Is MRA terrorism against women? | INFJ Forum

Is MRA terrorism against women?

Ghoulia Yelps

Ghoulia Yelps

Community Member
Dec 15, 2013
202
27
0
MBTI
INFJ
Enneagram
4w3
Are any of you followers of men's rights bloggers such as Roosh V?
Do you agree with this mentality?
What personality types do you think are most likely to follow this lifestyle?
Is it right to brand 55% or the worlds population your enemy/ prey based on their gender?
Do MRA/PUA/Patriarchist religions have any redeeming features, and can women learn anything from them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: invisible
These questions are framed poorly.
 
A while ago I spent some time reading one of those forums out of interest and I think it was the Roosh one. Their ability of these men to relate to others as human beings seems stunted or deformed, they relate on a bestial level to both other men and other women - it's all about dominating the pack and eliciting physiological responses. What is their word for men who are not concerned with dominating other human beings - I can't remember. But they seem to perceive a woman as nothing more than a vagina that is in a state of either dryness or irrigation. If she, from the perspective of perceiving her as a vagina, is irrigated, that's all that matters about her thoughts and feelings.

I think it is telling that they describe their way of relating to others as "game". A relationship is not a mutual exchange, it's a sport. So what they are doing is taking a perspective that negotiating a genuine relationship is not meaningful, but that what is meaningful is victory, as though it is a sort of war? Sorry, I can't describe it properly. But what I mean is that there is no interest in anything genuine, but rather the focus is on eradicating genuine things and replacing them with displays of dominance. So it doesn't matter by what means dominance is achieved, such as a deceptive manipulation, so long as it is achieved. What is important is the display and the conquest, not the intimate exchange.

Many of them seem to be looking for their "dream girl". It is difficult to imagine what kind of "dream girl" they are imagining. They are imagining a woman who will accept that they have lived a life where they approached other women with the intention of manipulating interactions according to their own preferences. What kind of dream partner would admire someone for having lived like that? It seems like, maybe a person who is not very well developed emotionally, and is not able to value themselves properly? How is a person with such significant personal and self esteem deficits a "dream girl"?

It's so funny when they're writing stuff like "escalate" and all the other ridiculous jargon they use. My favourite stories are the ones where they are complaining that they achieved "no bang" because the target refused to return to their place of seduction and instead rapidly departed their company. They are entirely mystified by the failure of their approach, they can't figure out why they did not succeed to "bang". I laughed so hard when I was reading stories like that.

Women should closely study these sites on the internet. The are tremendous resources of information on how to identify certain relationship approaches. A friend of mine told me that these approaches had been applied to her twice without her knowing and that she did not realise until later when she read these materials.

I'm all in favour of talking about the unfortunate effects of a male dominated world on men, but I mean the idea of suggesting that men are the main victims in all of this, and that women are trying to destroy or enslave them or something like that, is so ridiculous to me that I don't even know how to talk about those things. I find it so annoying when men talk about women hating them, for so many reasons. I don't want to stop them from talking about those things, but really... I myself just won't talk about those things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: acd
  • Like
Reactions: SealHammer
invisible said:
More details pls! Do you mean that current popular approaches to gender are not sufficiently scholarly or grounded in historical theory?
Click to expand...

I think he's saying that third-wave feminism, specifically, is not sufficiently grounded in reality (it isn't).
 
SealHammer said:
I think he's saying that third-wave feminism, specifically, is not sufficiently grounded in reality (it isn't).
Click to expand...

"Reality" is such a funny word, because in the sense of its definition it purports to be describing something ineluctable and self-evident, but when it is used in practice it is so highly subjective, and the things that it refers to seem to change so variously according to the different people who are using it. So far as a broad theoretical and political movement goes, it's usually difficult to get at one generalised sense of the relationship of the movement to "reality", because these things are made up of a range of different perspectives and viewpoints that are often describing different things and are not always in agreement with each other.
 
