The Tin Men: a study in intellectual dishonesty

Intellectual dishonesty: Supporting, promoting and contributing to a movement that endorses hateful, misogynistic, alt-right, fascist and yt supremacist rhetoric but not wanting to be associated with it because then people might not like you.
And please go listen to the full podcast episode with ‪@womanbeingpodcast‬
discussing Toxic Masculinity.

[@JH-no8sy]

Women having rights doesn’t mean men don’t have rights anymore. It just means hers are just as important as theirs. If that bothers men, they need to do some serious introspection.

[@lunarrobot9714]

I think it's because consciously or subconsciously, a lot of men's rights are the advantages they have over others, mostly women. So in their mind, it very much looks like their rights are being taken away. But in reality they are being confronted with the fact that others have been treated unfairly compared to them and they simply got used to it.

[@hpoz222]

@@lunarrobot9714 yeah the main "men's right" MRAs want is really the right to do whatever they want to women and get away with it

[@Nerobyrne]

actually it does. Men lost the right to treat women like property. Seems to be the only right these folks actually care about in relation to men.

[@Wednesdaywoe1975]

Very good analysis,lunarobot.

[@AS-my3sw]

​@@lunarrobot9714To the privileged, equality feels like oppression.

[@leonieblah8806]

Wow that last line was powerful! MRA's are not there to help men but are there to not hold men responsible (or something like that).

[@justanawkwardnerd]

It really is! It resonated and summed it up so well and succinctly!

[@jacobcrowder2600]

Thank you for this video. I quit "debating" issues with right wing people because they're constantly dishonest about their actual beliefs. Its constant, never-ending dishonesty. "No I dont support getting rid of womens rights, just ignore the fact that i constantly complain about women's rights and constantly talk down on women who want equal rights and always vote for the candidates who support getting rid of women's rights. Ignore ALL of my actions and take my words at face value, despite me always contradicting them". If you know someone who claims to be "moderately right", i promise they are LYING to you.

[@fredericchristie3472]

The process of engaging with them is almost always more like therapy than debate, because they cannot be honest about their actual position, because their actual position is shameful, *even to them* . This is a good thing, though. It means that, under the right contexts, they will change. Even they know they should.

[@hpoz222]

"moderate" by itself is already a red flag. like, what the fuck is a moderate position in the current political climate? (the actual answer is "mainstream Democrats" but those are the satanic radical left because they *somewhat* acknowledge that LGBTQ people are actual humans)

[@BLZ231]

⁠@@fredericchristie3472I remember someone pointing out that one of the core aspects of being a conservative is being in constant denial about your actual positions and beliefs. Well, I should say most conservatives. There are some conservatives who actually have halfway decent principles that they stick with, but they aren’t as common as they should be. A good litmus test for whether a conservative has any actual integrity is how they responded to Donald Trump. If they refused to support him, especially if they refused from the very beginning, then they have at least some integrity. But sadly too many conservatives are morally bankrupt and embraced Trump fully.

[@fredericchristie3472]

@@BLZ231 Yes, most, *most* conservatives. Like, over 90%. Hence that being the defining shape of the party and hence how rapidly they became fascist. They just needed permission. And those intellectual conservatives with principles I find not only still engage in a lot of whataboutism and selective reasoning (see Arthur Branch in Law and Order and then see the actual actor as a contrast), but they're also pretty unique in terms of focus on policy, often pretty libertarian, etc.

[@BLZ231]

@@fredericchristie3472 I’ve seen a few videos from former Republicans who talked about how they had to leave because they could clearly see how deplorable and dangerous Trump was, and how it was a bitter pill to swallow when they realized that so many of their former friends and colleagues were so quick to abandon any notions of integrity, honesty, and basic human decency once Trump rose to power. While I don’t agree with them on everything, I have a lot of respect for those who actually take the time to think and introspect instead of just blindly following the crowd. My dad used to be a professor, and he told me a bit about an ethics class he once taught. In many organizations you’ll have people of all types, but in general you have some people who are more like dogs and some people who are more like cats. The dogs are fiercely loyal to the people in charge, and will defend and stand by them no matter what. The cats on the other hand are loyal to the house, not to any one person, and if they can tell that someone is bad for the house they have no problem turning on them or abandoning them and supporting someone else who is better for the house. In general any functional organization will have a fair number of cats that are willing to call out BS when they see it, and if an organization has too many dogs that’s a bad sign. The modern Republican Party is what happens when a house is completely overrun by dogs, and all of the cats have either left or been kicked out, leaving the master, Trump, free to steer the ship wherever he wants because the dogs stick by him no matter how many times he kicks them. It’s both sad and disturbing.

