#and it was easy to read and everything and also she explicitly mentioned advocating for trans healthcare

[rubberbandballqueen]

now that i have finished thoroughly examining my ballot i find it notable how few candidates mention queer rights/healthcare in their campaign platforms

[foxymoxynoona]

Hi hi, so I have a question and would love your thoughts. Short question with a lot of background info. Sorry, this is becoming a pattern.

I saw an ask about Jungkook telling Sasha about his tryst with cocaine, and it got me thinking. When it comes to relationships, what is the line between what you absolutely have to share and what you can keep private?

Does he mention all his sexcapades and does she mention everything that went on with Seojoon? Won’t it become tmi at some point? What of the other drugs he took and make up noona? Sasha did weed too I think. Do they need to go into details, or is a generic “You hurt me and I f*cked up a lot, even with drugs” sufficient?

I’m a huge advocate for communication, but I’m also a private person. If you’re getting back with someone who hurt you, do you need to tell them every single thing you did as a result of the hurt/post the relationship??

I don’t think it’s necessary for someone to know every single thing about another person, especially for a period when they’re not in their lives. I may be wrong though, but I would love your opinion.

Honestly, I’m confused 😂 because, asides this novel I’ve found myself in multiple situations where I wondered if I should bother confiding in someone, when down the line we may not remain close or maybe they already broke my trust and I don’t know if I could trust them again.

Thank you

🌚

This is a very interesting question and you can probably predict that it will get posed by the story once JK and Sasha are back together and trying to answer this exact question for themselves. There will definitely be debate among readers, I'm certain, because there's no easy, black and white answer, not when you account for everything that could be covered in this.

I don't know precisely where the line falls. I am actually a very private person IRL too and yet I don't really have any remaining secrets from my husband, now that he knows I write BTS smut lmao (although he hasn't yet read any of it, I'm so scared to let him in case he doesn't think it's good 😅). We've also been together many years and I feel very safe oversharing with him constantly. Our lives are closely intertwined, we have been through some very difficult things together, and we have to deal with the baggage of any trauma from before our relationship.

That "knowing just about everything" took time though. In the beginning, we were slower to share trauma or embarrassing things until we felt safe about it. We definitely had some hurts when one of us overshared details of a prior relationship, lol, because it was hard to gauge what was transparency and what was overshare. We had both been in relationships previously that were FULL of secrets, so honesty and trust and respect were very important to each of us and we explicitly talked about that as a need. We also wanted to be upfront about what being together would be like, which meant letting each other see our sore spots and vulnerabilities.

I certainly have friends who kept very big but private secrets or struggles from spouses until something made it directly relevant (like a friend who didn't share she'd had an abortion until she suffered a miscarriage, or another friend who slept with someone while they were sort of on a break, etc.) It's so situation specific. Everyone has a right to privacy, even from a spouse, but I suppose it also depends on the content of what you're keeping private, why you're keeping it private, and what the impact of it could potentially be on the other person if they found out you'd kept that secret. Finding out someone didn't tell me about abuse until they felt safe with me, to me, is very different than finding out they had sex with a guy whose kind of my rival less than a week after dumping me... Can't wait to see what others think though!

[novarose24]

Writings from Offline {Ep.3}

Advertisement Review

The Saravana Stores’ advertisement for the Diwali Season, was the most recent version of ads that followed the long tradition of hilarious ads from the store. It has come up with unoriginal but creative ideas to engage with the common folk. The advertisement makes the viewer subconsciously indulge in its proposition. From the actor, who is the owner himself, to the song and the setting used, everything is carefully constructed to please the audience; explicitly and implicitly making them buy into the idea that they are selling. Which is why it’s logic and knowledge that has gone into the making of the ad should be defended; its irrelevance, not so much.

The irrelevance would be the fact that the ad did very little, in my opinion, to actively endorse the product that it was selling. The tonal balance was off. The plot, that didn’t exactly exist, seemed to suggest the episode in the life of a glorious leader; the central character surrounded by people of all ages who rejoice him, much like Diwali, to which he almost becomes a metaphor to.

There are girls, a sign of validation in the patriarchal society, who are always cast in close proximity to the supposed hero. Towards the end the hero sports a moustache too, an obvious sign of success, masculinity and dominance, and the whole family comes together to celebrate him. This cliché de facto trope of Indian commercial cinema now becomes a familiar subject that the audience can latch on to.

