MRAs to boycott Mad Max for being "feminist propaganda"

[Civil War Man]

Seriously

Mad Max: Fury Road, the first entry in the post-apocalyptic movie series for 30 years, has made one group of potential cinemagoers, well, furious. The reason? It dares to spotlight Charlize Theron's character Furiosa... and women in general.

The film, directed by original Mad Max creator George Miller and with Tom Hardy in the lead role, opens in the UK on 14 May. Early reactions from critics are good, with the use of real cars and stunts over CGI effects particularly praised, and the movie generally being hailed as a return to form for the action genre in cinema.

However, the fact that the plot centres on Max and Furiosa aiding a group of women known as the Five Wives, leading them to freedom from warlord King Immortan Joe has enraged "Mens Rights Activists", or MRAs. To them, the movie is a shell for feminist propaganda, and another attempt by Hollywood liberals to undermine traditional masculinity.

On Return of Kings, a website centred on the MRA "movement", contributor Aaron Clarey wonders "whether men in America and around the world are going to be duped by explosions, fire tornadoes, and desert raiders into seeing what is guaranteed to be nothing more than feminist propaganda, while at the same time being insulted AND tricked into viewing a piece of American culture ruined and rewritten right in front of their very eyes."

Undermining his position immediately is the fact that Mad Max is actually an Australian franchise, written and created by Australians, and whose original leading man, Mel Gibson, had lived in Australia since age 12. For Fury Road, Tom Hardy is British, Charlize Theron is South African, and much of the movie's remaining cast and almost the entirety of the crew are of non-American origin. It's hardly the stuff of apple pie and bald eagles.

Clarey also claims Max has been sidelined in his own movie, and "replace[d] with an impossible female character in an effort to kowtow to feminism." Because women surviving the apocalypse is impossible, and the Mad Max films have never featured powerful, intimidating women before. Unless you count people like Aunty Entity, played by Tina Turner in 1985's Beyond Thunderdome, of course.

Unsurprisingly, commenters at Return of Kings haven't let little things like the litany of errors and inaccuracies Clarey cites ruin their misogyny though, instead calling for a silent boycott of the movie. We Hunted the Mammoth, a site focused on tracking online misogyny, has a detailed (and thoroughly depressing) run down of some of the shocking responses to Clarey's anti-feminist scaremongering.

However, with Fury Road attracting near universal acclaim -- with its strong female presence regularly praised -- and George Miller having plans for at least two more modern Mad Max entries, the sad plight of the MRAs looks set to be ignored for many years yet.

I actually had zero interest in seeing this, since I'm not a huge fan of Mad Max, but I'm tempted to see it now just so my delicate masculinity can be somehow undermined by watching Charlize Theron and Tom Hardy crash cars in the desert.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Hell, I may end up seeing it just to spite the MRAs.

[Sidewinder]

Considering how often radical feminists make total asses of themselves over things like this, it's only fair that their male counterparts make total asses of themselves.

[Joun_Lord]

Like the article says Mad Max is Ausfailan, so right there even without getting into the whiney MRA bullshit you know this is bullshit.

Also it must be some pretty fucked up thinking to think enslaving women is part of "traditional masculinity".

What is essentially a 2 hour car chase with explosions, more explosions, fire tornadoes, and did I mention explosions is feminist propaganda I can get behind.

Now I would be a little......well not pissed but I guess bothered if Theron's character stole the spotlight from Max but that wouldn't be because she has a vagina but because a movie called Mad Max should be about somebody named Max who is slightly cross or dare I say furious. Its the same reason I was pissed about Jake Sulley stealing the spotlight from BatConner in Terminator Salvation. Now as far as I'm aware John Smith doesn't have a vagina and yet I was still pissed about him stealing the movie from John Conner who had been sidelined for 3 movies and was finally, FINALLY supposed to shine but instead we get some bullshit plot about some guy nobody had ever heard of and nobody gave a fuck aboot guest starring John Conner.

[Lord Revan]

when I hear the word "men's rights activists" I have to ask what "men's rights" are being threatened so badly that they need activists for that?

I mean I'm a man (last I checked at least) and I don't feel threatened by this film, I probably won't go to see it cause it seemed rather boring based on the trailer, but if the trailer would have gotten me hyped I would still go see it even if I knew it had strong female characters and I don't feel that makes me any less of a man.

