Men’s Rights Redditors teach “darkbros, homobros and transbros” a few things about inclusiveness.
Inclusive as hell!
So the other day someone went to the Men’s Rights subreddit with some concerns about the movement’s inclusiveness – or, rather, its lack thereof. “I’d be a lot more inclined to follow this movement,” this person wrote,
if it was more inclusive of the issues of other men, such as those of colour, homosexuality and those who identify as males. But as it stands even when you quote prison statistics as a form of sexism, you flat out ignore the ethnic make up of those statistics and the last time I saw y’all chatting about queer rights? I can’t actually remember, it’s been even longer since something along those lines came on the front page.
Naturally, the fine folks of the subreddit responded with a big “nuh-uh!”
Some suggested that the Men’s Rights movement is already quite inclusive enough, thank you very much. A few offered the existence of GirlWritesWhat, an actual female lady woman MRA, as proof of inclusiveness. I’m not quite sure how that has to do with race or LBGT issues, but hey: The MRM has a lady! (More than one, actually.)
Our dear old friend AnnArchist, who despite the name is not a lady, and who may or may not still be a mod (see below), helpfully explained:
Huh. I remember that month, too. Lots of Men’s Rightsers were angry about being associated with anything gay, and a lot of LGBT folks were angry about being associated with the Men’s Rights subreddit. I also recall that time when Kloo2yoo, the founder of the subreddit, attempted to make a token effort to be LGBT-inclusive. Oh, and the time a Men’s Rights redditor talked about how he would violently assault any trans woman who “tricked” him into having sex. Oh yeah: that Men’s Rights Redditor was a fellow called AnnArchist.
Others pointed out that they personally weren’t bigots or anything. Tyciol put it this way:
I wasn’t aware that darkbros, homobros and transbros were being discriminated against as policy. The free speech policy does inevitably end up with some closeminded folk being hostile of them, but I don’t think this means the movement is not inclusive. To be non-inclusive would there not have to be active exclusion?
I happen to think [wrestler] David Ortunga is a sexy black man who I would like to rub oil onto, and I respect the maleness of Larson Degado. Yet I’m not banned so… hm.
So if you’re not black, and you fantasize about rubbing oil on a black dude, that makes you a paragon of post-racial “inclusivity?” Apparently.
Other Men’s Rights Redditors want to be post-racial by not talking about race at all, suggesting that what the OP called inclusiveness could end up splitting the Men’s Rights movement in two, or three or four:
The trouble — well, one of many troubles — with this complaint is that there … really aren’t any significant numbers of black MRAs to speak of. When the Men’s Rights subreddit conducted its own demographic survey – alas, I’ve lost the link to it – there was, I believe, literally only one black MRA who stood up to be counted.
Lurker_lenore, meanwhile, suggested that focusing on anything other than men, indivisible was just plain wrong:
But if “age, race, sexual preference, and/or gender identity” somehow don’t affect the issue of equality, why would you assume that gender would? Shouldn’t we just be fighting for People Rights? Or, if that is too-species specific, why not Primate Rights, or Animal Rights, or Carbon-Based Lifeform Rights?
The best comments in the thread – by which I mean the most transcendently loopy — all come from Tyciol, whom we’ve met already, who raised a whole bunch of issues that no one dared to. Mainly becuase these issues were stupid.
For example, this one, touching on the terrifying topic of spermburgling.
I am interested in issues where transmen’s rights overlap with cismen’s rights. I’m not entirely clear on it, TBH. They’re our bros from another chromosone and all that, but I guess a lot of the issues just don’t currently apply, like procreation-related rights, probably less of a concern, since transmen (FtMs) don’t produce semen which can be misused, stuff like that.
And this even weirder followup:
I think FtMs are awesome and stuff but well… in terms of men’s rights… is it that, or is it male rights? I would like to identify some of the struggles we’d actually have in common. I’m all for standin’ up for’m since it’s the right thing and stuff but like… if it comes up in a dispute that they’re XX, doesn’t this usually sway to get them superior female-status consideration even if they detest that?
And all of these:
Tyciol seems to have a lot of questions, and a lot of opinions, about LGBT issues. And a deep love for language – in particular, the word “bros.” Here, in a different thread, we see the two interests combined in one intriguing comment:
In other words, the attitude of the Men’s Rights subreddit towards LGBT folks seems to be summed up pretty well by this parody poster prepared by Man Boobz Art Brigade solider Myoo, originally intended as a parody of the attitudes expressed over on A Voice for Men.
You can find approximately a gazillion million more parody posters over on the always entertaining Artistry for Feminism and Kittens blog.
