Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Prima Facie Motivations of women against feminism

I took a sample of N(=100) consecutive images (From Aug 2 to July 24) from, and categorized them. Here are the results.

Traditional conservatism:
Argues ONLY about damage done to women by feminism, such as:
"men will no longer open the door for me"
OR "that men no longer give compliments for dressing well"
OR "I cant be stay at home mom" and wishes for lady/gentleman roles

Rejection of Feminist Nastiness:
Disgusted by feminist censorship,
OR disgusted by feminist inability to debate (say, hammering with dictionary definition)
OR Sex-worker rights activists disgusted by feminism's Anti-prostitution work.
OR Rejects Victimhood/Oppression

Femininity/Masculinity-loving gender roles:
Argues that gender roles are fine, as long as both do their jobs, and no special treatment in general (wants equal child custody for men).
OR that men and women are equal, but different and that she likes men-in-charge and hates the man bashing.

Genuine Equality/Humanism oriented:
Rejects the privileges that feminism grants women, such as affirmative action.
OR Rejects the trashing of boys, men and misandry
OR Rejects Objectification and says she dresses for men or loves men.
OR Rejects Victimhood/Oppression and affirms agency and mentions equality for all.
OR says that 1st world is MORE THAN fine for women, women in 3rd world need help

Mens issues:
Mentions damage done to men, such as family courts or false allegations or Domestic Violence or Sexual abuse
OR mothers mentioning damage done to boys.
OR Mentions crimes of women.

Traditional conservatism: 6%
Feminist Movement Nastiness: 12%
Femininity/Masculinity-loving gender roles: 17%
Genuine Equality/Humanism oriented: 46%
Mens Issues: 19%

Details if you want to follow up:

Traditional conservatism:
(Total: 6)

Rejection of Feminist Nastiness:

Femininity/Masculinity-loving gender roles:
(Total: 17)

Genuine Equality/Humanism oriented:
(Total: 46)

Mens issues:
(Total: 19)

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

My journey from the New Atheist community to the Mens Rights Movement

[This was a comment I made elsewhere back in early 2012. I edited and converted it into a blogpost later]
I am an Indian living in the US for over a decade now, and I am an MRA and an MGTOW.
I became a single-issue MRA due to an Indian issue Love, Marriage & Sex in the city-498A many years ago. I had absolutely no idea that it was a mens rights issue. I was just fighting a specific injustice.
Many years later in the US, I found the New Atheist community and was delighted to find it. It had several scientists and historians from whom I could learn a lot, particularly the naturalistic underpinnings of the world, and "know thyself". I was always interested in science, and I am an amateur astronomer. Beyond the New Atheist community, I was exposed to the skeptic community (JREF et al), but I didn't have enough time to explore them. Soon the goings on in the New Atheist community led me to the MRM.

With the elevatorgate fiasco, and a prior fiasco where feminists made an issue over a man calling a woman female instead of woman, I started studying gender issues a lot more. The dialogue was all female-centric. I wondered why society is so unwilling to see the balanced perspective, or have any empathy towards male issues. I watched Jonathan Haidt's TED talk on why we have the values we do, and how conservatives and liberals set different weightages on each individual value. In this journey, he said "Are you committed to (discovering) the truth?" and that resonated with me. I soon lost almost all interest in the New Atheist community, because I did not see them "committed to discovering truth" in gender-matters that are a strong part of Movement New Atheism. The meme religion-is-the-greatest-source-of-misogyny is widespread in this movement. This mentality is why they demonize religious men, and our ancestral men. This mentality is why feminism walked in to the New Atheist community with no resistance from the leaders. They don't understand why the past was the way it was visa vis genders.

Very few women understand men's pain. Lesbian feminist Norah Vincent, with a women's studies background, shape-shifted into a man for several months and wrote a book about her experience. At the end of it, she says "Women have no idea what it means to be a man. I am glad to be a woman. We have so much more privilege". 2006 Self Made Man: Norah Vincent chooses Female Privilege over Male Privilege. Feminists don't care for her work nor mention it, of course.

Men don't care much for other men's pain either. Conservative men (and conservative women) will even tell you to "man up". for e.g Mark Steyn believes that men should sacrifice themselves protecting women whenever there is any danger. Excusing the men who ran away. The new film ‘Polytechnique’ sidesteps the old norm of ‘women and children first’ .

My study led me to shocking feminist laws in the US that have been devastating men over the last 40 years, for e.g Comment of the Week — A Life Not Worth Living. The apathy of media made sense when I encountered The Lace Curtain, and Noam Chomsky's work The Manufacture of Consent
Our hypothesis is that worthy victims will be featured prominently and dramatically, that they will be humanized, and that their victimization will receive the detail and context in story construction that will generate reader interest and sympathetic emotions. In contrast, unworthy victims will merit only slight detail, minimal humanization, and little context that will excite and enrage.
—E. S. Herman and N. Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent
I read psychologist Roy Baumeister's wonderful 2010 book
Is There Anything Good About Men? How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men
while finding the larger MRA/MGTOW community. I am now most at home with them, and learnt immensely from them. I learnt the biological and psychological underpinnings that make society favour women Women are wonderful effect