are you a man who does not want to get married? Congrats, you're a MGTOW. Are you a man who has become jaded to dating and just wants to stay single? Congrats, you're a MGTOW. On the other hand, there are MGTOW who think it's very serious business and spend a lot of time developing "theory" about why women ruin things. There are MGTOW who see it as an opportunity to make clickbaity videos to draw in views based on controversy. Given how easy it is to fall under this umbrella term, how prudent is it really to conclude based on someone's apparently being a MGTOW that they also think women are at fault for all the world's wrongs?

mgtow are just yuppies and occasionally very confused neckbeards. They're a reaction to a bourgeois deviance of feminism while doing nothing but promoting those same bourgeois ideals with a different identity in mind.
Lifestylists through and through and another step in the disassemblement of the Family and commodification of love and affection, they have no place in the Left or in any legitimate political movement.

The problem, as any good Marxist knows, is that the issues MRA/MGTOWs harp on do not stop at the male. Women are seen as the caregiver, the birther, thus they receive custody. Women are seen as the ones who are mental, who are crazy, thus in sexist fashion men cannot be like women. Women are weak and easy to over power and take advantage of, thus men cannot be raped by someone weaker. These problems are essentially side effects of sexism. Kind of funny how that worked out. But if men want these issues to stop, then they should agree that there is a need to end sexism. And that "ebil feminism" is the only way to do so.

Complete non-sequitur.

Also, the biggest single factor in muh wage gap is the fact that women are far more likely to take years off work (or quit entirely) when kids are born, while men tend to work longer hours to accommodate the cost. Even if you account for all other factors, you still can't close the gap until men are acting as primary caregiver as often as women are. But for some reason feminists don't like to raise that issue and divert attention from the gap in child care to "but see it's really just sexism against women." Meanwhile there's a material problem right in front of them that could be addressed, at least mitigated, and solving it is necessary to achieving the goal of equal income. Rather than address a problem that MRAs bring up all the time and that feminists logically should care about, they distract from the material issue. "It's all the fault of sexism against women" is a just-so story that you have bought into, almost certainly because it aligns with your own prejudices.

Holy shit this is exactly like saying the only way to be good is to be Christian.

Historically illiterate egalitarianism belong in >>>/liberty/ or >>>Holla Forums . Common sense politics isn't politics.

mgtow always seemed to me like professional male victims. the mirror image of female twitter "victims"

fuckin beautiful

MGTOWs dont want to marry, a lot of them want sexbots to free themselves from women

Some are. The more prominent ones (i.e. the ones who try to maximize viewers/subscribers) are. The only difference is the female professional victims make it personally about them, and the MGTOW professional victims make it about men in general instead of looking weak themselves.

That seems like an alright idea. Women can have sex bots too. Sex bots for everyone!

No I'm just confused why I'm the one being called idpol while Holla Forums seems to want to construe MRAs as rightwing woman haters. Most MRAs in my experience have been overwhelmingly left wing with a few loud "redpillers". The crazy ones tend to get things done and get the most attention. It's like saying all of Holla Forums are alt-right racists and anyone who points out boards other than Holla Forums exist are called right wing shills.

You don't seem to have any evidence of the MRA movement in general being some vast anti-woman conspiracy other than "lol it is anyone who disagrees is Holla Forums".

I think a lot of Holla Forums's main problem with the MRA issue is that they want to play the label game. You guys act exactly like Holla Forums do: generalize and ignore any arguments that disagree with your preconceived notions. Individuals within the movement do not matter, what matters is the movement itself, the message, and its productivity.

youtube.com/watch?v=bXN6UdUF10A

;)

empiricist pls go

LMAO what does mgtow do about this? make image macros for r/theredpill?
yea i'm sure all these women who came forward about sexual assault across this like 20 year span was all part of an ebil plan to take poor old bill's money. it was only the world's most intricate and flawlessly-executed ever, ever. i totally bet your adamant defense isn't just because he's an adamant republican uncle tom or anything, totally wasn't a useful front to make your political opinions look bigger than bigotry. yep.
>>>Holla Forums

the mra movement is an entirely reactionary persecution complex. is it any wonder that it started in the 60s along with the civil rights movement?
see i wouldn't feel this way if Holla Forums wasn't such an obvious mra safespace

are you the author? if so, great video

Thanks, it's my first video ever. The editing is garbage, but hopefully the argument and major points gets across.