[Kojiro]

I'll see it simply out of my nostalgic love of Mad Max. If it has some sort of 'message' in it that's fine- I'll judge based on what the message actually is and how relevant it is to the story. I certainly don't mind movies with a message but I do want it to flow naturally from the story and not be obviously wedged in. All in all I'll reserve judgement until I've seen it, but I will see it.

when I hear the word "men's rights activists" I have to ask what "men's rights" are being threatened so badly that they need activists for that?

So far as I know their main beef is with the treatment of men in family and divorce courts- at least the non crazy ones. I do have to admit that custody and access to your children does seem like something worth fighting for, but I am no expert and they may be up to other shenanigans. I assume those calling for this ban are more on the crazy side.

[Joun_Lord]

when I hear the word "men's rights activists" I have to ask what "men's rights" are being threatened so badly that they need activists for that?

Like Kojiro said how men are treated in family matters starring Steve Urkel and divorce. Also the problem of male rape. Shit like where its not considered rape in atleast Murica legally. Or where male rape is woefully under-reported thanks to social stigma of a big strong man being over-powered by a woman. The thought that it ain't rape if a man gets hard (much like how it totally ain't rape if the women is wet) is pretty objectionable.

The difference in treatment between male and female statutory rape is something that has alot of peoples goats recently, where a woman teach who rapes a male student is treated considerably less harshly then if it was a female student and male teacher. Where its consider a good thing by many if its even really punished like the case recently of the female teacher given only 30 days in jail for fucking a student.

A personal point I grip about is the difference in comedy of rape between the sexes. Rape jokes about women are something treated with disdain and horror, as well it should be, but prison rape jokes and female teachers fucking their male students is the fodder of comedy and shitty Adam Sandler movies.

The problem with MOST mens rights activists is they are a bit like the caricature of the hardcore "feminazis" (which I'm sure does exist to some degrees but beside the point) where they are less interested in rights for dudes but more in attacking women. They use the actual plight of men who do need a voice as cudgel to attack them dirty vagina havers because I guess where they aren't interested in sleeping with portly fedora wearing morons who think women should be all over them just because they exist.

Thus why much how feminism stalls because of the connection to hardcore feminazis so does mens rights and men and women suffer for it.

[Temjin]

Like Kojiro said how men are treated in family matters starring Steve Urkel and divorce. Also the problem of male rape. Shit like where its not considered rape in atleast Murica legally. Or where male rape is woefully under-reported thanks to social stigma of a big strong man being over-powered by a woman. The thought that it ain't rape if a man gets hard (much like how it totally ain't rape if the women is wet) is pretty objectionable.

The difference in treatment between male and female statutory rape is something that has alot of peoples goats recently, where a woman teach who rapes a male student is treated considerably less harshly then if it was a female student and male teacher. Where its consider a good thing by many if its even really punished like the case recently of the female teacher given only 30 days in jail for fucking a student.

A personal point I grip about is the difference in comedy of rape between the sexes. Rape jokes about women are something treated with disdain and horror, as well it should be, but prison rape jokes and female teachers fucking their male students is the fodder of comedy and shitty Adam Sandler movies.

The problem with MOST mens rights activists is they are a bit like the caricature of the hardcore "feminazis" (which I'm sure does exist to some degrees but beside the point) where they are less interested in rights for dudes but more in attacking women. They use the actual plight of men who do need a voice as cudgel to attack them dirty vagina havers because I guess where they aren't interested in sleeping with portly fedora wearing morons who think women should be all over them just because they exist.

Thus why much how feminism stalls because of the connection to hardcore feminazis so does mens rights and men and women suffer for it.

It really is quite sad, because they are correct about a lot of things. As you listed, rape being treated differently between the sexes is a big one. Another one is how domestic abuse is treated; A woman stuck in an abusive relationship is a subject of sympathy and someone who must be helped, while a man stuck in an abusive relationship should man up and stop letting his wife abuse him. Until recently, in a few places in the States, it was standard practice to arrest the male in any domestic violence call, no matter if he was the one that was being abused or not.