I'd have to go read Roosh V. I frequent A Voice For Men and some MRAs on twitter. I do not think it's terrorism against women.
 
invisible said:
"Reality" is such a funny word, because in the sense of its definition it purports to be describing something ineluctable and self-evident, but when it is used in practice it is so highly subjective, and the things that it refers to seem to change so variously according to the different people who are using it. So far as a broad theoretical and political movement goes, it's usually difficult to get at one generalised sense of the relationship of the movement to "reality", because these things are made up of a range of different perspectives and viewpoints that are often describing different things and are not always in agreement with each other.
Click to expand...

Oh, okay, so you're saying that any given social movement is given to ambiguities and factionalism, and that no single sample can be considered indicative of the greater whole?

Then why would you compare all men's advocates to renowned insane misogynist Roosh V?
 
SealHammer said:
Oh, okay, so you're saying that any given social movement is given to ambiguities and factionalism, and that no single sample can be considered indicative of the greater whole?

Then why would you compare all men's advocates to renowned insane misogynist Roosh V?
Click to expand...

There has been a misunderstanding, I did not make that comparison. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but I never made any sort of general statement likening all men's advocates to Roosh V. I responded with my thoughts on what was posted in the OP. I'm sorry if I seemed to inadvertently make the comparison that you are suggesting, but I can only say that it was never my intention.
 
invisible said:
A while ago I spent some time reading one of those forums out of interest and I think it was the Roosh one. Their ability of these men to relate to others as human beings seems stunted or deformed, they relate on a bestial level to both other men and other women - it's all about dominating the pack and eliciting physiological responses. What is their word for men who are not concerned with dominating other human beings - I can't remember. But they seem to perceive a woman as nothing more than a vagina that is in a state of either dryness or irrigation. If she, from the perspective of perceiving her as a vagina, is irrigated, that's all that matters about her thoughts and feelings.

I think it is telling that they describe their way of relating to others as "game". A relationship is not a mutual exchange, it's a sport. So what they are doing is taking a perspective that negotiating a genuine relationship is not meaningful, but that what is meaningful is victory, as though it is a sort of war? Sorry, I can't describe it properly. But what I mean is that there is no interest in anything genuine, but rather the focus is on eradicating genuine things and replacing them with displays of dominance. So it doesn't matter by what means dominance is achieved, such as a deceptive manipulation, so long as it is achieved. What is important is the display and the conquest, not the intimate exchange.

Many of them seem to be looking for their "dream girl". It is difficult to imagine what kind of "dream girl" they are imagining. They are imagining a woman who will accept that they have lived a life where they approached other women with the intention of manipulating interactions according to their own preferences. What kind of dream partner would admire someone for having lived like that? It seems like, maybe a person who is not very well developed emotionally, and is not able to value themselves properly? How is a person with such significant personal and self esteem deficits a "dream girl"?

It's so funny when they're writing stuff like "escalate" and all the other ridiculous jargon they use. My favourite stories are the ones where they are complaining that they achieved "no bang" because the target refused to return to their place of seduction and instead rapidly departed their company. They are entirely mystified by the failure of their approach, they can't figure out why they did not succeed to "bang". I laughed so hard when I was reading stories like that.

Women should closely study these sites on the internet. The are tremendous resources of information on how to identify certain relationship approaches. A friend of mine told me that these approaches had been applied to her twice without her knowing and that she did not realise until later when she read these materials.

I'm all in favour of talking about the unfortunate effects of a male dominated world on men, but I mean the idea of suggesting that men are the main victims in all of this, and that women are trying to destroy or enslave them or something like that, is so ridiculous to me that I don't even know how to talk about those things. I find it so annoying when men talk about women hating them, for so many reasons. I don't want to stop them from talking about those things, but really... I myself just won't talk about those things.
Click to expand...

Haven't been on these kind of sites - not curious enough to wade through that kind of stuff - your impressions are very communicative and kind of give one the creeps about the site you visited.