Another familiar strand in woven into the narrative with the upbeat jingle which seems to be inspired by a millennial Tamil song. With easy diction and emphasis on “colour”, “family” and “home”, it even slightly hints on the glory of working hard and tries to moralize the viewers with the motivational message. The mixing of the Tamil and English serves the purpose of portraying modernity and humor eventually becoming pop culture themselves.

As Yamuna Kachri elucidates in her article, the mixing of the native and the foreign language exoticizes the language itself and adds light heartedness to the content.

“…the mixed lyrics that illustrate the playfulness accompanying the convergence of multilingual ingredients.”

She also says that this trend is popular among the middle class and upper-class families, a wide group to whom this ad in study is targeted to too.

“…amuse the audience and exploit for this purpose the meanings that the intersection of multiple languages of India make possible.”

” … portray upper-middleclass or upper-class families, the use of English in dialogs and songs has increased.”

 The music, the happy drum beat, that accompanies the song sets the mood for celebration. The energy of the music is captured by the camera too. The events rapidly succeed each other and the cuts are quick; a technique used to render energy and excitement. This strategy keeps the audience engaged and focused, it doesn’t bore them out.

The engagement is strengthened with the excitement and the joy which are clearly observable in the choice of colour. The dresses are bright to the point of being gaudy and the background is a romantic French café. The advertisement now becomes more engaging to the audience, who closely associate the idea of foreign to progress and the idea of an alluring land that is painted in movie songs. The clothing of the models and dancers, in dresses resembling that of an airhostess and sailors and the frequent costume changes circuitously advocate the same idea, thus drawing on the banal framework of songs.

The foreign elements represented are countered by the inclusion of popular culture propagated by Kollywood films. The towel flipping scene is a characteristic feature of actor Rajinikanth, a pop culture phenomenon, that makes the ad relatable. The moustache is also used for a similar purpose because of its coupling with power, tradition and success. By doing this the ad rings intertextuality and according to the article titled, “What are television advertisements really trying to tell us? A postmodern perspective”, the postmodern age ads sell intertextuality to sell their products. By connecting the emotions of a viewer to the ad, the marketers are able to manipulate the consumers to change their needs to buying the product.

“When a text is read, consciously or unconsciously readers place it in wider frames of reference of language and knowledge, cross-fertilizing a particular reading with other discourses drawn from their own socially, culturally and historically situated experiences.”

The representations that connect with pop culture help the viewer make connections to their own experiences and thus makes the goal of the advertisement approachable to the reader.

“…meaning is activated by the participation of its audience, whose interpretations reflect their own experiences, social situation and concerns.”

By honoring the pop culture that the target audience relate with, the advertisement sells well among the people because it touches the same sentiments.

The advertisement, being pastiche, therefore tries to draw the audience towards it - the object clearly, the relationship that the company desires with the audience. Being well established for a long while now, the company has little responsibility to inform the customers. Its aim is to relate to the audience and the present generation. By combing intertextuality and humor, it elevates the best things about the culture that existed before it. It glorifies the pop culture prevalent and draws inspiration from it to support itself. The use of Rajini’s style would be welcome among the audience. The use of a Tanglish (Tamil and English) song would be relatable to the youth who know both the languages and able to appreciate the mixing.

This is where we get to the explanation for the bad casting, bad acting and bad lip syncing. While most ads strive to achieve perfection, this ad, contrarily, trades off quality for connection. The idea, as I understand is that, the owner has stepped down from his position of wealth and fame to interact with his customers. Though people laugh at the ad and make troll videos and memes on him, they are unconsciously buying into the idea of entertainment that he sells. Humor in advertisements serves a very important purpose according to the article “Impact of humorous advertisements on customers’ behavior”

“The reason why humor has been widely used in advertising is due to its power of create liking towards the advertisement by from the consumer.”

This directs us to the argument of why this ad is bad. An advertisement is expected to sell the product and give customers information on the products. These is a display of the variety of dresses and jewelry available but the ad doesn’t seem to draw attention to the product or it’s aspects. The variety of dresses worn by the dancers and the models can be considered to be the display of the merchandise but there is no mention of price or features of the products. No sales or discounts are intimated. The ad does almost nothing for its primary task at hand. It seems its sole purpose is to advertise the owner and to serve his recognition among the public.