The problem with these "MRA's" is they have the wrong target for their hatred. It's other men that are the cause of most of their complaints. It's men, who in the case of a female teacher sleeping with her young teen student, who is going "I wish I had a teacher like that in school!" It other men who are going "What kind of man let's himself be raped? He must have wanted it!" And it's other men who are going "Why do you let your wife beat you up so much?"

(Personal anecdote time: I was sexually assaulted by a woman who I thought at the time might just try to rape me. I'm 300 pounds and 6'5". When I related my experience to others, the only one who didn't make jokes and was horrified... was a woman.)

But somehow this is all women's fault.

[K. A. Pital]

MRA is magnetic resonance angiography. The other MRA are just lunatics, like the flat earth society, so why would anyone bother with what they say?

[Alyrium Denryle]

So far as I know their main beef is with the treatment of men in family and divorce courts- at least the non crazy ones. I do have to admit that custody and access to your children does seem like something worth fighting for, but I am no expert and they may be up to other shenanigans. I assume those calling for this ban are more on the crazy side.

I will summarize both the particular issues, and in general.

In terms of divorce, male rape, domestic abuse, and child custody, they are factually correct. These things are fucked up. They then proceed to jump the shark and blame feminism, feminists, and women, on the mistaken and misogynistic belief that feminism is about elevating women at the expense of men. They dont realize that all the problems they hate come from the same root problem that feminism already addresses. Patriarchy, here defined (called patriarchy still largely due to historical contingency) as the cultural system that prescribes commonly held beliefs about gender and the particular applications thereof in our legal system and daily lives.

MRAs believe that women get preferential treatment in child custody because feminism foisted this condition on society.

What is actually true is that this is the case because it is commonly held (incorrectly) that women are inherently better caregivers for children than men. It is a belief that feminists have fought against since at least the 1970s

And they ARE up to shenanigans too. While some people who identify as MRAs are just misinformed or stupid, the primary thought leaders within the movement are uniformly Really Terrible People. A Voice for Men (one of the largest MRA websites/communities) has position paper up that calls for men to Always vote Not Guilty in rape trials. Return of the Kings (another one) is run by a man (a proud rapist, btw) who rates countries on how easy it is to rape and abuse women (with countries like Denmark receiving low marks, to make sure you understand my meaning), and who has articles talking about how women really do want to be raped, how no means yes etc.

It is a movement full of the most vile misogynistic conspiracy theorists you will find.

[salm]

MRA is magnetic resonance angiography. The other MRA are just lunatics, like the flat earth society, so why would anyone bother with what they say?

Somebody on the internet said something stupid. Quick, we have to get emotional about it.

[K. A. Pital]

Return of the Kings (another one) is run by a man (a proud rapist, btw) who rates countries on how easy it is to rape and abuse women (with countries like Denmark receiving low marks, to make sure you understand my meaning), and who has articles talking about how women really do want to be raped, how no means yes etc.

You just made my day very very terrible.

[InsaneTD]

My girlfriend showed me one of these articles today and I couldn't help but keep thinking, have you even seen the original movies?

On a personal note, I hate the fact there are "humans"out there with male genitalia, who call themselves men, representing me.

[Raw Shark]

Going by the trailers, Charlize Theron's female badass survivor character seems to be more than a little butch in appearance and demeanor, riding to the rescue of feminine damsels in distress. If anything, this is a celebration of traditional masculinity!

[Alyrium Denryle]

Return of the Kings (another one) is run by a man (a proud rapist, btw) who rates countries on how easy it is to rape and abuse women (with countries like Denmark receiving low marks, to make sure you understand my meaning), and who has articles talking about how women really do want to be raped, how no means yes etc.

You just made my day very very terrible.

I live to serve.

[Civil War Man]

The other MRA are just lunatics, like the flat earth society, so why would anyone bother with what they say?

Normally I wouldn't bother, but I just found it rather funny in an absurd sort of way. These guys are so far up their own asses that they consider a movie about two badass tough-as-nails post-apocalyptic warriors saving a group of women living under the heel of a despotic warlord (in what I can only assume is sex slavery, considering they are called the Five Wives) using car chases and explosions to be feminist propaganda. Apparently because one of said warriors is a woman with a shaved head, because I can almost guarantee you that if you removed Charlize Theron's character or replaced her with Jason Stathem or something, these guys would probably be creaming their pants over this movie.

