Is MRA terrorism against women? | Page 2 | INFJ Forum

Is MRA terrorism against women?

Is third wave feminism terrorism against intellect?

No, because Third Wave Feminism is just a label that has been coopted by its critics.
Real Third Wave Feminism is intended to bring equality education and better standards of living to women from developing countries, and help end prejudice against homosexuals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: invisible
No, because Third Wave Feminism is just a label that has been coopted by its critics.
Real Third Wave Feminism is intended to bring equality education and better standards of living to women from developing countries, and help end prejudice against homosexuals.

Is MRA terrorism against women

No, because MRA is just a label that has been coopted by its critics.
Real MRA is intended to bring equality education and better standards of living to men from developing countries, and help end prejudice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cornerstone
It's not terrorism. It's extreme, and even extremists are entitled to their weirdo opinions, but not on par with the taliban. Maybe when they start blowing themselves up at showings of the Vagina Monologues can we then call it terrorism.

I'd agree with what was stated here that women can read these blogs and forums to learn how to spot and disengage these weirdos irl.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Trifoilum
Unfortunately, too many of the MRA groups are promoting hatred of women and don't address men's actual issues. They are causing more harm to men than they are to women. They are drowning out good groups and male voices that should be heard and replacing them with diatribes and buffoonery that make men look bad.

I believe strongly that there are serious issues facing men that need highlighting, but ironically, I think feminism actually addresses those problems more effectively and clearly than the MRA groups do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: acd
No, because Third Wave Feminism is just a label that has been coopted by its critics.
Real Third Wave Feminism is intended to bring equality education and better standards of living to women from developing countries, and help end prejudice against homosexuals.

These terms have been used by many researchers and intellectuals and it is simply a term used to describe the third stage of feminism which took speed during the previous decade. I mean, people mention about the phrase 'divide and rule' and you hope to think it's just a cynical term. Well, people, we have a movement that is doing precisely that. I mean....are you sure that Third Wave Feminism is trying to end what the issues you mentioned in developing countries? Every time I check out a video, read an article or watch some kind of documentary, I am usually given a lecture by a woman that is particularly displeased at a specific phrase or word that men use when talking to women. Or, they complain about pretty much anything that men do (or don't do) whilst managing to completely avoid the real violence against women and homosexuals in the Third World. And what does feminism have to do with Homosexuality? This brings me to my next point: Third Wave Feminism seems not to condone equality between the sexes, but it prefers to condone any extra rights, privileges and sympathies to anybody that isn't a Heterosexual male living under Capitalism. These feminists also like to discuss the issue of racial tension and spend other days storming Twitter with self-righteous hashtags claiming that Men's Right's Activists are terrorizing women for simply wanting men to be left alone and to not be harassed by these vile internet mobs that wish to bring down masculinity as if it were some kind of 'toxic' (they use that word) Patriarchal device.

ENOUGH. It would appear that Third Wave Feminists would prefer a world in-which there were no such thing as Men's Right's Activism so that their job of signalling work quotas for employing extra women would be a lot easier. I always detect a hint of Authoritarian attitude to life and politics when I witness or encounter a Third Wave Feminist; they have absolutely no grasp on the reality of personal responsibility which they are all held accountable to, as is the rest of the population. Third Wave Feminism is directly responsible for the rise of the 'Victim Culture' in-which a feminist that has any problem with anything that a man says to them in the street or on the internet can be investigated by a court of law just because that person was 'offended'. They were not threatened with death, they were not mugged of all of their money, they were simply offended by words. If you are offended by the existence of an activist group, you're going to be offended by a lot of things and it would seem that you are are very intolerant person. I, myself, consider feminism in modern terms and in Western society a completely done and dusted issue. Fight for equality, not for the superiority of a particular sex. The Third World needs the empowerment of women because religious toleration and acceptance frankly does not exist in many of those countries and cultures. I hope you will turn your attention to the Third World more than complaining about the existence of the MRA.
 
