MRAs to boycott Mad Max for being "feminist propaganda"

[Kojiro]

This seems relevant.
For those that can't or don't want to watch, the video points out that RoK is not an MRA and actually actively distance themselves from MRAs (and vice versa). It makes me wonder why the two groups are being conflated.

[madd0ct0r]

without clicking since I'm at work - is there anywhere that is a broadly accepted 'voice of the MRA movement?'

[GuppyShark]

This seems relevant.
For those that can't or don't want to watch, the video points out that RoK is not an MRA and actually actively distance themselves from MRAs (and vice versa). It makes me wonder why the two groups are being conflated.

1) Can you find a source that doesn't unironically say "feminist propoganda" ten seconds into the video?
2) Why should we care if two groups of shitheads distance themselves from each other?

EDIT: After sleeping on it I decided I don't actually care at all about MRA infighting.

[Kojiro]

1) Can you find a source that doesn't unironically say "feminist propoganda" ten seconds into the video.

A source for what? That RoK aren't MRAs and don't like them? This is their about page. It states it clearly, among their other asshole beliefs, that they're against MRAs.

2) Why should we care if two groups of shitheads distance themselves from each other?

Come on man. You don't have to support someone to see that attributing something they didn't say or do to them is wrong.

[GuppyShark]

Yeah, it's semantics - MRA is being used as a catch-all term for multiple anti-feminist hate groups even if amongst themselves they draw distinctions about what is and is not an MRA.

[Joun_Lord]

Its an improper term though. Its like labeling all white power groups Neo-Nazis. Sure most white supremacist groups and Neo Nazis share many of the same ideals, love of tattooes, dislike of minorities, and highly probable genetic inferiority but they also have alot of fundamental differences. Like the KKK, its started by butthurt Southerners who wanted to harass darkies because their side lost in their fight for states rights (or atleast the rights of states to allow the ownership of other human beans) and jack off to Nathan Bedford Forrest and the Confederacy. Also they are a wizard.

Neo-Nazis are degenerate scum who get their ideals from Nazi Germany and wank it to I believe Charlie Chaplin judging by their posters of a guy with a toothbrush mustache. They are more into wearing military clothing and knock-off Hugo Boss rather then ghost costumes.

Just the same Men Rights Activists and "normal" anti-feminist hate groups will have some overlap, both hate women and believe they should return to the kitchen at best, but also have fundamental differences in ideology.

Though of course, KKK and Neo-Nazis, MRA and anti-feminist player haters, I think we can all agree even if they aren't exactly the same ideologicalifornia they are all most definitely the same when it comes to being shitbags.

[Patroklos]

highly probable genetic inferiority

I am sure you were being tongue and cheek here but I'd caution you to be careful with this type of shit. On the off chance you are serious please realize that you are engaging it the same shit you accuse them of with this sort of thing and you are severely underestimating your enemy for the convenience/ego boost by making such assumptions. People who have views you disagree with or even find repulsive /= untermench. They wouldn't be very dangerous or long standing opponents if they were.

[Purple]

Just the same Men Rights Activists and "normal" anti-feminist hate groups will have some overlap, both hate women and believe they should return to the kitchen at best, but also have fundamental differences in ideology.

I would not say that they all hate women. Some of them just hate feminists. There is a difference.
And before you read this note that this is not reflective of my own personal opinions on the issue. Those are more complex. This is simply an analysis of what I see happening as I see it and an attempt at an explanation for the phenomenon observed.

Basically, if you life in a modern civilized society* men and women appear to be pretty much equal. The sort of discrimination modern feminists talk about might exist (I honestly don't know and am not qualified to speak about it) but it is not visible unless you actively look for it. I have plenty of female friends and acquaintances and none of them has ever complained about ever being discriminated against by anyone in a meaningful fashion. And I imagine that the average experience for the average citizen of an average civilized country is the same. So for all intents and purposes our society appears to be equal. The feminists appear to have won. And once you get into that mindset it's quite easy to look at them and ask "So why are they still here?" Enter a few hours searching on the internet on your free time and a visit to places like Reddit and you'll quickly be convinced that the reason is because they don't want an equal world but a matriarchy with them on top. And that sort of opinion is easy to justify when you consider that a lot of modern laws are built around the idea that women are inherently oppressed and they must be given special treatment to compensate.

