LOL @ MRA

The blog dedicated to laughing at the ridiculous things "Men's Rights Activists" say and believe.

Apr 16

Yeah, I’m probably not coming back to this blog. Life is much happier when I’m not constantly dealing with angry, hateful dudebros. Then again, I run a videogame blog, so I’m still dealing with those guys. But less. Here, it’s maximum hateful dudebro saturation, and I was fine with that until I took a hiatus and realized the weight that had been lifted. It’s been real.


Mar 16

I’ve been taking a bit of a break from this blog due to more important things taking up my time, and that will probably continue for a while. I’m not shutting down or anything, but I won’t be around here very much for the time being.


Mar 13
“Pointing out a person’s privilege is not an indictment of their character or integrity; it’s about calling attention to the benefits a person is granted based on their station in society and how they act on those benefits, not who they are in their heart.” Dylan Byers and the Scourge of Privileged Defensiveness (via brutereason)

(via lookatthisfuckingoppressor)


Mar 12

Anonymous asked: Hello! Long-time follower here and I feel like I remember reading something about you appreciating being called out (especially on trans issues), so here is me calling you out on heavy cissexism and transmisogyny in your most recent response.

(This is in reference to this post, BTW)

I think I see what you mean, because in the post I’m discussing a line of reasoning that goes “a pair [of balls]” = man = strength and/or “pussy” = woman = weak, and you’re taking issue with the first part of each of those, the equating of anatomy with gender (someone tell me if this is not the issue).

I probably should have been better about making it clear that I don’t subscribe to or approve those connections. But the people I’m talking about, the people who use those phrases in those ways, most certainly do think about anatomy and gender in that way, and it’s their backwards viewpoints I was describing (and condemning), not my own.


Mar 11

Anonymous asked: What do you think of the phrases "man up" and "grow a pair" (and any variations thereof)?

I think they’re bullshit. I also think they are a perfect illustration of the idea (much maligned by MRAs) that something can be both deeply misogynistic and also incredibly harmful to men.

See, these phrases are used to control men’s reactions, to enforce outmoded ideas of masculinity. These phrases (and the ideas behind them) hurt men by proscribing certain very healthy emotional responses. This not only punishes men for vulnerability, empathy and kindness, but is also a huge contributing factor to the fact that men do not or cannot report sexual assault, contact suicide help centers, or solicit psychotherapy. In short, a great many of the problems men’s rights groups claim to care about are wrapped up in the same ideas embodied by those phrases.

But it’s also true that those phrases are bold-facedly misogynistic. “Man up” and “grow a pair” both say the same thing: “Be less like a woman, because to be a woman is to be lesser.” Similarly, phrases like “don’t be a pussy” or “don’t be a little bitch” say the same thing. To be feminine, to be in any way like a woman is completely unacceptable.

To deny that this worldview is a result of patriarchy and deep-seated misogyny is remarkably disingenuous. And when things like healthy human emotions and asking for help are derogatorily associated with femininity, the harms to men and those around them are easy to contemplate. It’s just a shame that a wide swath of anti-feminists refuse to see this obvious connection and end up working against feminism, thereby working against the exact relief they claim they seek.


Mar 10

Anonymous asked: I'm taking a politics course and I noticed something in the reading I was wondering about. Apparently if there are laws that encourage things like racial profiling, they are put under strict scrutiny, but laws that have gender bias are only put under intermediate scrutiny. It doesn't seem very fair from where I'm standing that laws with gender bias are seen as more rational or something. Why are they set up like this?

This is a very good question, with a complex lineage and ultimately unsatisfying answers. First, a bit of background so we’re all on the same page: the United States Supreme Court is responsible for reviewing challenged legislation to decide if it comports with the Constitution. One particularly lively area of constitutional law concerns the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states in relevant part, “No state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Equal Protection jurisprudence has had a long and winding history, initially going unused for almost a century, and then going through major changes and expansions. The specific issue the question above references is the level of scrutiny the Supreme Court will put to various “classifications” of individuals in potentially discriminatory legislation.

There are three levels of scrutiny the Court can apply to laws which have classifications that discriminate against one group or another: 

  1. Under “strict scrutiny,” a law will be upheld only if it is proven “necessary” to achieve a “compelling government purpose.” In other words, the government must have a truly significant reason for discriminating, and they must show that it cannot achieve this crucial goal through any less discriminatory alternative.
  2. Under “intermediate scrutiny,” a law will be upheld if it is “substantially related” to an “important government purpose.” In other words, the Court need not find the legislative purpose “compelling,” but it does have to be “important,” and while the discriminatory means do not have to be the only way to achieve the ends, the means must bear a “substantial relationship” to the ends.
  3. The final and least restrictive level of scrutiny is the “rational basis test,” under which a law will be upheld if it is “rationally related” to a “legitimate government purpose.” Much as in the previous paragraph, you can see that the means and the ends are the key, and they are looser here than in the other two levels.