[@kzbernabeu3674]

Good. Call out 'counter-argumentation' that does not give charity to the form and content of the original argument. How one posits and defends a stance is just as important as the stance itself

[@ex.patriarch]

Exactly, had to explain to a "critical thinker" that starting from a place of bias and disdain for anyone who disagrees and refusing to engage with feminist philosophy is the opposite of critical thinking.

[@aureateseigneur5317]

​@ex.patriarch Someone calling themselves a critical thinker has become a red flag lol.

[@fredericchristie3472]

@@aureateseigneur5317 It's say a yellow flag. Remember: Republicans oppose critical thinking classes. The term still leans left in valence, just less so post-atheoskeptic rightwing meltdown.

[@JCArules13]

@@aureateseigneur5317Right? Which can be really frustrating when people like to look at things critically, but don’t want to seen as the same as those pseudo intellectuals!

[@aureateseigneur5317]

@JCArules13 Yea just say you are using nuance. Majority of psudointellectuals don't know what that words means lol.

[@jelatinosa]

Do those people not understand how adjectives work? If a descriptor comes before a noun it almost always implies that the descriptor isn't always the case, and therefore not inherent to the noun. If I say purple crayons, do those same men think I am implying all crayons are purple? Do they think that I believe all crayons are inherently purple? Or is claiming thats what we are implying simply a bad faith argument? I'm pretty sure it's the latter.

[@ex.patriarch]

@@jelatinosa can I steal this for a video?

[@OneCatShortOfCrazy]

That's really well put! 🤩

[@PlatinumAltaria]

To be clear, they KNOW that we aren't saying all men are toxic. They are pretending "all men" are under attack so that good men will come to defend the minority of bad men.

[@awkwardukulele6077]

I use the same line, just with “blue cars” instead of purple crayons (side note: wasn’t there a show with that name?) It seems like explaining things this way _does_ clear things up, but it’s hard to explain the issue without them getting defensive. Having to hear an explanation of basic English in your adult years probably doesn’t feel great, I’ll give them that. But it would be nice if people either took the explanation with more grace or didn’t need the explanation in the first place.

[@ChaoticLun]

@@ex.patriarch I don't want to step on @jelatinosa 's toes, but I wanted to offer an alternative version of this argument. I've heard a very similar version of this, but the term used was "rotten milk." When you say "rotten milk," you're not saying all milk is rotten. Both versions of the argument are effective, but personally I find "rotten milk" more effective because "rotten" is an adjective we typically consider offensive (like "toxic"), whereas "purple" is more neutral. You can "get offended" on behalf of all milk to show how ridiculous it is.

[@mchlle94]

It's so bizarre to me that someone cannot understand that the whole point of using a term like toxic masculinity is to divorce it from men as inherent. I also feel like, if a man immediately take this term personally, there must be something they're not willing to admit or talk about.

[@walterkruse348]

Getting people to consider that they might be wrong about things is always a hard sell. People will bend logic to the breaking point if it means they don't have to acknowledge their faults or change their ways. PSA: Everybody does this from time to time. Only difference is what specific problem you don't want to address. Check yourself.

[@that_dam_baka]

3:70 To my understanding, MRAs are upset men don't get hugs and slingshot but won't provide those things for each other or accept it because "that's gay".

[@ex.patriarch]

You'll see them all through the comments sections of men who display this... gay, simp, cuck.. they have an endless list of slurs and insults for the men living the life they claim men should have.

[@fredericchristie3472]

Yep! Because the women, being at the bottom of the hierarchy, should. No matter how unsafe that is for them. But they're totally big independent tough guys.

[@Nerobyrne]

I don't know what slingshot is supposed to be a euphemism for, but ... I'm not gonna bang my bros. Cause unfortunately for everyone, I'm not gay.