Last edited:
These terms have been used by many researchers and intellectuals and it is simply a term used to describe the third stage of feminism which took speed during the previous decade. I mean, people mention about the phrase 'divide and rule' and you hope to think it's just a cynical term. Well, people, we have a movement that is doing precisely that. I mean....are you sure that Third Wave Feminism is trying to end what the issues you mentioned in developing countries? Every time I check out a video or watch some kind of documentary, I am usually given a lecture by a woman that is particularly displeased at a specific phrase or word that men use when talking to women. Or, they complain about pretty much anything that men do (or don't do) whilst managing to completely avoid the real violence against women and homosexuals in the Third World. And what does feminism have to do with Homosexuality? This brings me to my next point: Third Wave Feminism seems not to condone equality between the sexes, but it prefers to condone any extra rights, privileges and sympathies to anybody that isn't a Heterosexual male living under Capitalism. These feminists also like to discuss the issue of racial tension and spend other days storming Twitter with self-righteous hashtags claiming that Men's Right's Activists are terrorizing women for simply wanting men to be left alone and to not be harassed by these vile internet mobs that wish to bring down masculinity as if it were some kind of 'toxic' (they use that word) Patriarchal device.

ENOUGH. It would appear that Third Wave Feminists would prefer a world in-which there were no such thing as Men's Right's Activism so that their job of signalling work quotas for employing extra women would be a lot easier. I always detect a hint of Authoritarian attitude to life and politics when I witness or encounter a Third Wave Feminist; they have absolutely no grasp on the reality of personal responsibility which they are all held accountable to, as if the rest of the population. If you are offended by the existence of an activist group, you're going to be offended by a lot of things and it would seem that you are are very intolerant person.

Someone is drowning in confirmation bias. You are obviously only looking for feminist material that backs up your ideas of what feminism is.
Third wave feminism is about addressing intersectionalities.

Intersectionality (or intersectional theory) is the study of overlapping or intersecting social identities and related systems of oppression, domination or discrimination.

It's about acknowledging that discrimination comes in all sorts of forms and that viewing feminism through the lens of middle class heterosexual white women does not address the specific issues faced by women (and men) who are of different cultural backgrounds, races, abilities, sexual orientations, etc...
 
[MENTION=9809]La Sagna[/MENTION]

You obviously didn't read what I said, then. You see, the views I expressed that surround Third Wave Feminism are not my views, they are the views of many feminists that are part of this 'movement'. The evidence you need is all over the internet. All you need to do is look at a hashtag on Twitter at any time and you'll find something from a Third Wave Feminist that attempts to justify men being given another lecture because somebody was offended by something very insignificant. Just because I didn't mention 'Intersectionality' does not mean I deny its existence in this movement, nor does it confirm any bias. I find it funny that the spell-checker here doesn't identify the word 'Intersectionality' which is why I have to keep using apostrophes.

What you said in your last sentence was quite bigoted. You suggest that middle class white heterosexual women cannot address issues of different backgrounds and cultures. Why does this matter so much to you? And why does it matter that this woman has to be white? Why are you mentioning her class? It's these little things I spot with Third Wave Feminists that hints at their subconscious desire to divide and rule using baited racial, sexual and cultural terms to form an argument that attempts to put one class of person's perspective over the other. If you truly want real equality, then let every person of every background have the same value of input and opinion. Assume that no person is racist UNTIL they say something racist. Assume that a government is not 'institutionally racist' UNTIL you can provide some very substantial evidence of that claim. I have yet to see a mainstream Third Wave Feminist complain about the treatment of women in the country that [MENTION=13542]SarahBS[/MENTION] currently resides in and a country in-which she is afraid to even show her own hair because of Theocratic oppression. The only feminists I see complaining about this sort of thing is women like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an extraordinary woman that fled Somalia to avoid a forced-marriage and further oppression. It is this kind of thing I never see amongst Third Wave Feminists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SarahBS
[MENTION=9809]La Sagna[/MENTION]

You obviously didn't read what I said, then. You see, the views I expressed that surround Third Wave Feminism are not my views, they are the views of many feminists that are part of this 'movement'. The evidence you need is all over the internet. All you need to do is look at a hashtag on Twitter at any time and you'll find something from a Third Wave Feminist that attempts to justify men being given another lecture because somebody was offended by something very insignificant. Just because I didn't mention 'Intersectionality' does not mean I deny its existence in this movement, nor does it confirm any bias. I find it funny that the spell-checker here doesn't identify the word 'Intersectionality' which is why I have to keep using apostrophes.