I like it.

Everyone in this thread is fucking retarded

...

It's true and it's an argument

have you seen that stat that most men who fight for custody of their children used to beat them and do so as a way to fuck with mom, who quite sensibly is choosing to keep the kiddos safe?

men on the whole make lousy parents. they're too selfabsorbed and autistic. but, like with feminists who want access to the workplace, that doesn't mean they shouldn't have the same opportunities. logically, some men will make better nurturers than some women and they should be allowed to express their god-given potential as $hillary frequently quips.

a good topic for mras to broach (but they never do) is why men should be treated as workhorses and never have the strong relationships (family) that women have traditionally enjoyed. i suspect many men of my father's age are in fact v lonely.

it's a lousy, stupid movement, led by lousy, stupid people.

Nope. Gender is a spook. You fight for the whole proletariat or you ultimately end up fighting for the bourgeoisie, and this is as true of the MRM as it is of any other group of feminists.

They address real issues from time to time, but they fail to acknowledge their true cause, preferring to blame factional enemies to blaming capital.

funny, as staistically women beat their kids more….

holy shit, MRAs talk about PRECISELY THAT. Its called "male disposability"

cool, though i suspect females would prolly get triggered by sexbots for males - under 'pussy cartel theory'

im sure that has absolutely nothing to do with neglectful fathers and the stress of single parenthood

SAGE

It's Hegel's birthday you fucks!

This thread has only further confirmed that feminism is a worthless and reactionary ideology.

talk about reactionary. god forbid there be nuance behind statistics and not just muh spooky absolutist behavioral monoliths.

So why are those fathers neglecting their wives and children, in your opinion?

idk it's probably stupid to pinpoint it to one thing specifically. to me it seems a lot of men have a problem settling down, even if they think they don't

You're on a socialist board. Try to at least approach the subject matter and question from an economic or socialist point of view.
Men are working so hard that they neglect their families. Why do they work long hours for it to be this way? Do they want to work long hours? Are they forced to work long hours and why? What incentive does the increase or maintenance of long working hours have that their employers do things this way? Is it systemic? And so on and so on…

obviously capitalism and the Standard Work Week is unhealthy for families. this isn't what i meant. by neglectful, i meant absent. as in not there at all. i guess you could argue that the time spent away from your family capitalism necessitates from you to support one inherently creates distance between families and increases the likelihood for shit like divorce etc.

idk my first point was more basic than any of this. all i was saying is that there's reasons men and women do the things they do in relationships/families beyond easy, absolutist bullshit like They're Just Men or They're Just Women

MRAs and MGTOW are against traditional gender roles you fucking retard, its mainly cuckservatives who are pushing shit like alimony.

What does MGTOW have to do with the MRM? You're talking about ideology, btw. The MRM holds conferences and publishes media all the time discussing this stuff.

I explained why I will defend Cosby - I haven't seen sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict. You're clearly just projecting your idea of what anyone who disagrees with you must be.

What does Holla Forums even have to do with the MRM? They're a bunch of nazi conspiracy theorists. Are you just calling anyone you don't like an MRA, like what happens most of the time when somebody calls someone an MRA?

The purest ideology. You know that mothers abuse children a lot more often than fathers right? Even when you account for the disproportionate amount of time they spend with the kids, they still do it more often.

Damn nigga you almost made me mad for a second there.

Well how come it's overwhelmingly the woman in hetero relationships who initiates divorce? Is that somehow the man's fault too? And if she's not in a relationship to begin with, why not get an abortion?

OK but most people are very spooked. What if, even after we achieve socialism, they are still spooked and acting on those spooks to discriminate against people?

ok mate

Very ironic, especially on this board, not true "socialism/communism".

well exept that MRA has a very broad definition…while socialism describes something very specific…pointing out A=/=B isnt a no true scotsman suprisingly

Yeah, like "socialism" vs "market socialism" vs "marxist-leninist" and so on, and so on…

It's not a no true scotsman because MGTOWs are not the same thing as MRAs.