[@Nerobyrne]

It's amazing to me that people who claim to be rational, intellectual and not emotional simply dismiss everything they don't intuitively understand as "nonsense" or "gibberish". Instead of ... trying to understand what people are saying and engaging with them logically.

[@fredericchristie3472]

Because for them "rational" is a boast, not a value. It's an aesthetic, like being "cool" or "manly".

[@ianwazowski5607]

Nerobyrne you don't agree with expatriarchs pro feminist views

[@JCArules13]

@@fredericchristie3472It’s also used as a way to tone police their opposition. Women will often get very angry when men say blatantly sexist shit (saying as a demiwoman myself), so well often angrily but rationally explain how they are wrong. They usually can’t come up with great counter arguments, so they instead attack our angry and emotional tones because to them, you are only rational when calm. What they refuse to acknowledge is that of course women get emotional when on this subject! It’s led to our oppression for centuries, and sexist men usually are fighting (whether consciously or unconsciously is up to the individual person) to take those rights away! But they don’t care! It’s an easy way to win an argument without actually winning it!

[@nzingahoney]

Look up theory of stupidity by Bonhoeffer and laws of stupidity by Cipolla

[@Nerobyrne]

@@nzingahoney "theory of stupidity by Bonhoeffer" sounds like the fakest garbage ever ^^

[@mchlle94]

"Let's take an objective look"-IMMEDIATELY goes on to use multiple logical fallacies in one breath (appeal to authority, appeal to emotions and an Ad Hominem). Cannot make this up.

[@amandadiamond7147]

I would have honestly dropped the "why are yo so obsessed with me" meme on that.

[@AG-iu9lv]

George IS an MRA, he's just scared of the label 😂 better pray for deliverance from your followers, there, Georgie.

[@lilyinthewater161]

Calmly and rationally calling George’s bs. He really spins a yarn around the Mra stuff. He wants all the brohood around mra without the stigma it itself has created over the years.

[@fredericchristie3472]

A conservative not wanting accountability? *pikachu shock face*

[@br3669]

It's such a common pattern - people who embrace every last thing about an ideology EXCEPT the label. It's what's behind "I'm not a racist, but..." "Not to be sexist, but..." etc.

[@lilyinthewater161]

@@br3669 exactly. The Boys series touches on this very creatively.

[@vangu2918]

👏 👏 👏 George doesn't want to take responsibility for who he is and the harm he does.

[@jackhughes9896]

@@vangu2918 What harm does he do?

[@ex.patriarch]

He openly supports, endorses and participates in spaces that encourage misogyny, hate and white supremacy. The reddit is one example, the discord is another. He talks over and minimizes the experiences of actual male domestic violence victims, while claiming to advocate for them. He gives a platform to hateful political ideologues who misrepresent women's liberation as Marxist rhetoric and who openly excuse and minimize male perpetrators of domestic violence, like Dutton and Pizzey. It's also blatant misinformation.

[@jackhughes9896]

@ex.patriarch OK, I've been following him for a while and haven't seen anything that's fits those descriptions. Maybe we have different definitions of those things.

[@ACAB.forcutie]

@@jackhughes9896 or maybe you're being intellectually dishonest with yourself.

[@jackhughes9896]

@amandasunshine2 In what way do you think? With 'white supremacy' for example, why is it that he often talks about the struggles black men go through if he's supporting white supremacy?

[@awkwardukulele6077]

Crazy that bro’s argument against you boiled down to “you’re wrong, (thing you don’t believe) is false, it’s actually (thing you actually believe) that is true! I’m very clever” Then when you said “but that’s exactly what I said, you weren’t listening to me” he followed up with “I don’t care to argue over the definition, that’s immature” Absolute bozo 🤡 behavior. You’ve got more strength than I to handle this dude so respectfully.

[@kgs2280]

I find it ironic that he went to YOUR page to tell you to go away.

[@trumansparks2338]

Really hope your channel takes off! Subscribed.

[@movingdragons]

There's toxic femininity too. And it harms women as well. It's when you act in a way to please men to your own detriment and uphold toxic beauty standards.