(Oh, and on the bit about AnnArchist possibly being a mod: He used to be one, but a few months ago the mods all got new anonymous handles, and because of that I can’t say for sure if he’s still one.)
Posted on December 21, 2012, in antifeminism, homophobia, MRA, pig ignorance, racism, reddit, transphobia and tagged antifeminism, homophobia, men's rights, MRA, reddit. Bookmark the permalink. 159 Comments.
Pshaw, believe it or not, I was actually sincerely pro-feminist myself once in my youth (my country is arguably one of the best in the world when it comes to women’s rights) during my college years at university, since I am by nature egalitarian rather than elitist, but that was before I realized that in advanced stages, feminism suddenly turns rabidly on straight males. It’s not enough to make the sexes equal before and under the law i.e. equal liberties and opportunities (funny how women seem to forget equal duties and responsibilities,no?), oh no, they want to either by turn females into males (butch), males into females (fey), or both, or even destroy the very concepts of gender identity, and make us all either asexual or pansexual. Incidentally, this is also when I largely stopped being sympathetic to homosexuals as well. It’s not enough to be respectfully tolerated is it, no, they want to be accepted, standardized as the new normal, and even celebrated as being superior to us inferior “breeders”. Well, to hell with all that. As the main character in Fiddler of the Roof complained, I’m wiling to bend with the flow, but how far can I bend until I break?!
Yes, how dare those damn queers not be satisfied with your sneering, grudging tolerance and demand actual respect and equality, truly straight dudes are the most persecuted of all.
RE: ABNOY
Wow. What a nice ally you were. I weep for your departure. You seem like you were such a nice person before.
I ain’t superior to you for being gay. But I have yet to hear of gay gangs going out and stomping the poor straight folks for just wanting to be straight in public. Seriously, go chill out and watch Tokyo Godfathers. It’s awesome.
(I need to rewatch that movie.)
So I spent the day with family, and gifts, and setting up my new iPad, and thus missed ABNOY’s little meltdown. HOWEVER!
ABNOY, my dear dear boy, what ever makes you think that fae would be willing to have you?
I may need to add “pshaw” to the list of things you just can’t say in earnest.
pshaw? Could probably be said in earnest mockery, otherwise no, not really. What where the other ones from Steele btw? I want to say that “Let me just say” is on there, but I think I’m thinking of a Monty Python sketch involving the grim reaper…
This one -
Abnoy: It’s not enough to be respectfully tolerated is it, no, they want to be accepted
The horror! That you can’t see the inherent lack of equality and egalitarianism in the idea that merely tolerating people isn’t enough to be called a just treatment of them says all that needs to be said about 1: your discriminatory/oppressive wordlview and 2: all I need to know about your skills at the level of critical thinking/close reading; based on your own words I can, with an easy mind, dismiss your critiques out of hand.
Because you are against actual equality.
Abnoy: I take it you’ve never experienced a life of being “tolerated” while considered “abnormal”.
Well shit, I got so annoyed at ABNOY I just made the bad joke, I didn’t actually type up any of the rest of my little rant (this is what happens when I’d rather just get back to my new toy instead of deal with the stupid)
“…but that was before I realized that in advanced stages, feminism suddenly turns rabidly on straight males”
Is that anything like how the plague is deadly in advanced stages? Or how ebola will have you bleeding out of your pores in advanced stages? I was unaware that political/social views have stages, advanced or otherwise.
“It’s not enough to make the sexes equal before and under the law i.e. equal liberties and opportunities (funny how women seem to forget equal duties and responsibilities,no?),”
You mean duties like how most feminists either don’t like military service, or want equal military rights and duties? Or how feminists tend to say that with when women make more than men (and/or he’s the primary caregiver), women should pay child support? Just which duties and responsibilities are we talking about here?
“oh no, they want to either by turn females into males (butch), males into females (fey), or both, or even destroy the very concepts of gender identity…”
Oh boy, if this isn’t a mess, idk what is! First, the closest feminists come to trying to “turn females into males” is saying that requiring women have shaved legs and armpits is patriarchal, and that if women don’t want to shave they shouldn’t have to. As for turning men into fey, I have no fucking clue what you’re talking about, nothing, I cannot begin to fathom where you got that idea. My literal only guess is that you think men shouldn’t show their emotions, that that’s womanly, and well…fuck you. Refusal to acknowledge your emotions is unhealthy, not unmanly. And wtf is with fey? Where in the world did you find that? Fae is another spelling of fairy, but fey? Never heard that one before.