I wonder if those sites are more about elaborating fantasies/imaginings of dominance, for men who have not found legitimate/constructive/happy ways to channel their aggression. From my working life I know that if I didn't get a chance to exercise/train occasionally I would become unreasonably exacting in my expectations of other's work performance. If I found myself starting to chew people out for mistakes, I would take an hour off and go for a run - then the all would seem to be well with the world again.

If these men have not found a healthy way to be men, and have either repressed themselves, or worse - have been repressed by others -, a very vile variety of expression is almost predictable.

This is not to advocate/excuse, but I hold the view that aside from true mental illness, everyone has the capacity to be a very genuinely kind and humane person - if they find their own functional/existential niche.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
Haven't been on these kind of sites - not curious enough to wade through that kind of stuff - your impressions are very communicative and kind of give one the creeps about the site you visited.

I wonder if those sites are more about elaborating fantasies/imaginings of dominance, for men who have not found legitimate/constructive/happy ways to channel their aggression. From my working life I know that if I didn't get a chance to exercise/train occasionally I would become unreasonably exacting in my expectations of other's work performance. If I found myself starting to chew people out for mistakes, I would take an hour off and go for a run - then the all would seem to be well with the world again.

If these men have not found a healthy way to be men, and have either repressed themselves, or worse - have been repressed by others -, a very vile variety of expression is almost predictable.

This is not to advocate/excuse, but I hold the view that aside from true mental illness, everyone has the capacity to be a very genuinely kind and humane person - if they find their own functional/existential niche.
Click to expand...

Maybe, I don't know, it's possible. To me, they seem "lost", I don't know how they would find their way to an authentic relationship with another person. But I suppose that to them, the relationship style that they practice is the most authentic relationship style, and it's the types of exchanges that I regard as authentic that they regard as false. They talk about it as taking a red pill, or a blue pill, or something like that, I think it's a reference to "The Matrix".
 
invisible said:
Maybe, I don't know, it's possible. To me, they seem "lost", I don't know how they would find their way to an authentic relationship with another person. But I suppose that to them, the relationship style that they practice is the most authentic relationship style, and it's the types of exchanges that I regard as authentic that they regard as false. They talk about it as taking a red pill, or a blue pill, or something like that, I think it's a reference to "The Matrix".
Click to expand...
For such people, relationships probably wouldn't be the best first step in healing... perhaps a few steps down that path.

I don't think that such relationships as they claim to practice are the most personally authentic, so much as the only type possible at the present.

There is something which has always bothered me: that children who grow up in the shadow of parental conflict seem more disposed to dysfunctional relationships - and some can seem uncomfortable with good partners. Perhaps some people can't remain in healthy relationships. Whether this should lead to resignation, or in the specific example here, acceptance/cultivation of dysfunctionality is a more difficult call to make.
 
We Hunted The Mammoth is a site which gathers these articles from all over the web.
Lots of the subbreddits seem to centre on rape fantasy / dominance submission, fantasies about raping powerful women/ feminists, revenge rape, humiliation, and violation of men who do not agree with them (read Manginas)
Basically a lot of stuff about fantasising about rape, rape apologists, and coercion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: invisible
What do others think of this article at "A Voice For Men":



There's an asterisk on the photo in this article claiming that "Women initiate 70% of relationship violence", but this asterisk appears not to refer to any external source, but only to the article itself. I found this very confusing, as usually asterisks are used in articles to refer to some external source. I used my browser's "find" feature on the CDC reports that the article refers to, but the only reference to 70% that I could find anywhere was "IPV victimization begins at an early age with nearly 70% off female victims and nearly 54% of male victims having experienced IPV prior to age 25". I can't find any information about the origin of this statistic claiming that 70% of relationship violence is initiated by women. Also, I just don't know what it means. How do you tell whether someone initiated the violence, and what does it mean that they initiated it? Maybe they said something insensitive like "I don't care if you had a bad day," and their partner bashed them for it. Does the insensitive remark mean that they initiated the violence?