[@dragonfox2.058]

And yet they endlessly talk about women's "accountability" 🙄

[@fredericchristie3472]

No contradiction! Women are at the bottom of the hierarchy to them. Their worldview is non-universalist. Men are metaphysically better. The only problem is how much of a fucking caveman it makes you sound like to say that. And that's where the lies and excuses come into play.

[@strawberrysangria1474]

The Tin Men is very wrong about how word placement works. Putting an adjective before a noun means differentiating your idea from the normal definition; not changing the definitions to fit the entire group. Saying you ran from a vicious dog doesn't mean all dogs are vicious. Saying toxic masculinity doesn't mean all masculine figures are toxic. It's a niche description of a particular event.

[@fredericchristie3472]

And he'd understand that in any other context and make fun of us if we didn't. But the grift hinges on ignoring readily intuitive ideas about how language works. They *cannot* even steelman the argument.

[@br3669]

Adjectives can perform different functions in the English language. They can specify subsets of the whole, or they can describe the whole. Both are normal. People may say "I ran from a vicious dog" to differentiate that particular dog from other, non-vicious dogs. Or they may rant about the new park rules where "people let their vicious dogs run wild" in a new off-leash area. They can say "red car" to differentiate them from blue cars. Or "noisy motorcycle" to describe motorcycles in general as noisy. Innocent children, corrupt politicians, stealing immigrants - it is absolutely common to use adjectives not to differentiate a subgroup, but for blanket descriptions of the whole. And yes, you can interpret "toxic men" like you do "purple crayon" [there is a subset of crayons that are purple]. And you should because that's what's meant. But it'd also be within perfectly normal understanding of the English language, if you interpret it like you would "innocent children" [children are innocent].

[@fredericchristie3472]

@@br3669 Sure, but... 1) The use of redundant adjectives is pretty clearly less frequent, and so in a case of ambiguity one should probably choose to imagine the adjective carries more than rhetorical information. 2) It is at least ambiguous and so it is a violation of intellectual charity and honesty to assume the more malicious reading instead of checking. 3) Not only do people make the intent clear, but the fact that the words are "toxic" (implying, generally, a contrast against "healthy" and thus at least two states) and "masculinity" (indicating a complex ideoform) plus the general context (people are introducing this as an idea rather than a rhetorical flourish) should all make clear which is which in this specific context. People generally do not introduce academic concepts with words that serve mere emphasizing effect. 4) In general, logically, one should always be checking if a statement is a statement about a set or a subset. (Indeed, there actually is no get out between indicating that 100% of a set has a characteristic and that a non-zero non-100% amount does). So this is a failure of logic. Which is why I immediately took it as intended and why it is so intuitive to many to do so. So at best an intuitive failure to read it as intended and stated could be justified briefly until being corrected.

[@br3669]

@@fredericchristie3472 I'm not saying it's impossible to figure out what's meant by "toxic masculinity". I'm saying it's disingenuous to pretend that one would have to "not understand language" or be "wrong about how word placement works" in order to misunderstand the construction.

[@br3669]

@@fredericchristie3472 Also I think it's important to remember that one of the main features of toxic masculinity is that it makes men who are affected by it, *insecure* about exactly their masculinity. And that's exactly what makes people prone to seeing attacks, be they real or not. If you use a term that absolutely CAN be interpreted as a blanket disparaging term, it's pretty much guaranteed that the people who WILL interpret it as disparaging, are the ones who feel insecure to start with. This misinteriretation is 100% predictable. I'm not here to assign *blame* but I do find it straight up baffling that anyone would be surprised by this outcome.

[@gnomueaux]

cool channel algorithm showed me!

[@fredericchristie3472]

He earned a subscribe.

[@UseYourVoices]

They're just mad because Oz never did give nothing to them. 🤣🤣🤣

[@zacharybosley1935]

I have got to stop watching these at 1am.

[@ex.patriarch]

Or.. hear me out.. watch more of them.

[@zacharybosley1935]

@@ex.patriarch a compelling argument. I'll see you next post

[@heidim7732]

@@ex.patriarch Wellll, a good night's sleep is important for functioning and thinking and such. Maybe watch them earlier in the evening and then switch to adorable kitten antics or something, so the anger response doesn't affect your ability to get to sleep. We need and appreciate our allies. So please take care of yourselves.

