Re: Karen Straughan on why Mens Rights is so difficult.

(DavidByron2)
You need to have a minimal amount of sympathy for a protest to work and men don't have it. It's the same as you wouldn't try to hold a rally for the rights of rapists or pedophiles and expect much good from it. Well feminism has made men about as sympathetic as rapists and pedophiles and often identified all men as rapists and pedophiles.

Another analogy would be like getting Jews to hold a big rally in Nazi Germany. It would be seen as disgusting and it would be attacked as dangerous.

(biscuitgravy)
The problem is exacerbated by the fact that men don't even have sympathy for themselves. Men are the most effective and motivated haters and killers of men. That subverts all of the traditional self-interest routes to popular organization.

The only thing that makes a regular guy organize with MRAs is total alienation by a gynocentric society. Not even facing death will make him leave gynocentrism in some cases. Guys volunteer to die all the time to protect a woman's honor. They have to meet with something totally intolerable. Something much greater than themselves, to even think of addressing their own problems. Usually, it's their children. But Feminists have secured the right to those as well.

(tenchineuro)

It's why when we approach the mainstream, we have to frame a LOT of men's rights issues in terms of how helping men helps women and children, or society, rather than how we should be helping men for their own sake. Convince people that men are utilities who should be cared for and maintained so they can and are willing continue to be of use

This is how we got where we are now, by being of use and not people in our own right. Men are tools, not human beings, I won't agree with that and that approach won't get men treated as anything but tools.

I have a great deal of respect for Karen, but I think she's off the beam with this.

(0x123d)

why no disobedience

Because we have jobs.

why is MRA so unpalatable

Because of how our species evolved. Girls > women > boys > pets > inanimate objects > men.Because of how our species evolved. Girls > women > boys > pets > inanimate objects > men.

(Elvick)
Think it's more women > girls > pets > boys > objects > men

With an argument that objects could come before boys even. And depending on the age range we're talking for "boy" it's as easy as domestic violence shelters turning away boys of a certain age because they could be "dangerous".

Women can make more children. Nature didn't guarantee girls would make it to child bearing years. So women were more valuable than girls. Women having more children was a more reasonable assumption than girls not dying from disease. It made sense.

Hell, vagina monologues has the rape of a 13 year old girl by a 20-something year old woman who plies the barely teenager with alcohol. And it's lauded as some great feminist text. A certain vile celebrity whose name I won't utter, molested her sister for years and she still has a career in Hollywood. The internet hates her, and rightfully spreads the information every time she's given a platform somewhere. But it hardly undoes anything.

Probably more examples. But women are definitely placed above even girls.

(mwobuddy)
There's actually a few reasons why its so difficult and its easy to sum up.

Conflation. "oh, so you're against women"? A typical argument.

Denial. "you think men don't have equal rights or protection in law, that's cute".

imprecise language. "you think there is no rape culture but I know plenty of women who've been raped". Both can be true, but rape culture is proven by "rape victims" while your definition of rape culture is "a culture that tells people explicitly to go out and rape women". Imprecise language is a problem for all sides in any argument, and is perhaps the most important issue. Its why you absolutely need to ask someone to declare specifically what they mean when they use a term or a phrase. You may be accused of pedantry, but this is often a tactic of obfuscation to say your side is inherently illegitimate.

These three are used in a motte and bailey tactic of every single men's rights debate.

(Wisemanner)
I think carefully thought out resistance to the system will have an effect, and there is some evidence that this is increasing; examples being men refusing to go to the aid of women; MGTOW; and men refusing to marry.

I would suggest at least the following be practised.

Pay as little tax as possible. Most tax is spent on women, with, in the UK, about twice as much spent on women's healthcare, and three times as much spend on research into their cancers. (Even though women live longer.)

Do not go to the aid of women, The police will arrest you in an instant if there is any mistake or confusion.

Do not help the police except where you are actually helping another male or yourself. These are, after all, the enablers and helpers of feminism, and the thugs who hammer a man's door at six am simply on the word of a woman.

Do not marry. The whole system is rigged to get the husband to pay the living expenses of the wife even when she no longer wants to have anything to do with him.

5.Do not vote Socialist in the UK. The other parties are not much better, but the Labour Party is feminist-infested.

There is almost certainly much more.

(lacandib)
The civil disobedience/protest route could work but it would have to led by women.

(The_Best_01)

Why?

Because evidently, society listens more to women. In the best-case scenario, it would be led by men and women.

(Elvick)
Because men are viewed as dangerous in those circumstances... look at the arguments against men's spaces and clubs. It's always about how it's dangerous. And that's just a private space or a club on campus.

An entire protest filled of men wouldn't go over any differently. Did you even read Karen's comment? She talks about how society views men as dangerous in there.