[ghostdog]

Are they allies of the antifeminists and masculinists?
On one hand, they spread information about legal injustices that get swept under the rug by mainstream media.

On the other hand they seem pretty lost, especially their leftist ilk. Gender equality isn't a reasonable goal to strive for. They're like explorers that just keep trudging on in the same direction when they should go back and try a different route. Male expendability can only be somewhat resolved with traditionalism.

Thoughts?

[RandalGraves]

In my opinion, places like RVF and Men's Rights Activists have a few similarities and differences. We both recognize that get different treatment and outcomes in society, and that often times there is an unfair, pro-feminist slant.

We differ because MRA's are sort of whining and defeatist--it's not fair that men pay on first dates, it's not fair that men are falsely accused of rape, it's not fair we don't have a Men's Center on the college campus. I also think they're a bit equalist, thinking that men and women should be put on the same keel.

RVF and the manosphere recognize the differences between men and women. We understand the sexual market disadvantages we have as men, but we look for ways to get around a broken system rather than complain until somebody corrects it for us. We look to self-improvement to individually find our way rather than stopping and demanding that society reform itself for us.

I'm not anti-MRA, I think the things they bring up are usually valid statistics and arguments. I just don't like their reactions to those problems.

Here's a post from /r/TheRedPill that might help:

Quote:

This place isn't Mens Rights at all, which just tries to be inverse feminism: To do for men what feminism does for women. The difference between us and Mens Rights is that we're not progressives, we believe the difference between the sexes is stamped in nature. It is in fact the feminine imperative which is the real social construct that is operative here, not the fact that women are maternal by nature, desire dominant men even when they treat them bad, and that the vast majority of men are, and have always been, betas, the real work horses of society, but are disposable by nature.
We're not particularly friendly towards the vast majority of men either: We don't console and coddle, we tell it like it is. We don't sugar-coat the truth. Swallow the red pill, don't chew.

[Ryre]

Interesting question. I've thought of myself as an MRA, if posting on the internet counts as activism. Only recently have I started to become aware of alternatives--that being into the manosphere and being an MRA can be two different things.

I'll make arguments like, if calling a woman a bitch, cunt, or slut is sexist and wrong, then so is calling a man a prick, dick, douchebag, frat boy, wimp, loser, dumb jock, etc., etc. It isn't so much that I want men to be treated like victims, with kid gloves. It's to point out the hypocrisy. Gendered putdowns need to either be wrong for everybody, or we need to accept that as human beings there is something earthy in us that makes calling someone a bitch or a dick more apt, and more satisfying, than calling them something neutral.

So it might sound like I am calling for men to get victim status, but that isn't always the case. On the other hand, when it comes to things like prison rape, a biased family court system, etc., I do think men face real problems that deserve more attention.