Only according to people who want to use it as a label for anybody they disagree with. MRA stands for "men's rights activist," which doesn't have a definition in itself. The words that constitute the phrase do have definitions which are pretty concrete and specific.

…

...

MRA and alt-right have many things in common, in fact many think that MRA is the father of Alt-right.

single childless white males who believes that the system is stacked against them

Socialism = common ownership of the means of production.

It's possible to be almost anything and be a socialist, so long as you believe in that. Pity almost no one excepts that. r/communism has its own flavor of superfluous nonsense you have to believe, and the only difference with Holla Forums is that it's a different load of superfluous nonsense. NO IDPOL ALLOWED is just YOU MUST BELIEVE IN THIS SPECIFIC IDPOL OR ELSE inverted, and inverted stupidity is not intelligence.

Of course it's possible. You don't have to like anyone or want to interact with them to be socialist. The only thing you have to do is fight for their rights to share in the common ownership of property. That's it. You don't have to marry women to be socialist.

That's entirely true, unless you're saying most feminists aren't real feminists.

Like what
What people think happened has no bearing on what actually happened.

This is a very good point, which is why everyone should stand together for long enough to establish socialism and then battle out our differences with a constitutional democratic republic with proportional representation.

The system is stacked against everybody who isn't bourgeois. Where do you think you are?

They have very little in common. The vast majority of MRAs and MGTOWs are againsts traditional gender roles and most of them view the hostility towards immigrants and minority men is a form of deep seeded misandry. They especially take issue with white nationalist's worship of white women and hostility towards minorities men. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

what are YOU talking about? mras only see white cishet men as needing protection considering muh sjews are taking care of everyone else whilst oppressing white men by making more girl characters in video games or whatever.

Is this sarcasm or are you some retard that wandered in from r/socialism?

This!

This!

This FFS!

It's painfully obvious at this point is that he's just using MRA as a label for people he disagrees with.

The entire post is a complete strawman from the stuff about gamers disliking female protagonist to proclaiming that MRAs only care about white men. It's pathetic.

1st wave feminists stalled the insurrection.
2nd wave enforced capitalism by providing larger workforce to exploit and to cut wages.
3rd wave destroyed the radical left form inside.

Not women, but feminists are to blame.

...

How the fuck can you fucking stall an insurrection?

Reformism.

Same way FDR's New Deal did.

Revisionism

I don't know…
Is it possible to have a clear mind while falling in the trap of capitalistic alienation?

MGTOW is "Women don't wanna fuck, fuck them, I'll keep playing vidya and make it an ideology". I mean.. I don't fuck, but I don't make it my ideology!

MRA is only the counter to feminism. As such, it's a shit counter to a shit movement.

Yeah sure, especially when Syriza got in parliment in greece.

reuters.com/article/us-greece-anarchists-specialreport-idUSBRE97D0AK20130814

Daily reminder that the CCF/CFC/FIA does NOTHING WRONG!

When was the last time leftist populists managed to build anything resembling socialism?

Socialism can not exist while capitalism still exists, distracting your mind with fantasizing about socialism while capitalism still exists is counter revolutionary.

The late 60s and early 70s before Orthodox Marxism and scientific socialism were discredited by the decline and death of the Soviet Union. We've been suffering ever since.

All I`m saying is that menshevik tactics don`t work to create proper conditions for any revolution that might prompt change.

Fool we are speaking about insurrection not revolution. Know the diffrince.

...

THIS!

I HAPPEN TO BE AN EXPERT ON THIS!

OK,
KEK!

Anarchism is Greece is anything but new. Sure, new anarkids are a bunch of faggots and went against the drug mob because one was "sexist", but they are not "new".

And is actually a co-op in a building that wasn't used anyway.

The article was written in 13 and it's been "time for revolution" there since before the 70s.

Oh, right! The edgy anarkids that want to continue the "Legacy" of 17N. Right.

Yeah, right. The common middle class guy is as apolitical as anywhere. Seeing what you want to see doesn't make it reality.