This exclusive focus on the ‘hero’ diverts the audience from the product and leads it down another lane. The ad becomes a phenomenon and ‘trends’ in social media. It becomes popular using the novelty factor. If this is what the team worked on, then they seem to have done a good job. But as an ad it has not reached any mark. Yet in some way, by having an unusual mixture of humor, intertextuality, cast and music in a way that no one has ever attempted, the ad has now become a pop culture phenomenon and truly won’t be forgotten.

  References:

1.    Stella Proctor, Ioanna Papasolomou-Doukakis, Tony Proctor; What are television advertisements really trying to tell us?  A postmodern perspective; Journal of Consumer Behaviour Vol. 1, 3, 246-255; 16th July, 2001

2.    Yamuna Kachru; Mixers lyricing in Hinglish: blending and fusion in Indian pop culture; World Englishes, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 223–233; 2006

3.    Dharmesh Motwani, Khushbu Agarwal; Impact of humorous advertisements on customers’ behaviour; International Journal of Advanced Research in   Management and Social Sciences; October 2013

[tessatechaitea]

Inferior 5 #1

Hopefully this will be like when Giffen made the Legion of Super-heroes super fucking dark.

How many dicks can you find, kids?!

"How many dicks can you find, kids" is the least quotable line I've ever written. The Kamandi just out of surgery cosplayer winds up getting exploded by the kid in the canvas sack face mask. You know the kid is bad news because he can make people explode with his mind. Although if you ran into him in the desert, you wouldn't know that immediately so I should have stated the other ways you can tell he's bad news so as to maybe avoid exploding. First off, he's a kid out in the desert alone. Kids by themselves are creepy. Plus he's wearing a canvas bag on his head. Canvas is always a warning sign that you might be dealing with cannibal hillbillies, especially when it's covering an almost certainly mutilated face. Also, the kid's canvas bag mask has a big red X on it. Anybody who's been through the American educational system has a strong aversion to red X's. Also spooky: the kid recites nursery rhymes. When you hear one of those, you know you're either about to die or laugh hysterically because did you hear how the Diceman said "cock" instead of "clock"?! How did we never stop laughing in the Eighties?! Oh, one more clue that not all is right with this kid: he lives in Dangerfield, Arizona. That's almost as big a red flag as some sweaty, long-haired kid in overalls from Back Swamp, North Carolina. The story picks up with some nerdy kid (probably Merrymaker since he's the big virgin of the group) whining about how his dad died in The Invasion of Metropolis (what was that? Is that a reference to the beginning of The New 52 when Darkseid attacked Earth? Or is this a reference to the Invasion by the Dominators which was compiled in three way-too-long comics?). After the Invasion, he and his mom moved to Dangerfield, Arizona. Because who wouldn't feel safer in a place with a name that causes constant anxiety over a place where the greatest hero in the world lives?

According to the date on this calendar, the Invasion mentioned was the Dominator one which created the Meta-Gene explanation of superpowers which we recently learned was a computer jargon shortening of the term "metal-gene."

The calendar isn't the only proof that this invasion was by Dominators and not Parademons! By turning the page instead of trying to ferret out what's going on by examining every panel carefully and spending an inordinate amount of my short lifespan trying to guess what's about to happen instead of just fucking turning the Goddamned page and letting the writers explain it to me, I discover the Dominators are leading an invasion of Earth Number This Is Fucked Up. At least I think it's Earth Number This Is Fucked Up because the invasion seems to have worked. Superman is dead and most of the other heroes have been placed in a space gulag. Plus that kid in the canvas bag marking X's on houses seems to play an important role in the Dominator's invasion force.

Unless this is all just a comic book on Earth Number Main Earth?