What you said in your last sentence was quite bigoted. You suggest that middle class white heterosexual women cannot address issues of different backgrounds and cultures. Why does this matter so much to you? And why does it matter that this woman has to be white? Why are you mentioning her class? It's these little things I spot with Third Wave Feminists that hints at their subconscious desire to divide and rule using baited racial, sexual and cultural terms to form an argument that attempts to put one class of person's perspective over the other. If you truly want real equality, then let every person of every background have the same value of input and opinion. Assume that no person is racist UNTIL they say something racist. Assume that a government is not 'institutionally racist' UNTIL you can provide some very substantial evidence of that claim. I have yet to see a mainstream Third Wave Feminist complain about the treatment of women in the country that [MENTION=13542]SarahBS[/MENTION] currently resides in and a country in-which she is afraid to even show her own hair because of Theocratic oppression. The only feminists I see complaining about this sort of thing is women like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an extraordinary woman that fled Somalia to avoid a forced-marriage and further oppression. It is this kind of thing I never see amongst Third Wave Feminists.

First of all, I am a middle class white heterosexual so I can't see how I can possibly be bigoted about myself. It is not bigoted to realize that the experience of a a poor African black woman is likely very different than mine. It is also not bigoted to realize that the experience of an Asian lesbian will be different than mine. It doesn't negate my personal experience to acknowledge that there are women out there who's experiences are different than mine. It is about hearing everybody's experiences, including white middle-class heterosexual. It is about supporting and listening to one another where we are, and acknowledging that all experiences are different and combine in different ways to shape the challenges that each person faces. That is what intelligent and aware men realize, because women are fighting for certain rights and against sexism and discrimination does not negate men's experiences or rights.

You do realize that any yahoo can post online and call themselves a Feminist or Men's Right Activist. People like to stir hatred and division on all sorts of matters, it doesn't mean that they represent reputable positions or groups. I do not follow 'feminist' groups that are divisive and actually don't represent feminism, just like I don't condemn all men's groups who are trying to fight for causes that affect men (such as mental health or rights in family court) because there are some zealots out there who call themselves Men's Right Activists but only spew hatred and divisiveness.
 
It seems to me that most groups aren't improving their own predicaments so much as saying "we don't have that and neither should you."
 
It's important to contextualise these things historically. The laws that are there to protect women are there now because of how disadvantaged women have been in terms of legal protections historically. People act like as though these things did not come about for a reason, and they just came about purely to trample on men, and that's not the case - they came about because women had no access to wealth. In historical terms, the social change that has happened surrounding women has been vast and rapid, but at the same time, cultural practice is stable and persistent, it does not vanish or resolve itself overnight just because of some legal changes. Everything can't change for women in the space of 200 years. How many generations is that? Just a few generations ago, people did not think it was OK for women to vote. Just last century, women were being lobotomised in order to help them be happier and more effective housewives. So, although laws need to be revised because either they have overcompensated or rapid social changes have made them in some respects redundant, there are reasons why they have come about, they have not come about in a vacuum or simply to inconvenience men. And to say that they need revision is not to say that parts of them are not still relevant.

For example, boys aren't performing well academically. It's right for things to have changed for women. Because things are changing for women, things are changing for men too, and men need to not get left behind. Problems about the changes for boys need to be addressed, we need to make sure that they are getting the education that is right for them and will help them grow. But because men need attention and support in new times, does not mean that the gender problem has been completely resolved for women.

There seems to be limited interest in my criticisms of the article from "Voice For Men". I found this site because it was specifically mentioned on this thread as representative of men's movements that are not misogynist. The person who composed the article I wrote about is a respected leader in that community. And yet it seems to be just exactly the kind of thing that makes young feminists so incredibly enraged. Why shouldn't women feel enraged when they see women being blamed for the rapes or violence that they suffer? If this site is a prominent or representative indication of men's movements, how are feminist women supposed to feel about men's movements?