Your fetishism for the maintance of the status quo is showing. :^)

One is anactive resistance and the other is the attempt to reform the system towards another system.The purpose is to have no reform but to have the old system completly destroyed before we even can be able to concieve what to be done.

4th wave labels anybody who doesn't suck porky's cock a witch woman hater and has them purged.

I do not wish for the status quo to be maintained.
On the contrary. Even Posadism seems like a better option.

However, edgy anarkids bombing isn't gonna do shit to the status quo, especialy when their propaganda doesn't reach the peope and they don't care to make it reachable.

wtf men's rights at its core obviously exists as a reactionary response to feminism. it's just sexually frustrated manchildren hiding behind fronts to make themselves look political and important. i mean look at the tenets in op, it's basically "don't dare control us wombyn, that's OUR job"

mgtow is p much just "i wanna be a lazy neet but feel oppressed too"

Cap this post.

oh for fuck's sake. have you been on Holla Forums ever or p much any other board? it's no stretch to say that reactionaryshit like gamergate and men's rights are all correlated especially in places like Holla Forums. regardless of their cause, they all sound the same. they all want women to shut up so they can resume patriarchal control

Meant to also say "pretty much."

yeah i think capitalists really resisted feminism at first before realizing how useful it could be

How does that describe the following

what kind of red herring is this?

Yeah, you smash that patriarchy buddy. You are definitely fighting the good fight and not jerking yourself off to how righteous you are.

like oh yeah gender is a spook and any sort of idpol are all missing the point and just helping porky but goshdang those mras are really onto something you guys!

im not even a feminist, im just not a meninist either

Forgot your flag, anfem.

wtf marxfags usually make good posts. where's the argument

Wew.

k

Meninism is simply a parody of feminism. It has nothing to do with the MRM, MGTOW, or PUAs for that matter.

The OP pic relates to MGTOW not the MRM. Your post is responding about the MRM so I posted some of the MRM's major tenets and asked how they square with your characterization of them.

yeah but notice all the unironic defense mras started giving the whole meninist thing as soon as feminists started unironically making fun of it

wasn't my point anyway

Yes. One would be so happy to live in a world without gendered conscription, compulsory circumcision and so on.

Also, to everyone else, why should I ever find "their" critical lens to be incompatible with mine own feminist one? Y'all are playing around like revisionists.

Allow me not to believe that about some feminists.

Circumcision is not just something any feminist can do. It's a (­(­(legitimate)­)­) medical practice. :^)

why does r9k blame feminism for circumcision again? is it just more sexual insecurity deflections?

THIS IS WHY I NEED AN ANTI-FEMINIST CHEKA!

LEAVE MY DICK ALONE!

This is rather funny for me, because to the old Greeks, exposing the glans was a sign of vulgarity, and cutting the body in order to please God was unthinkable. Hadrian outlawed circumcision as well as castration. Circumcision became a signal for persecution. Many Jews tried to hide their circumcisions in order to assimilate into Greek culture or later, to elude persecution by the Romans.

disclaimer: I don't want to touch anyone's dick unless made to by force.

Freud would attribute what you describe as a repression of Oedipal feelings into castration anxiety. The reduced erogenous sensitivity, a deficit in sexual information, and the ensuing redirection of sexual impulses that he experienced due to circumcision harmonized with the idea that sexuality is easily controlled and must have played a helpful role in coming up with the concept of the defence mechanism.

I've never seen anyone blame feminism for circumcision, but I've seen people call out specific feminists for engaging in circ apologia.

In fact, the original Jewish circumcision was to cut off only the end of the foreskin. Jews could pull up what was left and it was hard to tell they were cut. The response was to make the ritual cut off the entire foreskin so they couldn't do this and had to stand out as a Jew. This version of circumcision then became the most common one, among non-Jews as well even though there were much "mild"er versions.

it doesn't matter

gender rights groups in the western world are bourgeois as fuck

And then, a faggot told 'Muricans "cut of your boy's dick and he will not fap!" and now it's a "normality" or something…

Also I'm p sure most sects of Islam require circumcision.