The main technical problem with the article is that it infers causation from correlation. It uses the word "predictor", but this is misleading, because there is no indication that the violence was caused by the femininity. It also selects information that is relevant to its thesis, and ignores conflicting information of the report to do with violence against bisexual women and types of sexual violence amongst gay men.

The information of these reports seems to be derived from the self-disclosures of individuals who have been subjected to violence. Since it is more likely for women to disclose violence, is it possible that lesbian women disclose more often because they are further from the influence of men? I'm not at all insisting that this is the truth, but I'm just saying - couldn't there be other reasons for why the data say what they do, other than that women are causative of violence on themselves?

I don't understand what it means about lesbianism being toxic. The author seems to want to make a point about femininity causing violence, but obviously, the women in heterosexual relationships were not lesbians. I'm just not sure how to understand how lesbianism is supposed to fit into all of this. I guess it is just meant to say that the more women there are in a relationship, the worse that the relationship is? What am I missing?

I think that the thing that is most concerning for me about the article is that it seems to blame the victims of assaults for what they have gone through. I find this very problematic, not necessarily because it reminds me of stereotypical statements of violence perpetrators to the effect that "s/he made me do it!" or "s/he asked for it!", but more because it seems impossible to resolve the problem of violence by asking the victims of the violence to be accountable for the behaviours of the violence perpetrators. It is the perpetrator of the violence that directs the actions of their own body, ie. goes through with committing the beating or rape. How is a victim supposed to stop a perpetrator from directing their own body in violent ways? How can a perpetrator of violence be rehabilitated and stop committing violence if they can not be responsible for their behaviours?

I feel like I would need to look at the statistics from the reports in a lot more depth to really understand them properly, but without doing that, already I feel like there is something seriously wrong with the approach taken by the author of the article. What do others think about this article? The author of the article appears to be a respected person in this community, and the article is prominently displayed at the site index. Am I wrong to find the approach of the article concerning?
 
Last edited:
Ghoulia Yelps said:
We Hunted The Mammoth is a site which gathers these articles from all over the web.
Lots of the subbreddits seem to centre on rape fantasy / dominance submission, fantasies about raping powerful women/ feminists, revenge rape, humiliation, and violation of men who do not agree with them (read Manginas)
Basically a lot of stuff about fantasising about rape, rape apologists, and coercion.
Click to expand...

I don't understand this term "mangina". It's like a sort of abusive name-calling, isn't it? It seems to somehow turn the word "vagina" into a sort of insult, as if there is something shameful or unworthy about having a vagina. Or maybe there is only something shameful about having a vagina if you are a man? But men don't have vaginas, do they? Then how can they made to be ashamed of having one, when they don't have it?
 
Just as I think women have every right to explore what it means to be a woman (personally, professionally, in society) and seek equality in those areas, I don't have a problem with men exploring the same.

In some ways things are scaled so grossly in favour of women that it is a slap in the face to men (think the family court system) and others are scaled in favour of men. I think sometimes a lot gets lost in translation when we talk about equality and feminism and Men's Rights. I kind of get grossed out but the social justice warriorism of some threads of feminism just as I get grossed out by the small groups of men who basically equate women to baby making slaves. There are extremes at both ends of the spectrum. Unfortunately whoever screams loudest tends to be heard so most of what we see representing men's and women's rights is just extreme and quite frankly disgusting.
 
Victim blaming/ shaming tactics are rife within the fundamentalist religious sector, look at the likes of the Duggar family. "Defrauding" in these circles is a buzzword for a man being led on by a woman who does not deliver. This means that the women in these groups dress in "modest" fashion, to protect themselves from the men who are portrayed as brutal animals with no self control. Only one step away from the Taliban.
 
  • Like
Reactions: invisible
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back