*This means civilized western European nations and maybe Canada. The united states of america, Somalia, third world Africa and other similar places do not count as they actually do have a lot of gender issues, anti abortion movements, mass rape and all sort of crappy things.

[GuppyShark]

What do men do to avoid being raped?

We're not equal yet. There's still plenty of road to be travelled.

I get that you're not saying that's your personal position, but the notion that we've got equality already so whatever is pretty thin and is itself a sign of lack of awareness and perception.

[Purple]

What do men do to avoid being raped?

In the civilized world (note the * in my post) rape counts are actually quite low.
Looking at Wikipedia now we have statistics like Germany (9 per 100,000 people in 2009), France (16.2 per 100,000 people again in 2009) etc. So whilst far from good (ideally you'd have 0) it really is not as common an occurrence as fear would make you believe. Looking at the numbers in civilized* countries you really don't have to go out of your way to avoid being raped.

I get that you're not saying that's your personal position, but the notion that we've got equality already so whatever is pretty thin and is itself a sign of lack of awareness and perception.

Exactly. And yet when you combine that with things such as radical feminists campaigning against fitness posters it is easy to see how some people get the impression that if something is not done in 20 years time men will be in the same place women were 20 years ago.

* Again noting that when I say civilized I do not include america.

[Balrog]

What do men do to avoid being raped?

In the civilized world (note the * in my post) rape counts are actually quite low.
Looking at Wikipedia now we have statistics like Germany (9 per 100,000 people in 2009), France (16.2 per 100,000 people again in 2009) etc. So whilst far from good (ideally you'd have 0) it really is not as common an occurrence as fear would make you believe. Looking at the numbers in civilized* countries you really don't have to go out of your way to avoid being raped.

I get that you're not saying that's your personal position, but the notion that we've got equality already so whatever is pretty thin and is itself a sign of lack of awareness and perception.

Exactly. And yet when you combine that with things such as radical feminists campaigning against fitness posters it is easy to see how some people get the impression that if something is not done in 20 years time men will be in the same place women were 20 years ago.

* Again noting that when I say civilized I do not include america.

Whatever, I can accept a certain level of America bashing given past actions, but come the fuck on. Perhaps you should've used a less controversial word than civilized or some better method than rapes per 100,000 as your yardstick of civilization, since going back to Wiki as a source fucking India has a lower rate than Germany or France.

Anyways, back to my original question from earlier this thread, has anyone actually watched the movie, and while I doubt there is any actual feminist propaganda I'd be curious to know what could potentially be construed as such, knowing full well crazy people will see what they will no matter what.

[Joun_Lord]

highly probable genetic inferiority

I am sure you were being tongue and cheek here but I'd caution you to be careful with this type of shit. On the off chance you are serious please realize that you are engaging it the same shit you accuse them of with this sort of thing and you are severely underestimating your enemy for the convenience/ego boost by making such assumptions. People who have views you disagree with or even find repulsive /= untermench. They wouldn't be very dangerous or long standing opponents if they were.

Being more or less tongue in cheek. Its a bit of a rip at their expense where the thing that people tend to rail the hardest against is in fact their deepest darkest secretest secret. Christians who rail against atheists and sin tend to be greedy, sinful people who have long ago lost their faith. Republicans who scream about the evils of gay people will wind up sucking dick in a bathroom or trying to pick up guys or chatting with twinks on a gay website.

So it stands to reason these morons strutting about in the gayest military uniforms that even a certifiable redneck like myself wouldn't caught dead in, I might be some poor cuntry boy from the holler in WV but I gotta look fashionable ya dig, and wailing about genetic purity and superiority but deep down know they are about as pure as a bottle of Coca-Cola can be considered pure water and probably have some pretty extreme fears about being untermench themselves.

Now personally I think the whole "genetic superiority" and "purity" shit is crap. Ain't nobody except some highly isolated tribe resemble anything these Aryan asshole consider "pure". Most everyone is the result of crossbreeding, imbreeding, whatever. Families living in America especially are going to have an Injun or a black person in their ancestry thanks to settlers screwing native women and slave owners screwing their slaves. The Eurocommies probably aren't all that pure either considering the thousands of years of war, migrations, slavery, and travel especially during the Roman era that had people from all over the known world traveling and settling all over the place.

