User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 16 of 16

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    492

    Default

    I'd be more interested if you were able to provide an actual opinion that you've articulated yourself as opposed to linking another person's video and then bombarding us with all these disclaimers. That said, I always saw the MRA movement as an inevitable reaction to radical feminism (i.e. frequent talk about patriarchy and privilege), not unlike how the black power movement is often interpreted as a reaction to the radical movements of its time.

  2. #12
    Senior Member asynartetic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    13,620

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dep View Post
    I'd be more interested if you were able to provide an actual opinion that you've articulated yourself as opposed to linking another person's video and then bombarding us with all these disclaimers. That said, I always saw the MRA movement as an inevitable reaction to radical feminism (i.e. frequent talk about patriarchy and privilege), not unlike how the black power movement is often interpreted as a reaction to the radical movements of its time.
    My criticisms, both good and bad (I'm editing and adding more as I think of them):

    -She does a good job presenting them in an unbiased manner, as she interviews both proponents and critics of the movement. She edits in a way that sometimes cuts back and forth between MRAs and critics of MRAs like Sociology professor and male feminist Michael Kimmel and Ms Magazine editor Katherine Spillar, so it does feel like one is watching an actual dialogue at several points.

    -She lists a shitload of facts and statistics to help back their arguments. Most of it is from more "official" or reputable sources like the CDC. Some criticized the film upon its release for containing misleading figures, but most of the data she presents seems to be pretty clear cut, straightforward.

    -She could've done a better job of holding Paul Elam's feet to the fire, and asked him to explain some of the more divisive things he's written in the past on his site AVFM. To be fair, she does address his infamous "bash a violent bitch month" article toward the end of the film, noting it was written as a satirical response to a Jezebel post (which was itself partly satirical) celebrating women who hit their husbands and boyfriends. Much of the media backlash to his article failed to note it was written as satire and failed to note the original Jezebel article he was quoting. I think Elam is the MRM's biggest liability. He means well and has publicly endorsed an Equal Rights Amendment on AVFM, but he has a tendency to act like an obstinate bull with his messaging, likely turning away a lot of people who might otherwise be more receptive to what he has to say.

    -She could've focused more on the complaints MRAs make about boys in education, and devoted a little less running time to the family court issues. Some MRAs like Farrell have recently shifted to speaking almost exclusively of the crisis of boys falling behind in school or failing to launch, and ultimately, people will be more sensitive to hearing about problems with boys than they will about problems with men. Approaching the MRM from that angle may have led to more people seeing the movie.

    -She could've spent more time discussing the issue of circumcision, perhaps citing recent studies suggesting males lose more their sensitivity in their genital region than previously thought. She could've noted that a lot of money is made by hospitals selling removed baby foreskins to the cosmetic industry. Although getting that in-depth might really warrant a separate full length documentary, perhaps.

    -She could've spent more time interviewing female MRAs. There's a lot of them, but she spends most of her time talking to male MRAs like Warren Farrell. The most time spent with female MRAs in the film is with Erin Pizzey and Karen Straughan. Focusing mostly on the male members might lead to the false impression of it being an exclusively male movement with only a handful of female members. Alison Tieman is barely seen, which was a shame.

    -She could've spent less time on the criticisms of feminism made by some of her interview subjects, since it's supposed to be a documentary about the MRM, not feminism, although to be fair, most of those interviewed do explain exactly why they feel at odds with it, and cite instances where organizations like NOW campaigned against some MRA efforts toward equality. It's also hard not to address them (feminists), since they made a point of shutting down some MRA events via blocking entrances, pulling fire alarms, etc. They also mention the Duluth Model (created by feminists) and why they feel it had unintended bad consequences for men. I was also surprised to hear some of the MRAs like Fred Hayward and Warren Farrell say complimentary things about feminism, since going into the film, I held the notion they were all raging anti-feminists. Especially interesting was the section on Warren Farrell, who evolved from a card carrying member of NOW in the early 70s to being considered the father of the modern men's movement. He says they are not mutually exclusive worldviews, although he does criticize patriarchy theory when asked why there's a rift between the movements.

    -"Women are seen as sex objects; men are seen as success objects." -quoted from one of Farrell's books by one of the MRAs interviewed in the film.

    -"People get hostile..." - Elam when discussing how people react to MRAs when these issues are brought up.