To what extent are pejorative evaluations of the feminist voices of women as out of touch with reality or as degrading intellectual discourse consistent with the ways that women have historically been treated and silenced? To what extent can these statements be determined to accurately represent reality, and to what extent can they be described as intellectual?
 
Last edited:
PUA is devious as fuck. Like, yeah, it's appealling on one level...but it's bad ain't it? It's too specific. Everyone knows pulling/dating involves a bit of mind-fuckery unless you just meet and hit it off but that's not the same thing. This is too methodical.

I'm going to commit debate suicide but it's like why the Holocaust is worse than killing 6 million Jews. It was industrial. That's the scary part for me. It was methodical, calculated and increasingly streamlined.

They felt overwhelmingly inferior and so feelings of superiority arose to compensate them and keep psychic balance. It's a dead end. It'll swing back with remorse or they'll live a life of delusion and have to stay in LA forever.

As for men's rights. Let's define what masculinity and femininity mean first. Jung has a good definition involving Logos as 'objective interest' and Eros as 'psychic relatedness' and insists there is an unconscious contrasexual archetype in everyone so gender is fixed and fluid simultaneously. The Collected Works are like our generation's Bible...man was wise as fuck.
 
Are any of you followers of men's rights bloggers such as Roosh V?
Not me, I allocate my time to other things.

Do you agree with this mentality?
What mentality ?

What personality types do you think are most likely to follow this lifestyle?
Whomever feels butt hurt is interested in something that reflects that.
Why do you want to pin this on an MBTI type again?

Is it right to brand 55% or the worlds population your enemy/ prey based on their gender?
No, But neither is it for the 55% to do the same to the other 45%

Do MRA/PUA/Patriarchist religions have any redeeming features, and can women learn anything from them?
I dunno, I'm not involved with these sort of things, hell I dunno half the terms you use but if I assume it to be something like feminism, then I suppose the lesson is:
that both sides got their issues, and instead of whining about who suffers more, we should use that energy to resolve the issues at hand and make things equal.

Honestly, I dislike movements that identify with one gender or the other and claim to be for equal rights.
If you want a fair equal playing field for both genders, then you should name your movement in such a way that it reflects that and act accordingly.
 
Are any of you followers of men's rights bloggers such as Roosh V?
Not me. I read them when I stumbled upon them but otherwise NOT LOOKING AT IT. My sanity is expensive.

Do you agree with this mentality?
No, not at all. But they exist nonetheless.

And I think it needs to be reminded that men's rights and MRA's are...two different things.

Just as how other social activists have the toxic and the sane ones (PETA with animal rights, for instance), so is MRA toxic for men's rights in general, the way I see it.

I wholefully agree that there are some unfairness and discrimination against men, and right now patriarchy is also harming men in more ways than one. But the standpoint MRA are basing their perspective on is...heavily toxic.
And since we're here, I guess I can say also that I feel like a lot of these men aren't in a good place emotionally and psychologically either.

Yes, a lot can be said to all sort of people, ideology-aside. I am a feminist and I have seen some feminist who are in a proverbial bad place and that too is sad.

What personality types do you think are most likely to follow this lifestyle?
Trick question. Just like how all types can participate into all sorts of groups, activities, and ideologies; so do all personality types can follow a MRA group.
Is it right to brand 55% or the worlds population your enemy/ prey based on their gender?
Not at all.
Do MRA/PUA/Patriarchist religions have any redeeming features, and can women learn anything from them?
From a feminist's side, they serve as a mirror. A thing to reflect upon; because sometimes we can and have fallen into the same logical fallacies and toxic mindsets as these people.

They serve as a reminder, for us not to ....be the same sort of people under a different ideology.
 
Last edited:
Here's a quote from Jung in CW10 (Civilisation in Transitition)


Woman's psychology is founded on the principle of Eros, the great binder and loosener, whereas from ancient times the ruling principle ascribed to man is Logos. The concept of Eros could be expressed in modern terms as psychic relatedness, and that of Logos as objective interest.