[@Muggins1046]

It’s intellectually dishonest to suggest that the term ‘toxic masculinity’ implies that masculinity itself is toxic when it’s clearly called that to differentiate it from regular masculinity. It’s like saying the term ‘chocolate ice cream’ implies all ice cream is chocolate.

[@SomeUniqueHandle]

If people thought all masculinity was toxic, there'd be no reason to put the word "toxic" in front of the word "masculinity". Would you drink a glass of water? Probably. Would you drink a glass of polluted water? Probably not because the water has been changed to something bad. Same with masculinity vs. toxic masculinity.

[@musiclanguage9680]

Excellent video as usual, thank you!

[@archonjubael]

The auto text of the words uses “noms,” that one time, and it was kind of great.

[@ex.patriarch]

I missed this, thank you for pointing this out. Masculine nom noms!

[@archonjubael]

@@ex.patriarch lol! Yeah!

[@stephanien6237]

I think it’s sad how many people do not understand what toxic masculinity is vs healthy masculinity.

[@smol_angr_void7224]

Commenting for the algorithm in the hopes that George's followers can find this so they aren't being constantly inundated by Tinman dishonesty.

[@chrosairs7057]

Nice! Subscribed

[@DL-idk]

Why are these men so sensitive to critics? I mean, I see talkings about toxic femininity all the time on KZbin but I feel that some of them do have some good points, you know, instead of being offended and assuming that “toxic femininity = all women are toxic”.

[@serenarobak3640]

Exactly!

[@stevenhuntley8706]

The term is problematic because its problematic. 100% of mens rights issues would be solved with feminism, but because that would mean they were somehow weak or beta or whatever other crap they are on, they would rather let the men they claim to care about suffer and often die under the problems they are creating and often imparting on their sons because they want to look TONKA TOUGH (tm) I have multiple relatives and friends who all died due to self inflicted wounds. Every single one of them, EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. Had multiple stories of being hurt by toxic masculinity. Sitting here and pretending it isn't a problem isnt just obtuse and clownish, it's disrespectful to everyone who has suffered and died. If they actually cared they wouldn't be pushing the ideas that hurt them on the next generation.

[@susankaempfer8427]

I keep seeing videos about men who lie about their political orientation to try to date liberal women. There seems to be a disconnect for these people with their “I don’t want to be identified with this group I totally identify with because it’s getting me hate from the people who I want to like me” stance.

[@sisuguillam5109]

Debate-bros... 😂

[@flfb]

Toxic masculinity is a kind of masculinity; not masculinity as a whole.

[@KatherineTheGreat501]

Interested. 👀

[@thelastchannelonyoutube]

I never got the whole “toxic masculinity implies all masculinity is toxic” argument because the term inherently implies the existence of non-toxic/healthy masculinity. Imagine if every time you talked about abuse you said “toxic abuser” just so everyone knows abuse is bad.

[@stephanie8560]

He doesn't seem to have a problem with the misogyny, though. Just the white supremacy, that's even what he says in the clip here.

[@SlimThrull]

MRA stands for Men's Rights Advocate (or something similar)? I googled it. Didn't find much.

[@ariaflame-au]

They are basically a bunch of women hating men that blame women for everything and don’t do anything to actually help men.

[@qualitymcbro8452]

It stands for men's rights activist, which, whilst a good thing in theory, isn't really what most MRAs argue for. They tend to argue against women's rights or that the issues which disproportionately affect them don't matter. Instead of having a positive impact on the lives of men, they have a negative impact on the lives of women (and by proxy, also men because most men interact with women daily). Even forgetting the blatant immorality, it's stupid. We can make the world better for everyone. It's not a zero sum game. If anything, it's helpful not to drag others down. Literally just serve your own interests in a way which doesn't harm others (which is not hard) and you're making the world a better place. Instead they almost invariably make it worse. Even the ones who don't get caught in an echo chamber and usually quickly start doing that. P.S.: Like the guy said, this echo chamber is also contains large numbers of white supremacists and the like, just in case you were somehow still wondering if the movement as a whole actually cared about the betterment of men's lives or just aims to maintain a status quo we moved away from over 30 years ago.