“… and make us all either asexual or pansexual.”
Asexual — not really interested in sex // only sometimes interested // other definitions depending on the asexual. Pansexual — like bisexual but also interested in non-binary people. One could theoretically be some variety of asexual and pansexual. You’re welcome to be a sexually active heterosexual, or whatever else, as long as that suits you.
“Incidentally, this is also when I largely stopped being sympathetic to homosexuals as well.”
Color me surprised.
“It’s not enough to be respectfully tolerated is it, no, they want to be accepted…”
Do explain how you can “respectfully tolerate” someone you don’t accept. Ignoring someone, or worse, some aspect of them you don’t like, is anything but respectful.
“…standardized as the new normal, and even celebrated as being superior to us inferior “breeders”.”
Accepted as also normal. And the only people who consider “non-breeders” superior to “breeders” are the voluntary human extinction movement, as far as I know, they aren’t taken very seriously, let alone a core tenant of feminism, GLBT rights, or any of the other nonsense you’ve been rambling about.
“Well, to hell with all that.”
Well to hell with you then. Seriously, you think having to accept pansexual non-binary people is hard? Try being one and poly, and kinky, and oh look, you might get one decent lover a decade! (*sigh* why does the not-an-ex have to be 500 miles away?!)
“As the main character in Fiddler of the Roof complained, I’m wiling to bend with the flow, but how far can I bend until I break?!”
Oh see above, you’re full of shit if you think you’re the one who has to bend to a breaking point to make society happy. Get back to me when you and your lover are both non-binary, doing “opposite” gender roles within the relationship, and having to play at genital-matching gender roles for the rest of society. Trust me here, it’s quite a fun little game!
pecunium — tangentially related to that last bit, I got into it with my brother over wtf is the difference between a kilt and a skirt anyways!? His answer was nothing resembling the traditions of either, but some BS about how one is meant for men, my mother decided the difference was that men don’t have the legs for skirts *shakes head*
There is no difference. A kilt is a type of skirt. What it’s not is a dress.
The specifics of the skirt known as a kilt are these:
1: It’s made to measure.
2: It wraps 1 1/3rd times around the waist.
3: It’s pleated from hip-point to hip-point across the back.
4: The pleats flare from the back of the waist to the widest point of the rump.
5: It’s fastened with buckles.§
6: It falls to mid-knee.
§ Modern Kilts usually have belt-loops, as well as closures of some sort. This is more to allow one to hang gear, than to keep it from
So a kilt is acceptable male dress, while a skirt is not, because a kilt is a very specific sort of skirt? Is it okay if I just go with “because some people are assholes about gender roles”?
Hell, are utili-kilts actually kilts then?
AH! Ok, my mac and iPad just both chimed at once about email…I may have to edit notifications, or pick an apple device, or something. I really do not need to be jumping when things chime on both sides of me!
Ah… this isn’t about what they are, but what they are “called”.
Utili-kilts are, “modern kilts”. They wear a bit lower, but they are made to measure (which is why I would have to pay extra, I am smaller than they make pret a porter).
Your brother (I assume) is saying kilts aren’t skirts?
He’s wrong.
They are. They just happen to be a style of skirt people don’t get (too) upset at men wearing.
“He’s wrong.” — That’s a neigh on universal trait of certain members of my family, he’s mildly better at admitting it than my father, but it really isn’t worth the argument. But yes, that’s basically the summary of it. And just how tiny are you?! My apparently too busy to speak to me FWB has one, and we can swap clothing…
Perhaps we should take this to email though, since it’s gotten very off topic, and is probably fuel for ABNOY the Adorable
My husband keeps wanting to buy one of those utilikilts, though I doubt he would ever wear it. (The odds of me wearing it are even lower.)
Also, are there any people who refer to gays as ‘homosexuals’ without being a dick about it after 1990? It seems very strange to add those extra syllables and NOT be trying to make it sound porny.
I do. Context is important.
I’m not wild about using “homosexual” or any of the other -sexuals as nouns. I prefer to say “homosexual PERSON” ie. use it as an adjective. Mostly these days I say LGBT people, it’s more inclusive anyway.
“Abnoy: I take it you’ve never experienced a life of being “tolerated” while considered “abnormal”.”
Last reply on this topic: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abnoy. Oh, I know all about that, all right (and that’s all I’ll say, any more is TMI)…
Abnoy: so you know all about it, and still think it ok to do to other people.
Pathetic.
Wait…explaining why he’s called abnormal is TMI, but telling us he’d be honored to be sperm jacked isn’t?
Yet again I do understand ABNOY >.<