In the eyes of the ordinary man, love in its true sense coincides with the institution of marriage, and outside marriage there is only adultery or "platonic" friendship. For woman, marriage is not an institution at all but a human love-relationship -- at least that is what she would like to believe. (Since her Eros is not naive but is mixed with other, unavowed motives -- marriage as a ladder to social position, etc. -- the principle cannot be applied in any absolute sense.) Marriage means to her an exclusive relationship. She can endure its exclusiveness all the more easily, without dying of ennui, inasmuch as she has children or near relatives with whom she has a no less intimate relationship than with her husband.

The fact that she has no sexual relationship with these others means nothing, for the sexual relationship is of far less importance to her than the psychic relationship. It is enough that she and her husband both believe their relationship to be unique and exclusive. If he happens to be the "container" he feels suffocated by this exclusiveness, especially if he fails to notice that the exclusiveness of his wife is nothing but a pious fraud. In reality she is distributed among the children and among as many members of the family as possible, thus maintaining any number of intimate relationships. If her husband had anything like as many relationships with other people she would be mad with jealousy.

Most men, though, are erotically blinded -- they commit the unpardonable mistake of confusing Eros with sex. A man thinks he possesses a woman if he has her sexually. He never possesses her less, for To a woman the Eros-relationship is the real and decisive one. For her, marriage is relationship with sex thrown in as an accompaniment. Since sex is a formidable thing on account of its consequences, it is useful to have it in a safe place. But when it is less of a danger it also becomes less relevant, and then the question of relationship moves into the foreground.


Thoughts? It is talking about the dominant psychic force and doesn't cover the anima/animus contrasexual archetypes here but there is a wealth of information on that. This struck me as something which sounds a bit offensive to my modern sensibilities but also rings true in another way. I'm really interested to hear the views of others...and that hardly ever happens :p
 
Here's a quote from Jung in CW10 (Civilisation in Transitition)





Thoughts? It is talking about the dominant psychic force and doesn't cover the anima/animus contrasexual archetypes here but there is a wealth of information on that. This struck me as something which sounds a bit offensive to my modern sensibilities but also rings true in another way. I'm really interested to hear the views of others...and that hardly ever happens :p

Jung was a product of his time, and was brought up in a strict catholic/Christian community. His theories of archetypes are coloured by his own religious background and belief system. For example, do you remember the story where he discusses a dream he had about worshipping a huge tree trunk/ phallic symbol as a god? This was obviously something he had internalised from his childhood, and Patriarchist upbringing. Freud, although a rival was similarly brainwashed by sex symbolism.
Saying that the dominant psychic force in males is Logos is fairly offensive in that it adheres to his Christian Patriarchist beliefs- Logos is the Greek for the Word, meaning "the Word or God", or the Word made flesh, or Christ himself.
 
Here's a quote from Jung in CW10 (Civilisation in Transitition)





Thoughts? It is talking about the dominant psychic force and doesn't cover the anima/animus contrasexual archetypes here but there is a wealth of information on that. This struck me as something which sounds a bit offensive to my modern sensibilities but also rings true in another way. I'm really interested to hear the views of others...and that hardly ever happens :p

It is very old fashioned thinking. Does the husband not also have a relationship with his children and other family members? Can't a wife have a a psychic and erotic relationship with her husband, even if she has loving relationships with her children and the rest of the family? It underestimates both men and women. We're not quite as 'simple' as this makes us out to be.
 
There is a quote here which seems to support the goal of AVFM as a terrorist group.

John Hambling, of A Voice for Men, has told women what to expect, more violence from men. This comes right on the heels of a report of a female Queen’s Uni student being attacked by an MRA for opposing them.

I began predicting that in a culture where the law protected one demographic, but did not govern that group, and where it governed another demographic, without protecting that demographic, a society would adapt. The members of a social caste governed but not protected by law, would begin to seek redress of grievance through other means, such as the use of retributive violence.

In other words, critics of MRA be they the Manginas or Feminazis deserve retribution for standing against them. A bit like Isis. Nice stuff.