comment: >
  
  So at the end of that reply are you saying that women who assault men should or should not get a lesser sentence?
context: Yea, but he also spent a good amount of time perpetuating misogynist myths. >
  
  The article did not really show evidence of Earl doing this.
  Can you provide evidence of him personally spreading any myths? >
  
  It did, but because he died almost 10 years ago the links are broken. 
  It's hard to find unbiased information a decade later, but he did, for example, claim that men are as likely as women to experience domestic abuse. >
  
  You didn't read the article, and you too are perpetuating the myth implying that it poses a much higher risk than it actually does. 
  It's true that that male victms of IPV are much more prevalent than previously thought, but over 80% of intimate partner homicide victims are women, as well as similar percentages of female hospitalizations as compared to male. >
  
  That's just because men can take a beating better, so less die when abused. >
  
  Some are, but that doesn't mean they all are. It's like claiming that PETA members are terrorists because of what some of them do.
  
  My point is aimed at how the MRA communities online dont seem to do much to deal with their complaints
  
  This is every online community. >
  
  
  This is every online community.
  
  r/ MensLib is a great non-toxic, non-misogynist community that focuses on men's issues without hating women. >
  
  I was saying every online community talks about problems but doesn't actually do anything to solve them. >
  
  Providing resources, advice and sharing information is absolutely "doing something".
  At the very least they're part of the solution, not part of the problem, and that's more than most. >
  
  Can you name a problem the community has solved? >
  
  ...the bar for doing good is to completely solve a complex societal issue that has existed for thousands of years? 
  k. >
  
  Can you name a problem that they have done something to solve? >
  
  The online arm doesn't exist in a vacuum, it translates into plenty of real world impact. >
  
  So there's a real issue with group mentality that exists in every cause. The problem is that in order to belong to a group you need to conform to some of its more radical points that are often brought about through hatred and spite. Often these groups will get members during very dark times of the members life and then upload all of their one-sided hatred towards them, instead of just giving them a place to rebuild and leave. This isn't something that just happens towards men's groups, but feminist and LGBTQ groups too. 
  When it comes to men's issues, MRA's are the only real place to go; which is the worst part. Looking at men's lib, you can see that it's controlled by a feminist ideology that all men's issues are caused by other men, and sure a lot of them are, but once you get into issues caused by women you're getting into a point of taboo which can be exhaustingly isolating to deal with. 
  So let's get to the point here. Are all MRA's rebranded misogynists? The first thing is that I feel like these binary terms are more problematic than anything.  The 87% of people who would never sleep with a trans person are by definition transphobic and grouped together with people that actually want to do harm to trans people. The same goes with misogyny. If I had kids, lost them in a custody battle to a brutal mother, and had to advocate for more equality in the court system I'd be a mens right activist, but would I be a misogynist? I'm sure there's definitions out there that would state I am, even if I don't internally feel like women should be subservient to men. That's the problem with branding and groups, some are crazy and some aren't. 
  Often when you have something taboo happen to you, you're either told to take on the burden of that event alone or feel a sense of unity with people you don't fully agree with. You can rebrand these things however you want, but it's not exactly helpful to anything. It just ostracizes people to conform to something that we might otherwise feel is unethical and wrong. >
  
  The problem is unless you are in a situation like you are in then you dont have anything to go on other than whats online, and IMO MRAs just come across that way to me online (i.e misogynists) 
  The only other time I have interacted with them directly was over a post on a mens health subreddit and I got a bit harassed by someone active on /r/mensrights trying to get me to sue a doctor due to the health issue >
  
  That’s online behaviour though. I’ve had people from r/politics follow me around reposting stuff I’ve said out of context. That doesn’t mean there should be a totally negative rebranding attached to those who loosely share their ideology. 
  Negative overarching rebrands contribute to polarization and doubling down on the negative qualities of the group. Going back to my transphobia example, I’ll never entertain the idea of sleeping with someone who is trans. If put into the situation where there might be social shame via calling me transphobic, would you want me to find solace with a group of people that might have harmful intention towards trans people because they’re trans? The problem is if I endure shame to a crippling point I might have to. It’s not wrong to say I’m an anti trans advocate under the specific context of maintaining my own sexual preference against their pre defined taboos, but it’s wrong to say that it’d be a hate group when 87% of people have the exact same sexual behaviour as me. 
  There’s a point where your rights push up against the rights or demands of others. You can’t really fight that in isolation and no matter what you take on the label that further polarizes you from society. 
  Also I generally believe it’s intellectually limiting to not explore taboo that come across from radical groups >
  