Ye, Islam wants you to cut yo dick, not drink, not eat bacon and all for "having rice and raisins that were translated into virgins" after you die.

And somehow Islam is good!

"Muh" is not an argument. Your post was a complete and total starwman. Mgtow and MRAs have no interest in traditionalism or patriarchal societies which they view is equally hostile towards men because they encourage male disposability and "gynocentrism". In fact, they view feminism is a crisis in traditionalism. One final attempt by society to force men into their gender roles and responsibilities. In a similar way to how fascism represent a crisis in capitalism. They view marriage is a form of male servitude. Most MRAs and MGTOWS show complete contempt for traditional housewives and the nuclear family. So, no they're not interested in controlling women. I don't agree with them on most things but you clearly don't understand their position or platform. Once again you've proven you know nothing about MRM movement beyond some boogeyman created in the minds of sjws. Fuck off back to r/socialism.

Oh and guys wanting to play games with big tits an loud explosions without being preached to by a bunch of liberal self-righteous assholes has nothing to do with controlling women neither does men wanting fairer treatment of men when it comes to things like education, the family courts, reproductive health, and the judicial system. All their efforts won't be worth a a damn because reformism is impossible in a capitalist system but they aren't women haters for wanting men to be treated fairer in certain aspects of society.

They do. My dick has been mutilated and I was born to a Sunni Muslim family. It's horrible fam. I want my foreskin back.

It would be if MTGOW was actually about what it says it is. It's just LoveShy 2.0. None of them want to be free of women, they want to feel sorry for themselves.

I feel your pain. At least these folks are working on it apparently.
foregen.org/

They're an Amazon affiliate or something, so if you buy things on Amazon you can automatically donate a portion of your purchase to them. Amazon has figured out some deal based on charitable tax deductions or something. And as for using Amazon, I'll preemptively say there's no ethical consumption under capitalism.

Theoretically, yes, but the "manosphere" has long since been invaded by these same reactionary types that only want an excuse to be hateful pricks. Roosh V and Vox Day come to mind.

tbh fam, I don't like the idea of foreskin restoration, if only because it will further encourage pointless circumcision and make it very difficult to ban: religious groups will simply claim that they can grow it back later if they want.

PUAs aren't really the same is mgtow or MRAs. All three groups unlike feminists take on vastly different labels and can be very hostile towards each other. Most of the alt-right stuff comes from the PUA demographic like Return of The Kings. It certainly has gotten worse in recent years though but the biggest problem is the libertarian shilling going on.
Check out this video about a literal Koch brothers shill trying to co-op the men's rights movement.
youtu.be/xH8JCcqz1jE

...

I don't know Vox Day, but Roosh V is a pick-up artist. He dislikes both MRAs and MGTOWs. Lumping all these people together as "the manosphere" is just a linguistic trick to blame people by association when the association doesn't actually exist.

I didn't know about the affiliate links I'm definitely buying some stuff with it. My penis has been in constant pain for like 6 years because my tight skin breaks every time I get an erection.

US is trying to create a narative, where evil men are all rightwing MRAs and evil women are all feminazis.

I wonder who benefits from this…

How have they not been taken down by feminists calling them sexist for not trying to regenerate FGM instead too?

Kek. No fucking argument beyond a strawman green text. You're fucking pathetic. Oh and again "muh" is not an argument. Save us the trouble and fuck off back to whatever idpol ridden shithole you came from.

all of which can be boiled down to how we perceive men as well as women. these aren't strictly men's issues. this is where the reactionary false dichotomy exists. you view feminists as The Enemy because of shit that doesnt matter like gamergate so you have to branch off into your own psuedo-feminism where you pretend you're oppressed because of muh hypotheticals that have dick to do with why you actually care (muh vidya tiddies) so you can look important while silencing and demonizing feminists who stand for the same principles (the ones that matter, atleast)

I used to have pain getting erections too, but I started stretching it out slowly. It took about a year before the pain stopped for me. You can do it all the way to where you have as much skin as you would have naturally (not the nerves though).

I think we've had the conversation before fam. I remember you telling me about this.

yeah, feminists and mras have good intentions but as it stands are only tools to be exploited. i don't stand for either necessarily. i just don't understand this double-standard

That's not what he said you willfully dense motherfucker. The point is people should be free to create and enjoy whatever they want.