[TheFeniX]

The MRA movement, for me, was one of those: "do we really need this?" type of movements. But their public face more than a few years back focused on issue like what Temjin mentioned. So, they seem pretty reasonable at the time and it was something I could see myself supporting. But after doing some digging, you get past the kid's gloves shit and into the meat of the awful. And it is awful. Like how certain brands of "feminists" really just hate men. Understandable (depending) for them. But even the most radical of the "hate men" group at least find some justification for that hatred. You only have to look at how society(ies) treat women. But MRA hatred towards women is much more in-line with "They can do things I don't agree with, like choosing who to have sex with. And since they are choosing other men to have sex with that aren't me, they are infringing on my rights." or something to that effect.

With official comments like:

On Return of Kings, a website centred on the MRA "movement", contributor Aaron Clarey wonders "whether men in America and around the world are going to be duped by explosions, fire tornadoes, and desert raiders into seeing what is guaranteed to be nothing more than feminist propaganda, while at the same time being insulted AND tricked into viewing a piece of American culture ruined and rewritten right in front of their very eyes."

I guess they've finally just lost the ability to keep their insane bullshit in check, much like the Tea Party of other hate groups. Oh well, the more people that know, the better.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The MRA movement, for me, was one of those: "do we really need this?" type of movements. But their public face more than a few years back focused on issue like what Temjin mentioned. So, they seem pretty reasonable at the time and it was something I could see myself supporting.

As I mentioned, they have some issues where they are correct. But it is a bit like libertarians being right on things like freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. The ideology underpinning their beliefs is wrong (because Natural Rights theory is complete and utter horseshit), but even broken clocks are occasionally correct.

And it is awful. Like how certain brands of "feminists" really just hate men. Understandable (depending) for them. But even the most radical of the "hate men" group at least find some justification for that hatred. You only have to look at how society(ies) treat women.

The comments under any article about feminism justify feminism, and make loathing Men (not necessarily All Men as individuals, but Men. The male dominated power structure and culture of male entitlement) understandable. If I had to put up with being cat-called everywhere I went, or risk violence every time I rejected the sexual advances of a stranger, I would entertain some bitterness as well.

[fgalkin]

MRA is magnetic resonance angiography. The other MRA are just lunatics, like the flat earth society, so why would anyone bother with what they say?

Because they kill people. They're not just random loons, they're dangerous.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[The Romulan Republic]

I very much doubt that more than a small minority of them are murderers. That doesn't mean they're right, of course.

[Joun_Lord]

MRA is magnetic resonance angiography. The other MRA are just lunatics, like the flat earth society, so why would anyone bother with what they say?

Because they kill people. They're not just random loons, they're dangerous.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Since when are they murderers? Fedora wearing neckbeards with antiquated and downright sickening views of women sure but I've never heard of any MRAs to be actual killers.

[Grumman]

What is essentially a 2 hour car chase with explosions, more explosions, fire tornadoes, and did I mention explosions is feminist propaganda I can get behind.

Absolutely. I haven't seen the latest Mad Max yet (I like the idea of the earlier Mad Max movies more than I actually enjoyed the execution) but I'd love to get more action movies about badass women being badass. That's practically my favourite thing!

[Imperial Overlord]

Since when are they murderers? Fedora wearing neckbeards with antiquated and downright sickening views of women sure but I've never heard of any MRAs to be actual killers.

Elliot Rodgers in Santa Barbara and the Ecole Polytechnique Massacre in Montreal by Mark Lepine are two I can name off the top of my head.

[salm]

Elliot Rodgers in Santa Barbara and the Ecole Polytechnique Massacre in Montreal by Mark Lepine are two I can name off the top of my head.

So do they, as a group, kill more people than the average people? And if so, is the rate at which they kill, high enough to consider them a "dangerous" group? Or are they more like completely insignifcant compared to other, more important threats while these two murderers where just random loons?

[madd0ct0r]

TheRedPill on reddit has 111,713 members.
Elliot Rogers shot 6 people, Mark Lepine killed 14.
USA average is 4.7 homicides per 100,000 people.

I'd say that looks to be above average.