[@tiapina7048]

Men's Rights Activist. There is more on Wiki under Men's Rights Movement.

[@ClaraDarko]

It's basically a movement to fight against women's rights. Another example of "for the privileged, equality seems like oppression".

[@ACAB.forcutie]

For those unaware, slum is one of those intellectually dishonest people. He didn't search for anything.

[@dyodoleu]

Dude doing MRA stuff and then denying being an MRA reminds me of Will Hitchinson saying "I never said i was a feminist" upon my criticism in his poor take and mockery of the phrase "independent woman who need no man" that i am wary of male feminists, meanwhile his entire brand is built on feminist theory 😐

[@jjohnsengraciesmom]

He is obsessed with you.

[@underthedice1231]

My experience with honest men's right activism (tbc I mean here addressed actual men's issues) is that its really hard to walk the line in order to both: -be heard by the people who need to hear the message. (Both among reactionary men with missplaced but legitimate greavances and left-reactionaries that take equate automatic any pro-men stance as anti-women or a distraction from the "real issues" that women face.) -not be have some linguistic overlap with the worst elements of the MRA. You're just not going to get to some people by using feminist lingo. So dodging the label question and being in some forums isn't the end all argument you imply it is. Tbc, I am NOT saying he isn't a PoS. I agree with your judgment. I am only saying that that specific argument doesn't hold up fully without taking the time to give concrete exemples as too his toxicity. Which makes it a redundant and laterally circular as a supporting piece of evidence of his toxicity. Its a section of the argument that adds nothing to those who aren't already agreeing. So someone who would be in a situation to give George the benefit of the doubt, might take your argument against MRA as applying more largely than you apply it and think something along the lines of "well aren't you proving his point that he needs to distance himself from the label?"

[@ex.patriarch]

It's absolutely a tightrope. There's a danger in trying to reach them men who desperately need to hear the message that you do have to associate with some elements of the MRA space and engage with that rhetoric. There's also the issue that showing too much deference towards men and "men's issues" is seen as enabling or coddling by some feminists who are done centering men and men's concerns. The hard truth is there's no right way to go about this, no guide on how to navigate these lines successfully. It's telling that no-one else really seems to have captured the attention and minds of young men quite like Tate and red pill podcasters. We're all groping around in the dark trying to find what's going to be effective in reaching disillusioned and disaffected young men and save them from spiraling down the pipeline. There are however, many questionable ways to reach them. To me a lot of the men's rights movement exemplifies this, they offer a sounding board to complain and moan and stir up misogyny.. but little in the space of solutions. How do men escape this? You can't. Women are too manipulative, exploit the system too well, you are a powerless victim. It's a terrible message to give to men who already feel like they have little to no value. Instead we should be encouraging them with examples and role models who have been successful in navigating life despite these disadvantages and passing those life lessons on to those who are in desperate need of them.

[@aureateseigneur5317]

​​@@ex.patriarchWell dudes like Tate tell those young men they are fine the way they are while most everyone else tells them they are eneherently fucked up for having a punishment. It's easy to corral dissolusioned people by being nice to them, especially when the opposition is so vehemently mean to them. Like this is a socioty wide issue but we don't treat it like one as a socioty, men and women both and it's hurting us both exponentially the longer we refuse to address it. The people who don't want to discuss men's issues and never ever want to center them are ironically also the people driving these dissolusioned men directly into the arms of grifter shit stains like Andrew Tate, Ben Shapiro, and any other right wing grifter mysognists you can think of. They'll befriend anyone who is willing to listen and currently the people most willing to listen are those assholes it seems. We would do a lot better if we started caring about humanity as a whole instead of trying to constantly divide ourselves into teams. Both sexes need and deserve help, for multiple reasons.

[@underthedice1231]

@@ex.patriarch Diversity of tactics might be the only play we have.