Feminists are an obstacle because they spread absurd theory that men are at fault for all problems because men oppress women the way the bourgeoisie oppresses the proletariat. They're not interested in fixing any of the problems, they just want to point at them and blame men.

Might have. I've had this conversation several times, and been on your side before.

Yeah I've never expressed my views on feminism in this entire thread. Anyway you can point to a lot of examples of feminists in positions of power fucking over men and disregarding men's issues. Oh and the idea of sexy women being objectified and encouraging objectification is just backwards and stupid. Especially when self-righteous morons try claim that fanservice some how causes men to hold women hating attitudes with no evidence.

A simple propaganda comic would be:
Fem: You only care about men! Men have all the rights in the universe! How dare you care about problems of those who rule the world?
MRA: You only care about women! Women are always treated like godesses and have everything their way! How dare you care about problems of those who don't have to die in wars and labor accidents?

And Porky laughing and puppetiering both.

…notice how when you describe the perspective of those two that the MRA is the only one who's actually pointing out problems.

ohhhhh so the solution is to blame women. muh "gynocentrism". fuckin idpol tho

pls address this blatant double standard and quit dancing around it with apologia

I never claimed to be an unbiased saint!
If you think part is wrong, make it better.

I'm merely pointing out that regardless of whether mainstream MRAs are a puppet of porky that as you recognize they are identifying real problems, in contrast to mainstream feminism.

women aren't as subject to war or hard labor because of woman hater ideas of female fragility. this is feminism

feminism =/= women

So, where are the feminists fighting for more women construction workers?

:^)

cause complacency is easier? i never said feminism (particularly internet slacktivist feminism) was very noble especially considering how marketable it is today

the only reason i'm assuming a feminist position in posts at all is because of all the mra sympathy and all the feminist strawmen from people who supposedly hate idpol

No, women aren't as subject to war or hard labor because women are the reproductive bottleneck. No matter how many of your men die (unless it's all of them), you can award the survivors extra wives and the growth of your population stays the same. Cultures that put the women on the front lines just like the men could not grow at the same rate and were out-competed by the ones that had stricter gender roles. It's not a matter of ethics or morals, just a matter of what won in natural selection.

Hold on

You are annoyed by people posing as feminists, so you pose as a feminist?

ok? we shouldn't subjugate women just because "it worked in ways in the past". unless we're going full anprim and pretending technological/ethical advancement is fun stuff

..i'm not trying to assume a strawman. i could be failing but it's not the same really

Not what I'm putting forward, just that the reason we have the gender roles we have go back farther than the cultural viewpoints (superstructure) that support them.

What makes you think there's such a difference? Aside from the most obvious bait (i.e. openly bait), everything I see anfem shitposters say is either something I've either actually heard/seen from a feminist or plausibly could have been.

Gynocentrism doesn't blame women. It doesn't even blame feminists. It's about how society views men. I disagree with it just like I do with modern day patriarchy theory because I don't think poor men should ever hold solidarity with wealthy men.

A lot of the MRA movement is about women taking resources from men without having to be in a relationship to receive those benefits: welfare, alimony, child support (men pay more taxes and receive fewer benefits).

Any form of giant welfare state or "equal distribution" of wealth is anti-male and pro-women forming harems around a small number of men who are not valued for their productivity in any form (because the rewards of productivity are forcibly given to women regardless of their behavior), this proposed situation is massively anti-anything-other-than-alpha-male. This results in 20% of men getting about 80% of the women, historically there's precedent for this in hunter-gatherer societies and was only reversed about 10,000 years ago, this situation is not capable of maintaining an advanced situation and it is one of many reasons that no far-left society will ever be sustainable in the long-term, though you might be able to, in theory, avert some of these consequences with strong cultural and religious values (not that I particularly care for the latter.) I'm not moralizing sexuality, mind you, just stating what I view as the logical consequences of eliminating the primary appeal of beta male providers: that women rely on them to provide resources to them, voluntarily; when those resources are procured by force, the desires of said betas are inconsequential as far as any woman should be concerned.

an advanced civilization*

I don't agree. Forming harems may be the natural course but subsidising them by males not included is not a condition of a far-left society.