As the question states, the Court has held that race classifications should be subject to strict scrutiny, while gender classifications are only subject to intermediate scrutiny. I’ll explain, to the best of my ability, why that is below.

Read More


Mar 7

mythousandfaces asked: What do you think of the double standard that allows women to physically assault men without fear of retaliation and the praise of such actions from some feminists?


Mar 4

I’ve got a lot of shit to do this week, so you won’t see me here until at least Friday. I can’t imagine how many arguments I will “lose” in that time, according to anti-fems who equate lack of response with lack of knowledge or sheer dumbfounded terror, but oh well. See y’all when I see you.


Mar 3

Anonymous asked: I love it when people think there's even a slight chance of a FEMALE-DOMINATED ANTI-MAN DYSTOPIA. Call me back when there's been at least one lady president and Congress is more than 20% women lmao

misandry-mermaid:


Anonymous asked: If anti-fems cared at all about men&boys (as opposed to just attacking women) I'm pretty sure they'd be asking "Hey, what's best for the children, approximately half of which are the males we pretend to give a shit about? Maybe we should get the input of the children on custody issues and weigh that input in the decision regarding which parent, if either, receives primary custody!" But haha nope they just keep on playing their little victim game and completely ignoring the needs of kids.

withquestionablewit:

lolatmra:

While I of course agree that MRAs and anti-fems don’t actually care about the men and boys they claim to, I don’t think that their position on getting “the input of the children on custody issues” is clear, and even if it was, I’m not certain it’s as immediately problematic as you describe.

Most courts do not consider the wishes of children under the age of 18 when making parenting time decisions. Now, as with the rest of family law, there is discretion afforded to judges to bend those rules for, say, an intelligent and well-adjusted 16- or 17-year old. But by and large, courts do not want children to be anywhere near these kinds of cases, and for good reason.

Can you imagine what it would be like to be a 7-year-old child and to know that your parents’ court case (and therefore lives, really) relied on your decision? Even if the child were actually able to make an informed decision which weighed all relevant factors (which is unlikely), that is too much of a burden to place on such a young child. And that’s even before getting into issues of coercion by the parents, whereby they use guilt and prizes to unfairly influence the child’s decision.

So, in response to your ask, I would say: 1) I don’t know of any particular MRA position on seeking the wishes of children in custody determinations; but 2) even if they were categorically against it, I would actually agree with them for the most part.

really? because if my 5-year-old input had been sought, i could have avoided having to spend time with my physically abusive alcoholic father who was granted partial custody due to court bias against women and children. i mean, i wouldn’t suggest asking a kid “which parent do you want to live with?” but goddamn, can’t we at least ask them if either parent is abusive?

also, it’s really sad that parents are often so terrible and unloving that they’ll emotionally abuse their child(ren) just to get access to them

You’re definitely not wrong, but what you’re talking about is a different situation entirely. What we’re talking about is getting the child’s preference as to who they would rather live with, which I think is overall a bad idea. What you’re talking about is listening to a child when they speak about abuse, which of course I can’t recommend hard enough.

I can only speak intelligently about Colorado (though the rules are similar in a lot of other jurisdictions), but if there’s any inkling of abuse (certainly including the child’s word), then either parent can ask for (or the court can order on its own) a Child and Family Investigation or a Parental Responsibilities Evaluation. In either case (the latter is more expensive and expansive than the former), an expert is appointed by the court to investigate the parenting situation and make recommendations to the court. The CFI or PRE will indeed interview the children (as well as teachers, nannies, therapists and others) to find out what is going on in the home and make recommendations to the court accordingly. 

So, I don’t think anyone is suggesting we shouldn’t listen to children who are being abused (except the abusers themselves, I suppose); I just don’t think it’s appropriate, absent abuse, to put the weight of custody determinations on young children. I hope I was a bit clearer this time - thank you for sharing.


Anonymous asked: If anti-fems cared at all about men&boys (as opposed to just attacking women) I'm pretty sure they'd be asking "Hey, what's best for the children, approximately half of which are the males we pretend to give a shit about? Maybe we should get the input of the children on custody issues and weigh that input in the decision regarding which parent, if either, receives primary custody!" But haha nope they just keep on playing their little victim game and completely ignoring the needs of kids.

While I of course agree that MRAs and anti-fems don’t actually care about the men and boys they claim to, I don’t think that their position on getting “the input of the children on custody issues” is clear, and even if it was, I’m not certain it’s as immediately problematic as you describe.

Most courts do not consider the wishes of children under the age of 18 when making parenting time decisions. Now, as with the rest of family law, there is discretion afforded to judges to bend those rules for, say, an intelligent and well-adjusted 16- or 17-year old. But by and large, courts do not want children to be anywhere near these kinds of cases, and for good reason.