[@badkafka908]

A huge challenge with your first point is that men’s rights + support for their mental health/ unique obstacles/etc…is still typically almost always *only* brought up as a “rebuttal” to women (and/or any men) discussing women’s rights and what women face. Though thankfully this is slowly changing! So it’s often not so much as “reactionary” imo as it is…based on repeated experiences with men’s rights only *ever* being used as some kind of undermining dismissal of what women still suffer from + deal with. It is definitely fair to say that this can lead to people becoming hyper vigilant whenever men bring up men’s rights in a conversation about women’s rights though, and that it could lead to them becoming reactionary-even when it’s just a guy trying to understand more + empathize via his own personal experiences. (I’ve definitely seen this before, though it’s rare imo and usually cleared up quickly…it’s just really subjective too, because so much is based on how people communicate/their diction/their tone/etc and then how others interpret that online). So while it isn’t always the case…but like *way* too many men are only ever “interested” in talking about “men’s rights” when women are talking about their own rights, almost as a way to sort of “put women back in their place and silence them again/get them to just suffer in silence” (I assume like how men are still generally conditioned to, as well). I don’t know how to help there tbh. It’s just such a deeply embedded issue in their psyche that they should be stoic to be masculine and just “suffer silently,” but then almost get defensively envious about women fixing + fighting their own issues in unison. And like they shouldn’t have to be faced with women’s experiences at all and how they may completely contradict the world they know, or that they should acknowledge women and the injustice they face at all. Maybe because then they’d realize that they’d have to change too. Especially if they want any returned empathy or understanding…like it feels like *so* many dudes just expect women to give them automatic empathy and centering without reciprocating, and/or complain that women should somehow be responsible for fixing their “man” problems too-they get all accusatory about “women being selfish by only focusing on themselves and their problems.” And they absolutely *hate* when you agree with any valid points that they bring up about men’s pain, but then suggest that men are the only real solution there + that they should do something about it-just like how women did and are still doing something for their own pain (ie. feminism). It’s just wild cognitive dissonance imo.

[@underthedice1231]

@badkafka908 @badkafka908 I've seen the point in your first paragraph be used in response to mentioning men's rights/issues a lot more often than I see men's right/issues be brought up as a rebuttal to women's issue. Considering how it is used as a thought terminating cliché and in response to the meer mention of a few key words, the label "reactionary" is absolutely appropriate. While I agree that this reaction can be the result of personal experiences, that's an explanation but not a valid justification. Now, to be fair, I grew up in arguably the feminist capital of North America. Montréal is incredibly progressive to start with and most of my social life has been on campuses, larp/queer circles, queer/ttrpgs circles. Not the environment where you would expect to see the phenomenon you mentioned. I'll easily grant that my experience on the subject is heavily biased but it's not just my circles. In response to the only shelter specialized in homeless men in the province closing, a group tried to organize a national men's right sensibility day. The official government station interviewer spent the WHOLE interview saying things like "why do you need this day, are every day of the year but women's day for men already?" or "what about homeless women?" I am not saying all this to say you're wrong about which is more prevalent. I am saying both are prevalent ENOUGH to be issues and that we can't excuse one by the existence of the other. Actual misandry doesn't justify reactionary rejection of women's issues. Actual misogyny doesn't justify reactionary rejection of men's issues. In regard to you saying you don't know how to help. I don't have a perfect answer either, mate. It's difficult. Listen to the individual. Don't assume a "key word" carries all the baggage it often does for that individual. Don't hold the individual responsible for other people saying something similar. That's pretty much all I've got, and I know it's not enough.

[@jackhughes9896]

He didn't say he wasn't opposed to what MRAs stand for. He said he thought the comparisons to white supremacists, Nazis etc are unfair and unwarranted.

[@ACAB.forcutie]

Yeah, he doesn't want the stigma, just to actually be one. That's what EP said in the video.

[@AG-iu9lv]

The venn diagram of MRAs and whyt-based h8 groups is pretty well a circle. If he can't deal with that, he needs to do a walkabout & reconsider his life

[@zacharybosley1935]

All things being equal, the stigma around Men's Rights Activists would altogether vanish if they ever pulled their collective heads out of their asses and realized their ideal of an equal society is literally the primary objective of Feminism.

[@jackhughes9896]

@@ACAB.forcutie What do you think about his views indicates he is one?

[@ex.patriarch]

Or you know, just LEFT WOMEN ALONE. Like they constantly brag that they're doing.

[@Ilovesushi123456]

Guy probably has a man crush on you.