I don't think that with today's technological advancement, these women couldn't provide for themselves and their offspring if they wanted to.

If they don't want to, let them starve.

There may be difference between the mouthpieces but not the listeners.

They, not the alt-right fun ruiners, are the ones that made the term to begin with. It also wasn't a bad thing at first, a dedicated men's wellbeing community that devolved into "bawww I want sex".

The main problem with your argument is that strong cultural values are the reason men have a disadvantage to begin with. There is no benefit for a man to get married, and sensible women will agree in principle, but people do it anyway because of peer pressure, a feeling that they "have" to do it. This is why social conservatism of nearly any kind is doomed to fail, it's based on feelings and doesn't really consider its own implications.
The "20% of men get all the women" thing is also petty nonsense because in Western culture, polygamy is still taboo. Fucking drunk chicks from a pub is not "getting" them in terms of a relationship or procreation, unless you really don't like condoms. Getting laid all the time is a hobby like any other.
Left wing policies do not mean free shit, burger. Welfare is endemic to capitalism, both out of necessity and as a possibility.

The trick is the part where you blame members of one group for the actions of another because both groups fall under the same label. It would be like if some Sioux committed an atrocity and the Cherokee got blamed because both groups are Injuns.

Here in Europe they sure as hell do - because feminism is actually a widespread concern instead of being allowed to rot away in gender studies like it seems to be in the US.

The reason so many major Swedish feminists laugh the American copy-cats in the face is because here feminism has been deeply connected to working class movements, and thus come to gain a more nuanced perspective.

But yeah, all feminists are just rabid HRC supporters who want to take away your chinese cartoon pussy am i rite?

t. Someone who has never set xirs foot in Sweden

webm very related

its impossible not to be

Maybe there's some overlap between MGTOW and MRA but PUAs not really.PUAs are the group you're talking about and trying to associate with the others even though, unlike feminists, they all make it very clear that they don't like each other. All three groups routinely shit on each other. Again you'd know that if you knew anything about them except some unsubstantiated strawman.

Yes
svampriket.se/2015/02/makeover-friday/

anyway that's neat. tell me a reason this should upset me that isn't completely pathetic

The more honest MRAs I've seen do exactly this. However, the ones who don't really focus on this issue are the blatantly female-hating "redpill" types that have a hard-on for muh traditional gender roles and thinking the only reason they can't succeed in life is because half the population finally has some legal standing.

The ONLY reason women are presumed by the courts to be better caretakers of younger children is precisely because of these traditional gender roles they love so much.

...

...

>no, you are the one who wants to exclude women

Well they're hideous for one.

Those are PUAs. MRAs and MGTOWS don't support traditional gender roles, hate the nuclear family, and express utter contempt for housewives which they view is leechs and parasites. They have even less respect for conservative women then they have for feminist and liberal women.

...

So, just how was agitating for similar legal rights and being granted a vote under the current government system (1st wave feminism) bourgeoisie exploitation, again?

Because you're demanding rights from the bourgeoisie state giving it and the organizations it represents legitimacy.

It wasn't you fucking mong. 1st wave was described as stalling the insurrection. Bourgeoisie exploitation is 2nd wave, when they start joining the wage labor force. You've totally lost the plot.

struggle for equal political rights has failed
emancipation into the capitalist system turned out to become a mean to maintain the reactionary core ideology
liberalism is cancer
cut it off
fuck minority issues
worker rights only

Feminists often point to quotes like that to argue that the MRM is violent and horribly anti woman. But all that he is proposing, in an autistic way mind you, is that men who are victims of domestic abuse retaliate against their abusers. It just goes to show how the average feminist isn't in favour of gender equality at all if they are so disgusted by the idea of men not refusing to hit back when women assault them.

Can we just not?

apparently that depended on the society, due to things like males having a higher death rate among other things. also "not able to reproduce more often" doesn't mean "didn't get sex" given premodern humans basically evolved to have gangbangs and shit.

why does this exist?