    -She could've given the film a better title, because since it's been released, the term has become more synonymous with PUA culture than with MRAs in the public consciousness. MRAs have actively tried to distance themselves from PUA culture. I wouldn't be shocked if a lot of uninformed people avoided the movie because they thought it she was being an apologist for PUA culture, when the film has little to do with PUAs.

    -She does a good job in using real data to counter the widely made argument that while men may have some issues, they don't face systemic discrimination.

    -She rightfully acknowledges that women still have issues unique to them too, being careful not to frame the MRM's issues in such a way that would appear to dismiss women's issues. If anything, she exposes a massive empathy gap in our culture.

    -Many critics dismissed the film as propaganda. By definition though, most documentary films can be considered propaganda. At least she tried to include as much statistical data as possible.

    -The segment on Boko Haram and the media's indifference to boys they burned alive versus massive coverage of the girls they later kidnapped was probably the most impactful part of the film, at least to me. It's hard to dismiss MRA claims of an empathy gap when those types of double standards are made glaringly obvious.
    “Some people underestimate how erotic it is to be understood.” -Mary Rakow
    “In all chaos there is a cosmos, in all disorder a secret order.” -CG Jung
    “I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them.” -Baruch Spinoza
    Likes SearchingforPeace liked this post

  3. #13
    c'est la vie Obfuscate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    MBTI
    iNtP
    Enneagram
    954 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ili Ni
    Posts
    1,750

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ceecee View Post
    No. I was addressing this part of your OP.



    I understand you created the thread for anyone interested in watching it, as you also said that in the OP.
    i thought the feminist rhetoric was "you are a feminist" (like it or not) "if you believe in equality between men and women"... is it your position that only women are feminists?

    i am being a little sarcastic, and it it totally fine to blow this off...
    "Oh my God, you are a child. If we leave you alone here, you’ll freeze to death, you’ll starve to death.' And so on. It was very exciting for her, taking his dignity away in the name of love."

  4. #14
    Senior Member ceecee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    11,292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Obfuscate View Post
    i thought the feminist rhetoric was "you are a feminist" (like it or not) "if you believe in equality between men and women"... is it your position that only women are feminists?

    i am being a little sarcastic, and it it totally fine to blow this off...
    If you are using that definition (equality) then sure anyone can be a feminist. Even though I have been vocal about the vast unfairness towards men in family court, raising children and people that look to prey off successful men, that many women are lazy and take as much advantage as possible, none of that matters. In the end, this is simply a thread about a movie and reviewing it - not for the larger discussion.
    I like to rock n' roll all night and *part* of every day. I usually have errands... I can only rock from like 1-3.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    15,899

    Default

    21:39 "You are fucking scum." Well, that was charming. lol.
    Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.

  6. #16
    c'est la vie Obfuscate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    MBTI
    iNtP
    Enneagram
    954 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ili Ni
    Posts
    1,750

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ceecee View Post
    If you are using that definition (equality) then sure anyone can be a feminist. Even though I have been vocal about the vast unfairness towards men in family court, raising children and people that look to prey off successful men, that many women are lazy and take as much advantage as possible, none of that matters. In the end, this is simply a thread about a movie and reviewing it - not for the larger discussion.
    the way i hear it, that is the current "in vogue" definition of feminism... so, in his initial post he mentions he wants mra and feminists to come to some sort of agreement... neither group is composed entirely of men or women, yet you reply that men should be talking to men about it... by the feminist definition of feminism, most people are feminists (that isn't a fact, but it is my opinion that most people believe in fair treatment)..

    my point was that i often see you say men should talk to eachother... but in this case your reason (excuse?) to do so was flimsy... yes, most mra are men, but the "overly inclusive" definition of feminism means he basically said "i wish this group of mostly men would discuss this with this group that is a blend of both genders"... your reply doesn't make sense in the context, unless you think that feminism has a different definition...

    also, i agree that the point of the thread is clearly defined...
    "Oh my God, you are a child. If we leave you alone here, you’ll freeze to death, you’ll starve to death.' And so on. It was very exciting for her, taking his dignity away in the name of love."

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 08-10-2012, 09:51 AM
  2. [MBTItm] Is my lack of certainty about other people an indication that I'm not iNtuitive?
    By SilkRoad in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 04-22-2012, 07:38 PM
  3. [MBTItm] Convincing someone that they are not an INTP
    By prplchknz in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 01-14-2008, 02:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO