actual activism MRA MRA paradox

Men's Rights in the real world: "No one showed up to the event but organizers say the lack of attendance is not due to a lack of interest."

Come early to get a good seat!

Sometimes it’s worth reminding ourselves that despite all the noise they make online, the Men’s Rights movement has basically no presence in the real world. The picture above is an actual photo of a men’s rights symposium at Montana State University. Here’s how the local NBC affiliate described what went down – or, more accurately, what didn’t go down:

The MSU chapter of the National Coalition for Men organized a symposium to raise awareness of problems in men’s lives.

The group geared the event towards fraternity students at the college and invited speakers to talk about things like men’s rights when it comes to sexual misconduct investigations on-campus.

No one showed up to the event but organizers say the lack of attendance is not due to a lack of interest.

You just keep telling yourself that.

438 replies on “Men's Rights in the real world: "No one showed up to the event but organizers say the lack of attendance is not due to a lack of interest."”

Or rather, some MRAs somewhere have advanced degrees. Mike hasn’t made any sort of statement about his own level of education.

I must admit, for all that Mike is disgusting, I find myself giggling at the unintentional brilliance of “You suck, go cut your balls off, nanny nanny boo boo. So, now will you concede that we have valid points and are far more educated and successful than you?”

PROTIP: When trying to demonstrate how mature, intelligent, and well-educated you are, childish taunts are generally not the most effective way to go about that! Go figure!

C: He has a job which allows him to pursue hobbies, and one of his hobbies is mocking people who are evil, nasty and foul.

Given the the MRM and PUA communities seem to be chock full of such people, people who don’t condemn their fellows when they talk about raping people, or encouraging rape. People who say they would acquit people they were certain had raped, and give tutorials on how to be empaneled on a jury so that others can do the same.

People who think women should have no rights, and be treated as property, to be handed from father to husband as one might trade for a car, or a set of Star Wars figures. People who think that women who get beaten by their partner deserve it,and who say that what we need in this country is out and out war, Mens’ Rights Activists against the harpies, renegades and manginas (nice use of shaming language in your comment).

You might want to consider that there’s something mockworthy in a group (or groups, to hear them tell it) which announces a huge rally… and then has to cancel because of, “logistical issues” related to gathering in an open air, public space. A group that thinks bleating about how women are seeing how hard it is to be free because some of them died in a shipwreck. A group which thinks climbing onto bridges is the height of activism, a group which doesn’t do shit to help men who are being raped in prison, which would rather punish women then kick in to help men (see lawsuits in Calif., rather than spend that money to fund a shelter, they tried to close the one’s for women… that’s a piss poor sense of fairness.. everyone can suffer, isn’t that great?!?).

This is a group which says mass murderers, and those who advocate it, are heroes.

But those smart guys (which one’s, btw, are making more in a year than you think Dave will make in a lifetime… even at a conservative estimate (32,000USD, the Median income in the US, over a period of 45 years is 1,440,000USD, so you are saying Paul Elam is raking in 1.5 million a year? Or would that be Marky Mark? AnnArchist? Glenn Sacks? Fidelbogen?) are, to quote you, are all basically commenting on the same observations over and over again, can’t find more than a couple of things to talk about?

And when they do talk about them they can’t get them right. They refer to minor points, and lay all of modern feminism on a few dead people (whom they misquote; which means they are mendacious, or fail to understand what was being said), or a very select few names; and lay it on them because of singular points of disagreement (e.g. Amanda Marcotte and Duke).

What I see is a lot of those “big thinkers” spending a lot of time ripping into Manboobz. Why? If they are on the cusp of imminent victory, because of how that groundswell of men taking the “red pill” and being, “awakened” they can ignore such piddly little has beens, left on the ashheap of history by the rising tide of the MRM.

But they don’t. Case in point, you are here, preaching at us, telling us how we are wasting our time, and our effort. Why? If we are the time to crow is when we are beaten, not like Doctor No, telling Bond he expects him to die, as he leaves him to effect an escape.

I hear you whistling past the graveyard, unsure that the bogeymen of your childhood aren’t going to come riding out of the dark. The MRM is a fringe,and it’s a fringe which isn’t willing to get off it’s ass to do the hard work of becoming any sort of political entity.

Without that, it’s cheetos and mountain dew, and the cold light of the computer, instead of champagne and kleig-lights.

Just some food for thought.

Why so sensitive, Marky Mark? I am sorry you’re so upset…

The MRM is worth posting about because it’s both FUNNY and PATHETIC. Extra bonus points: It is also violent, transphobic, bigoted, and disgusting.You know what, it would be morally wrong NOT to make fun of you. DF has apparently decided not to be immoral, and therefore he is required to write about the MRM.

(BTW: There are these little things called facts proving that many MRA statements aren’t true, and also showing that most of those that are true and prove an injustice are not fought by feminists.I know facts are unimportant to MRAs, but for some reason I feel the need to raise them!)

But, but cloudiah! Advanced degrees! Wealth and repetition! Surely having money and saying things makes you right?! That’s how it works in MY America!


So, Manboobz is bigger than the MRM combined? I didn’t realized you guys were so tiny. I knew you were little, but it’s that bad? i almost feel bad for you know.

Well folks, there you have it.

MRAs are wealthy, educated and… repeat themselves.

It’s a winning movement. Or perhaps just an extremely delusional one.

For my part, I’ve enjoyed the time I’ve spent on Manboobz, but I’ve had enough exposure to the MRM. Don’t give them too much negative attention, they thrive on it.

See y’all later.

a) You are a typical run of the mill mangina, with better than average writing ability, who is getting paid by the feminist left to spread more male shaming tactics.

The idea that David is a feminist sleeper agent never gets less hilarious. 😀

Also, as nasty as that transphobic “fantasy” was that came after, why do I feel like I’ve seen “bloddy slit” before? Are MRAs just cutting and pasting past insults now, rather than bothering to say the same thing in different words?

Your whole blog just proves to me that the feminists are shaking in their boots as more and more men become awakened to the truth of feminism.

Sure, if by shaking in our boots you mean rolling our eyes and laughing. I know you red pill taking MRA’s love to repeat Ghandi’s quote “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” I hate to be the one to break this to you, but the MRM is going to be stuck in the “then they laugh at you stage”, much like the people that still believe the Apollo 11 lunar landing was faked. The MRM is a joke, and that’s all it will ever be.

Transphobia, that is a new one. I did not get the sense that Mike was transphobic at all. I doubt most transsexuals are as self hating as good ol Davy is. Liberals, make one metaphor and they all call you a racist/homophobe/misogynist cant you finally come up with some better ammunition than that. Get over it, the shaming is no longer effective, we can see right through you.

Just wanted to add some meat to what Gillian was talking about:

Under fundamentalist Rabbinical law, a man who is separated from his wife and is no longer living with her, may remarry without any formal proceeding. A woman, however, may not remarry unless she gets a formal, written permission from her prior husband. That’s what a “get” really is — permission given to one’s ex-wife to remarry. In modern Israel, of course, a man may not remarry without formalizing a divorce, but the basic fundamentalist framework is still there: a man may divorce his wife with good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all, whereas a woman may not divorce a man under any circumstances, unless he is willing, without coercion, to sign off on it. Neither cheating, nor abuse, nor severe mental illness give a woman grounds to divorce her husband against his will. There have been a few cases where men were held in contempt of court and jailed for refusal to grant a divorce, but only in exceptional cases. If your husband tries to kill you in the presence of ten male witnesses and provides a videotaped confession then maybe, maybe rabbis will apply pressure on him to grant you a “get”. Short of that, however, you are entirely at his mercy, while he is free to walk away at any time.

Years ago, I spent a day at a rabbinical court in Tel Aviv, with my then-fiance translating for me. Without exception, rabbis would side with the husband. In most contested cases, they would not even permit the wife to testify, saying that her testimony would be “irrelevant”. And under clerical law, it is.

Also, the thing about the “Tender Years Doctrine” as it was practiced in the 18th century, as one of our MRA visitors pointed out: it wasn’t a form of discrimination against men. Quite the contrary, it was precisely the kind of legal arrangement that MRA’s today are fighting for: the mother would do all the work, and the father would retain control over the child and get full custody as soon as that child no longer required extensive care. After all, when MRA’s scream about “mandatory joint custody”, it’s not the right to do more diaper-changing and mess-cleaning that they are fighting for.

jwells: What makes you say Dave (or anyone else here) is self-hating? Because he doesn’t agree with a philistinic view of women as not being equal to men? Because he doesn’t think men are oppressed? Because he thinks women ought to be treated as equal beings before the law? Because he doesn’t share your hatred of those things?

That’s not self-hate, it’s empathy, and a love of his fellows.

Get over it, the shaming is no longer effective, we can see right through you.

Shit homie, we can see right through y’all too. And all I see is a lot of air from the neck up, and a lot of bile from the neck down

jwells: What makes you say Dave (or anyone else here) is self-hating?

I’m beginning to believe that a lot of MRAs just can’t fathom the idea of not being full of hate for someone. Either you hate yourself, or you hate everyone who is in any way unlike you. You can’t possibly like yourself AND people who aren’t you!

It’s got to be a really sad way to live.

I just don’t have the time or energy for flippant histrionics these days. I pity several of you, yes, but I think most of you have good intentions and are a bit misguided. I’d say my time here had a certain degree of edutainment considering what I absorbed from the more enthusiastic followers here, so what have I got to be mad about? Some of you could benefit from some discipline and hard love, but that’s more an issue of upbringing and not my concern.

I guess you didn’t catch that flippant histrionics was referring to the assumption that all antifeminists are demons with human facades. I can see you’re hurt, though, so I’ll give you consent to insult me.

I can see you’re hurt, though, so I’ll give you consent to insult me.

You can’t fire me!!! I QUIT!!!


I just don’t have the time or energy for flippant histrionics these days. I pity several of you, yes, but I think most of you have good intentions and are a bit misguided.

I guess you didn’t catch that flippant histrionics was referring to the assumption that all antifeminists are demons with human facades.

I guess you still can’t add a dang address line in the front of your posts… I’m surprised your last one even included a quote.


To “flounce” is to dramatically announce that you’re leaving a website because of all the meanies there.

To “fail to stick the flounce” is to dramatically announce that you’re leaving a website, then keep posting there.

Both are poor form, but the latter exceptionally so.

Are we hurt because he said we were mean to him? Or is his declaration of our state of mind supposed to be dispostive, and so we finally know how much our fee-fees are hurt because FF told us so?

And why does he keep coming back? Is it because he wants to hurt us some more (it’s possible, someone might be struck so funny they fall off a chair, or have a narcoleptic interlude)?

You can provide a quotation with your analysis or more insults. The latter are quite revealing and I do attain a certain voyeuristic pleasure from analyzing them, so I’m good either way.

Son… You don’t seem to be much better at spotting anger than you are at finding facts. Derision is not displeasure, your dudgeon isn’t indicative of any umbrage on our part.

It’s a little less difficult than the work of the banderilleros, but that’s a pretty good equivalent… you goad yourself, and we ride about with various displays meant to please ourselves and the crowd. Why? Because Roscoe P. Coltrane is starting to look good in comparison to you. He at least has some pretense of a point. You’re just here having a wank while you tell yourself how studly you are because, in your mind’s eye, you think you’ve angered the feminists.

I’ve seen folks here get angry… you ain’t even close.

But, if it makes you feel good, keep on fucking that chicken. Whatever gets you through the night, is all right.

The little mediocrity thinks he’s struck a nerve. This is just precious! Are you reading your lines out of a troll training manual from the start of the oughties or something? XD

Okay, apparently we’re in some kind of bizarro land here where intentionally not providing assistance to particular victims of domestic violence based on their gender and lobbying the government not to fund services to help those victims isn’t harmful to victims of domestic violence but suing so they can actually get help is. I think that’s pretty concrete evidence of a gender bias where male victims of domestic violence aren’t treated as “real” victims in the way that female victims are.

This isn’t just a US thing either; here in the UK various feminist organisations were outraged that domestic violence groups were being forced to actually give advice to men who phoned up in distress because they were victims of domestic violence. So much so that as part of the Equalities Act consultation they lobbied the Government to force local councils to (only?) fund domestic violence services which told men looking for advice to fuck off. The continued existence of women-only shelters wasn’t even in question – it was just about whether local councils could require organisations which provide advice and outreach to offer it to men too.

Is that “Girl Writes What” Karen Straughan? Ha ha ha. I thoroughly dislike everything that she spews on youtube.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.