Can you imagine what it would be like to be a 7-year-old child and to know that your parents’ court case (and therefore lives, really) relied on your decision? Even if the child were actually able to make an informed decision which weighed all relevant factors (which is unlikely), that is too much of a burden to place on such a young child. And that’s even before getting into issues of coercion by the parents, whereby they use guilt and prizes to unfairly influence the child’s decision.

So, in response to your ask, I would say: 1) I don’t know of any particular MRA position on seeking the wishes of children in custody determinations; but 2) even if they were categorically against it, I would actually agree with them for the most part.


Mar 2

bluesigma:

sosungalittleclodofclay:

Did I just see an male anti-MRA tell a female feminist to commit suicide?

and then, when corrected, told the entire reality of the situation, tried to play the ‘but I’m a man! I implied you’re a man! and you barely sorta implied I’m a woman! you sexist pig!’ card ?

oh my gods this is funny. not ‘haha’. the ‘I understand’.

People are telling me to kill myself with increasing frequency these days. I wonder what would happen if I actually did it?

…it would probably get blamed on men and MRAs somehow, I bet.

Holy mother of god. No. I did not now, nor have I ever, told anyone to commit suicide. Maybe let’s tone down the melodrama a bit, huh?


Anonymous asked: You are so fucking insipid it's sad.

image


bluesigma:

lolatmra:

bluesigma:

I’m thinking of trying to get the gym I go to to make a ‘men’s only’ section, as women have their own section.

Except I’ve no idea how to even go about this. Any ideas?

Okay, here’s how you do it: you ask to speak to the manager. Then have the manager escort you to the sauna, turn it on high, and lock you inside. Then stay in there, sweating and starving, and don’t come out until you have given serious thought to your priorities in life.

Seriously. The people who think that women-only gyms (or sections in gyms) are somehow “unfair” to men have such a shocking lack of common sense and self awareness. Did you ever stop to think why women might need their own sections? They are safe spaces, to avoid the aggressive ogling and harassment from men. Women just want to be able to work out without feeling creeped out or fearing for their safety.

Now, consider why people like you want a men’s only section. The women need it for safety, you only want it in the same way a five-year-old suddenly whines for a toy he doesn’t actually want, just because his brother got one. Your only reason is “Well they got one, so we should get one, too!” That is childish and nonsensical. The day that women pose a significant threat to men at the gym is the day you can legitimately inquire about getting your own “men’s only” section. Until then, try shutting up and maybe a little bit of critical thinking.

I am a woman. Let that sink in for a moment. I. Am. A. Woman. Oh, and also a feminist. So take your url and shove up your ass.

I have the privilege of having my own goddamn section of the gym, and I would appreciate it if you didn’t think just because I want to give men some space where they won’t feel uncomfortable or objectified by women, that I have a dick between my legs.

And before I hear the ‘women don’t objectify men!’ bullshit, I know more than one woman who totally checks out men at the gym, myself included.

I also check out the women too, because I swing both ways and find everyone hot. Does that mean I should be barred from the women’s only gym for daring to settle my eyes on them?

See, what I don’t get is this: a men’s section of the gym would not mean the women’s section of the gym would be taken away. It wouldn’t affect you at all. So why are you being such an obnoxious little brat over it, suggesting I get locked away in a sauna until I collapse from severe dehydration?

Ohhhh. Right. Because someone wants you to share the toys. There’s more than enough for everyone to be treated equally, but god forbid someone gets the same rattle as you.

Grow up.

I never said you were a man, nor that you had “a dick between [your] legs” (the superiority in this accusation is especially funny since you imply I’m a woman when I’m not). You don’t have to be a man to wildly misunderstand gender issues.


bluesigma:

I’m thinking of trying to get the gym I go to to make a ‘men’s only’ section, as women have their own section.

Except I’ve no idea how to even go about this. Any ideas?

Okay, here’s how you do it: you ask to speak to the manager. Then have the manager escort you to the sauna, turn it on high, and lock you inside. Then stay in there, sweating and starving, and don’t come out until you have given serious thought to your priorities in life.

Seriously. The people who think that women-only gyms (or sections in gyms) are somehow “unfair” to men have such a shocking lack of common sense and self awareness. Did you ever stop to think why women might need their own sections? They are safe spaces, to avoid the aggressive ogling and harassment from men. Women just want to be able to work out without feeling creeped out or fearing for their safety.

Now, consider why people like you want a men’s only section. The women need it for safety, you only want it in the same way a five-year-old suddenly whines for a toy he doesn’t actually want, just because his brother got one. Your only reason is “Well they got one, so we should get one, too!” That is childish and nonsensical. The day that women pose a significant threat to men at the gym is the day you can legitimately inquire about getting your own “men’s only” section. Until then, try shutting up and maybe a little bit of critical thinking.


Page 1 of 66