And superiority is bullshit. We ain't living in Star Trek where evolution has some defined goal or "levels" of evolution. What can even be considered slightly superior is people best at surviving in their environment but even then others do it better with technology. Some big strong tough guy might be able to live off the land but some smart guy from the city can do it better with a bit of tech and knowledge. But the big strong guy can survive when the tech is not available. Both can be considered superior in different situations.

So nobody is really superior, everyone is just better at somethings if that makes any sort of sense.

Just the same Men Rights Activists and "normal" anti-feminist hate groups will have some overlap, both hate women and believe they should return to the kitchen at best, but also have fundamental differences in ideology.

I would not say that they all hate women. Some of them just hate feminists. There is a difference.

Yes this is true I suppose. Some don't really hate women but don't want them to have equal rights, some fear women and think they want to take equal rights from men, and the some just hate women for whatever reason even while trying to get into their pants.

But just is part of what I was saying even if I was saying it in my own "special" terrible way, there is alot of differences between the groups.

And that is a good write-up on the mind set some anti-feminists have.

[Kojiro]

Anyways, back to my original question from earlier this thread, has anyone actually watched the movie, and while I doubt there is any actual feminist propaganda I'd be curious to know what could potentially be construed as such, knowing full well crazy people will see what they will no matter what.

I haven't seen it, but from what I can gather 'feminist propaganda' basically amounts to having a kick ass woman in the film who overshadows Max. To be upset by it you'd have to be insecure about women having agency and power. I can see how a RoK contributor might be threatened but no reasonable person. Charlize Theron kicking ass is going to drive me to the cinema, not away from it.

[Purple]

Whatever, I can accept a certain level of America bashing given past actions, but come the fuck on.

Well let's be fair. America is an out layer in most criminal things compared to the western world. They get more murders, violent crime, drug related offenses, police murders of people, police murdered by people etc. than anyone else. So any argument that is made in regard of any of these has to make a note of this and introduce them as an exception or else handle them separately.

Perhaps you should've used a less controversial word than civilized or some better method than rapes per 100,000 as your yardstick of civilization, since going back to Wiki as a source fucking India has a lower rate than Germany or France.

I will be honest. I just skimmed through the net for the first rape statistics I could find. The exact numbers them self are not really what matters in comparison to the general ballpark they are in. And the general conclusion that comes from them is that the generic female living in a generic first world nation that isn't america has, outside of very exceptional conditions (such as migrant ghettos) less chance of being raped in her life than she does of being run over dead by a car. And that it is the sheer severity of rape rather than actual odds of it happening that drives people to fear it so.

Yes this is true I suppose. Some don't really hate women but don't want them to have equal rights, some fear women and think they want to take equal rights from men, and the some just hate women for whatever reason even while trying to get into their pants.

But just is part of what I was saying even if I was saying it in my own "special" terrible way, there is alot of differences between the groups.

And that is a good write-up on the mind set some anti-feminists have.

And here you are missing the point completely. Some men are perfectly fine with female equality and just hate what they see as a small group of neo-feminists who want to move past equality and into revenge. And this is a very real category which you do not think exists.

[madd0ct0r]

I've seen it

I was thinking of writing an essay on it, and the wife wants to go see it again this weekend, so no promises but maybe.

[Joun_Lord]

And here you are missing the point completely. Some men are perfectly fine with female equality and just hate what they see as a small group of neo-feminists who want to move past equality and into revenge. And this is a very real category which you do not think exists.

I know they exist, but this conversation wasn't I believe aboot people with a legitimate grievance but hate groups "they just hate feminists" types, not they hate extremists feminists. Its like talking about MRAs and not mentioning the people who actually ARE for mens rights and not just stripping womens rights in a roundabout way. People, well most people without too much of an agenda, know they exist but will not speak of them most of the time when spocking of the HeMan womyn haters.

Though I suppose I should have clarified they do exist when speaking of this, a mistake on my part.

And yes, Murica is considerably more violent then most other pig dog Western countries but its also bigger and far more varied. Essentially America is like a collection of smaller countries, like the Europeon Union but a little more cohesive. Each state has its own laws and governments and economies and environments. Some states are like 1st world countries and others like my home state are closer to 3rd world countries.

You have to understand the sheer size of the country and just how independent it is to understand some of the problems with violence it has.

[Beowulf]

I know they exist, but this conversation wasn't I believe aboot people with a legitimate grievance but hate groups "they just hate feminists" types, not they hate extremists feminists. Its like talking about MRAs and not mentioning the people who actually ARE for mens rights and not just stripping womens rights in a roundabout way. People, well most people without too much of an agenda, know they exist but will not speak of them most of the time when spocking of the HeMan womyn haters.

The default ideology of MRAs, without twisting it, is about maintaining dominance over women. That is their mainstream, fundamentally based on a titanic strawman of feminism. That is not their lunatic fringe, or the nutjobs who call themselves MRAs without actually believing in the things MRAs believe in. No. That is the rancid shit over on A Voice For Men.

In this thread, we have someone who denies that they are any supporters of Men's Rights who are not misogynist.

[K. A. Pital]

And he is not alone. Men get higher wages, face no discrimination and the threat of female rape is not even close to the opposite incident.

Therefore, people who say "men need to protect their rights" are like white rights advocates in segregation era US or apartheid South Africa. They are 100% misogynists. Otherwise what is the reason for their existence? What men rights even mean, eh?

[Joun_Lord]

And he is not alone. Men get higher wages, face no discrimination and the threat of female rape is not even close to the opposite incident.

Therefore, people who say "men need to protect their rights" are like white rights advocates in segregation era US or apartheid South Africa. They are 100% misogynists. Otherwise what is the reason for their existence? What men rights even mean, eh?

Brodo of the Shire, just because dudes have some advantages doesn't mean they don't need to protect or guarantee their rights. As said multiple times in this very thread there are some areas women have advantages over men and to say men face no discrimination is disingenuous. Men do face discrimination in what is predominately female fields like child care, nursing, and being Hooters waitresses no matter how large and voluminous their man boobs may be.

Men may not be raped at nearly the same rate as women but they are still raped and still face quite heavy stigma and discrimination in reporting it. Plus some places men cannot even be legally raped.

And one can advocate for mens rights even without being against womens just the same as someone can advocate for womens rights without beings against men, unless you think all feminists are man haters or something equally foolish, you foolish fool.

[Balrog]

Whatever, I can accept a certain level of America bashing given past actions, but come the fuck on.

Well let's be fair. America is an out layer in most criminal things compared to the western world. They get more murders, violent crime, drug related offenses, police murders of people, police murdered by people etc. than anyone else. So any argument that is made in regard of any of these has to make a note of this and introduce them as an exception or else handle them separately.

Purple, there's a world if difference between saying that America suffers from a higher crime rate than other comparable nations, and saying that America's crime rate means it belongs in the same category as actual third-world shitholes like Somalia, you know, the place from which actual pirates operate? The first is as you try to claim, making a notation about a significant difference which ought to be accounted for, the other is more like bad troll-baiting.

Perhaps you should've used a less controversial word than civilized or some better method than rapes per 100,000 as your yardstick of civilization, since going back to Wiki as a source fucking India has a lower rate than Germany or France.

I will be honest. I just skimmed through the net for the first rape statistics I could find. The exact numbers them self are not really what matters in comparison to the general ballpark they are in. And the general conclusion that comes from them is that the generic female living in a generic first world nation that isn't america has, outside of very exceptional conditions (such as migrant ghettos) less chance of being raped in her life than she does of being run over dead by a car. And that it is the sheer severity of rape rather than actual odds of it happening that drives people to fear it so.

So the statistics are flawed, but that doesn't matter because it makes your point anyways? You do realize going by those same statistics, Sweden has twice as many rapes as the United States per 100,000. Are we to conclude one of the great Nordic Socialist paradises is more dangerous to women than that cesspool known as the United States of Terribad? Or perhaps investigate a little closer and realize that UNODC themselves caution against using those stats for any meaningful comparison?

[Purple]

Purple, there's a world if difference between saying that America suffers from a higher crime rate than other comparable nations, and saying that America's crime rate means it belongs in the same category as actual third-world shitholes like Somalia, you know, the place from which actual pirates operate? The first is as you try to claim, making a notation about a significant difference which ought to be accounted for, the other is more like bad troll-baiting.

My apologies in this case. That was not my intent. I merely wanted to ensure a tight specification of the countries I was and was not talking about.

So the statistics are flawed, but that doesn't matter because it makes your point anyways? You do realize going by those same statistics, Sweden has twice as many rapes as the United States per 100,000. Are we to conclude one of the great Nordic Socialist paradises is more dangerous to women than that cesspool known as the United States of Terribad? Or perhaps investigate a little closer and realize that UNODC themselves caution against using those stats for any meaningful comparison?

Actually we are to conclude that even in the worst possible conditions in Europe such as living in a Nordic country inside an migrant ghetto or something similar the chance of rape is still statistically very small. In 2012, Sweden had 66 cases of reported rapes per 100,000 population, according to the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brå).[1]. Let's take this with a sack full of salt and say that 1 in 10 rapes are actually reported. So our assumption is that for every one reported in that statistic there is actually 10. That would still mean a less than a 1% chance to get raped per year. And the exact statistics don't matter because ultimately the difference between it being 1%, 2% or 0.5% does not actually create a meaningful change to the basic argument of it being unlikely. The only thing that would create a meaningful disruption is if the numbers were in the double digit percentages.

[Balrog]

Purple, there's a world if difference between saying that America suffers from a higher crime rate than other comparable nations, and saying that America's crime rate means it belongs in the same category as actual third-world shitholes like Somalia, you know, the place from which actual pirates operate? The first is as you try to claim, making a notation about a significant difference which ought to be accounted for, the other is more like bad troll-baiting.

My apologies in this case. That was not my intent. I merely wanted to ensure a tight specification of the countries I was and was not talking about.

Very well.

So the statistics are flawed, but that doesn't matter because it makes your point anyways? You do realize going by those same statistics, Sweden has twice as many rapes as the United States per 100,000. Are we to conclude one of the great Nordic Socialist paradises is more dangerous to women than that cesspool known as the United States of Terribad? Or perhaps investigate a little closer and realize that UNODC themselves caution against using those stats for any meaningful comparison?

Actually we are to conclude that even in the worst possible conditions in Europe such as living in a Nordic country inside an migrant ghetto or something similar the chance of rape is still statistically very small. In 2012, Sweden had 66 cases of reported rapes per 100,000 population, according to the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brå).[1]. Let's take this with a sack full of salt and say that 1 in 10 rapes are actually reported. So our assumption is that for every one reported in that statistic there is actually 10. That would still mean a less than a 1% chance to get raped per year. And the exact statistics don't matter because ultimately the difference between it being 1%, 2% or 0.5% does not actually create a meaningful change to the basic argument of it being unlikely. The only thing that would create a meaningful disruption is if the numbers were in the double digit percentages.

Then perhaps we should use the same methodology on the information for the US. There were reportedly 27 rapes per 100,000 in 2010, bump that up to 270 assuming only 1 in 10 were reported, and you get...the exact same answer as for Sweden, less than 1% chance of getting raped per year. I suppose you could assume the ratio of unreported rapes are greater (depending on how much you hate or are jealous of America ) but there's no basis using those statistics to say there's significantly more risk.

[Balrog]

Anyways, back to my original question from earlier this thread, has anyone actually watched the movie, and while I doubt there is any actual feminist propaganda I'd be curious to know what could potentially be construed as such, knowing full well crazy people will see what they will no matter what.

I haven't seen it, but from what I can gather 'feminist propaganda' basically amounts to having a kick ass woman in the film who overshadows Max. To be upset by it you'd have to be insecure about women having agency and power. I can see how a RoK contributor might be threatened but no reasonable person. Charlize Theron kicking ass is going to drive me to the cinema, not away from it.

If that's true then I can imagine being upset, though not for the "Strong Female Protagonist? RARRG!" reasons. The main protagonist ideally shouldn't be overshadowed in their own movie by another character.

[Metahive]

If that's true then I can imagine being upset, though not for the "Strong Female Protagonist? RARRG!" reasons. The main protagonist ideally shouldn't be overshadowed in their own movie by another character.

Face it, Mad Max himself is one of those cookie cutter action movie heroes that we have seen in a bazillion movies already. The only way such guys could be made more interesting would by giving them some sort of edge or quirk that would however also lower their mass-appeal (as they wouldn't serve as an audience identification characters anymore), so getting overshadowed by the less restricted members of the cast is somewhat of a given. Take Starlord from the recent Guardians of the Galaxy movie, he's the blandest, most boring and least interesting character out of the main cast and arguably is overshadowed by all of them, yet did anyone really mind?

[madd0ct0r]

fucks sake. I think the two of you should see it rather then repeat 2nd hand stuff.