  I don’t know anything about online MRA groups but it seems like quite the blanket statement. There are definitely some areas in which men should advocate for themselves because no else will, and I’m sure there are organizations and groups that undertake such advocacy while still thinking that feminism is great and Andrew Tate is a shithead. >
  
  Do you believe it's possible for a feminist to also advocate for equality for men where applicable? And if so, isn't that men's rights advocacy that isn't misogynistic? >
  
  Yes to the first point 
  MRA has become toxic due to the behaviour of the online form of it, I know some use the term Egalitarian as a result >
  
  You have already indicated that there is non-toxic MRA in the form of egalitarian advocacy. Why are you lumping everything together as toxic?
  Why not say anti-feminist MRA is toxic and the MRA that seeks equality is not? >
  
  Just throwing it out there but isn't that what menslib is for? Basically to distance themselves from the MRA subs. 
  Normally you would assume that menslib is the same as MRA but they seem to distance themsevles fairly significantly >
  
  /r/menslib is just a subreddit, not a movement as far as I'm aware but the people on that sub are certainly both feminists and MRA. They advocate for men's rights, do they not? >
  
  Which is your view? 
  
  Male Rights Activists (MRAs) are rebranded misogynists
  
  or
  
  I dont beleive the current form of MRAs are capable of doing anything useful
  
  Because the way I see it, MRAs are currently useless because feminists are falsely painting them as misogynists. Earl Silverman made a men's shelter for victims of domestic abuse and ended up killing himself from feminist harassment and lobbying to deny him government funds. So yeah how exactly are MRAs supposed to be useful in the current climate with feminists constantly shutting them down? Of course they are going to be bitter against feminists, they are the reason they can't make any progress and worse are labeled as misogynists just for saying boys need help and men can be victims too. >
  
  You are the second person to bring up Silverman which yes is tragic. 
  Isn't it a bit of a cop out to say they can't be useful because Feminits shut them down? 
  Considering that a bunch of complete all out misogynist subs on here were shut down and /r/mensrights isn't then doesn't that sort of disprove the point that the feminits want to shut them down >
  
  
  Isn't it a bit of a cop out to say they can't be useful because Feminits shut them down?
  
  I mean we have a clear example of feminists shutting down a MRA to the point where he killed himself in Earl Silverman... So no it's not a cop out it's just reality. 
  
  Considering that a bunch of complete all out misogynist subs on here were shut down and /r/mensrights isn't then doesn't that sort of disprove the point that the feminits want to shut them down
  
  And how many shelters has /r/mensrights opened? I don't know much about reddit politics but the argue that feminists don't shut down MRAs because a subreddit exists that may or may not even do anything MRA related is just absurd. >
  
  
  I mean we have a clear example of feminists shutting down a MRA to the point where he killed himself in Earl Silverman... So no it's not a cop out it's just reality.
  
  I am not comfortable going too much in detail about this Silverman because I dont know much about the case and I think it may rile people up. 
  But I did do some basic googling and there is also the loss of house that may have been an influencing factor. I don't think its correct to say he was shut down as such I think he ran out of money. Again I dont know much more apart from news articles from the time >
  
  
  I am not comfortable going too much in detail about this Silverman because I dont know much about the case and I think it may rile people up.
  
  Well what do you want to know about the case? Honestly learning about it alone will probably change your mind. 
  
  But I did do some basic googling and there is also the loss of house that may have been an influencing factor. I don't think its correct to say he was shut down as such I think he ran out of money. Again I dont know much more apart from news articles from the time
  
  His house was the shelter, he lost the house because he couldn't get government funding because feminists lobbied against him. Him running out of money is the point, feminists organizations get literally Billions of dollars, this guy couldn't even get a enough to keep the lights on and it was the only men's shelter in all of Canada at the time. >
  
  Ill do my own googling if thats OK, basically all I have is a CBC article about man with shelter goes bankrupt and kills himself . And some salon article which I always take with a pinch of salt (its a shite website) >
  
  You're going to have to dig a hell a lot deeper than that. >
  
  Well since I dont live in Canada I never heard of him until about 45 mins ago in my defense >
  
  Most people in Canada never heard of him. Most people never actually hear about any MRAs except the ones that can be used to paint them all as misogynists because that's the narrative. >
  
  
  they are as bad as radical femists
  
  What is your problem with radical feminists? >
  
  Because they generally end up as TERFs and the like >
  
  And what is your issue with that? >
  
  Not OP. 
  They try to hijack a movement about inclusivity and use it to exclude. >
  
  Pretty much that >
  
  
  My point is aimed at how the MRA communities online dont seem to do much to deal with their complaints, I have visited a few forums on reddit and other platforms and it just full of mud sligning with feminists .
  
  So you segmented the population which is the worst representation of what the theoretical 'MRA' movement is, then you're saying it's representative and therefore bad? 
  Would you hold the same standards for r/FemaleDatingStrategy ? And say "well any of these proclaimed feminists are garbage women therefore all feminists are awful"? 
  What about going to a jail, seeing a bunch of Hispanic gang members, then saying "well damn, looks like all Hispanic people are pieces of shit". 
  
  all they are doing is basically becoming a trump card for radical feminists to use to stop any discussion on male issues
  
  Is it possible the radical feminists are elevating shitty opinions to push their agenda? It's why Democrats were happy with trump being elected, or there being a pandemic - for more funding and votes. Or why Republicans are happy with there being a crisis at the border so they can fundraise. 
  I think your biggest problem is you're focusing on the loudest vocal majority which is not representative. >
  
  Is there a good MRA movement outside their toxic communities? 
  Can you show us the MRA that actually act for mens' rights without degrading womens' rights, the same way that womens' rights movements got laws and rulings passed that help both women and men? >
  
  I disagree that the obstruction is due to women scoffing, as feminists pushed for open benefits like parental leave and potential for shared or dad custody (my family experienced that). Unlike the single example I saw in this thread about 1 men's shelter in Canada that shuttered in 2013, feminist support of men's rights has been extensive like Justice RBG who openly fought and defended the rights of male wage protections and as spouses of healthcare and military benefit providers. 
  Even the NCFM comes across as doing one good thing a decade, and the intent (for men vs against women) is suspect. Still, they did two good things so I hope you get this !delta >
  
  Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/throwitallaway1121 (2∆).
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  They're more a mirror image of the insufferable feminists than misogynist. The grass is greener type of whiners. Everyone has their own set of problems but it isn't a competition >
  
  Will Farrell would disagree. And he's a bigger feminist than most feminist >
  
  I dont get your point, unless you are Will Farrell >
  
  Some like the Andrew tate fans are. But its not all. Most want courts not to benefit only women in Divorce, rape, etc >
  
  
  Some like the Andrew tate fans are. But its not all. Most want courts not to benefit only women in Divorce, rape, etc
  
  Yea, that's not a real stat, and has virtually zero basis in reality. Men who want custody of their children just have to ask. >
  
  But they mostly loose. What about rape cases. If a woman falskey accuses a man of rape the man will go to jail. If a woman rapes a man she will go to jail for the smallest amount possible. >
  
  
  But they mostly loose. 
  
  No, they don't. When men ask for custody, they receive it. 
  A Massachusetts study examined 2,100 fathers who asked for custody and pushed aggressively to win it. Of those 2,100, 92 percent either received full or joint custody, with mothers receiving full custody only 7 percent of the time. Another study where 8 percent of fathers asked for custody showed that of that 8 percent, 79 percent received either sole or joint custody (in other words, approximately 6.3 percent of all fathers in the study). Source
  
  What about rape cases. If a woman falskey accuses a man of rape the man will go to jail. 
  
  Only 2.5% of all rape accusations actually result in a conviction and jail time. So even if 100% of those were false, you'd be entirely wrong, but any study on false accusations has only shown 1-2% of accusations to be false, and none resulted in conviction or jail time (false convictions definitely exist, but they are because the police arrested the wrong the wrong person, not because the victim lied about being raped). 
  
  If a woman rapes a man she will go to jail for the smallest amount possible.
  
  While female-on-male instances if sexual assault aren't taken anywhere near seriously enough (hot teacher myth, etc) and women often receive much more lenient sentencing, the reality is women simply do not pose the same risk to society as men.