Maybe I should turn some more pages! But first, I just need to Google "Lisa Loeb's boobs." The kid complaining about the Invasion comic book is named Lisa (no relation to Lisa Loeb's boobs) and she points out to the suspiciously bloody comic book seller with a light sensitivity named Vlad that the Invasion really happened. So I guess DC is simply profiting on everybody's pain and misery. I bet just to make the series even more painful and miserable, DC hired Scott Lobdell to write it. Justin, the whiny kid from Metropolis, is being observed by some outside observers (as opposed to inside observers which would be, I guess, parasites?). He heads downtown where he's about to make contact with Dumb Bunny and Awkwardman! Except he doesn't. Man, I should probably read more than two panels at a time before writing anything. It would save everybody a lot of wasted effort, me with writing sloppy synopses of comics and the three people reading this having to fucking read this. But then I don't have any responsibility to anybody to make these "reviews" shorter. It's not my fault if somebody wanted to Google "Lisa Loeb's boobs" but found they didn't have enough time because they were reading this shit. That's their own fault for not prioritizing their desires! Googling "Lisa Loeb's boobs" was so important to me that I did it in the middle of this review! Come on, people. It's the modern age! You can view Lisa Loeb's boobs any time you want (through clothing, that is. I'm not advocating for searching for nude pics of Lisa Loeb's boobs which probably don't exist anyway and if you think they do, it was probably just Lisa Loeb's head photoshopped onto a naked torso). Lisa has been uncovering clues to the weirdness of Dangerfield, Arizona because she dresses like Velma. Unless she dresses like Velma because she searches for clues the way her hero, Velma, searches for clues. I don't know enough about Lisa's backstory to say. It's possible Lisa isn't even aware of Velma and it's just Giffen spending some easy pop culture capital so readers associate Lisa with Velma and understand her more simply by looking at her image.

Here are a bunch of the clues she's uncovered that I didn't want to try to parse through my digressions and fascination with Lisa Loeb.

Billy Shanker, the kid with the canvas bag who says things like, "Oh! The three little kittens! They fucked their mittens! Oh! Look at the way I hold my cigarette! Boom!", murders Justin's mom and takes her corpse to some guy in a hazmat suit that might be a Dominator but also might be, seeing as how Giffen is writing this, Ambush Bug. Man I hope it's Ambush Bug! Justin returns home to find his mother gone and the interior (five?) of his house covered in red X's. Oh no. That's a really bad sign! Not one black check mark in the bunch! Some people might think Keith Giffen isn't the best artist in town because he's a writer and his art isn't for everybody. Plus he never puts any thought into his panel layout and just goes the same size boxes every time (sometimes in the six variety, sometimes in the nine). I happen to love his art so I'm not one of those people. But in keeping with a guy whose art isn't what people would call great (although those people usually love mainstream great garbage art like John Romita Jr or David Finch or Tony S. Daniel), Jeff Lemire draws the back-up story. I don't think that was an insult at Lemire's expense. If it was, I'm sorry because I was really just trying to insult John Romita, Jr and David Finch and Tony S. Daniel. The back-up story features Peacemaker whom I only remember by look. According to the Who's Who, Peacemaker is a guy who loved peace so much that he realized sometimes he'd have to use extreme violence to ensure it. Also he suffered a head injury during Crisis on Infinite Earths which seems like a weird thing to mention in the Who's Who. "Trillions of lives were extinguished during the multiversal extermination event! Billions and billions of worlds destroyed! People's pasts erased in the blink of an eye! Supergirl and Flash and some other people nobody remembers killed! And Peacemaker suffered some head trauma." I suppose it's important to the character. Maybe it was meant to make him more extreme so he'd be relevant in the post-Crisis era. Peacemaker is on a mission for Amanda Waller to find some super weapon that the Russians want. His search leads him to a bunker with a dead Dominator, a mysterious capsule, and a map leading him to Dangerfield, Arizona! Inferior 5 #1 Rating: B+. I'm a sucker for Giffen stories and Giffen art. And Giffen stories backed up by Lemire's writing are probably even better. This one was pretty good so consider it evidence that my previous statement is almost certainly correct. One thing I like about Giffen is that he doesn't mind writing things that can be confusing on their first (or even second!) read through. He tells the story, makes the jokes, slowly unveils the plot, and to hell with anybody who doesn't want to invest a little time in making it all out. Seems to me, a lot of modern comic book readers could learn to love ambiguity. But they're all so desperate for the interior monologue of the main characters so they know exactly what to think after reading something. They're so coddled that they think subtlety is when a story explicitly shows them what's happening without the main character also explaining it in a monologue as they experience it. They wouldn't recognize subtlety if it...well, I mean, it's subtlety. It should be hard to recognize so I don't know how to finish that statement. Now go read Inferior 5 and hate me for recommending it when you're finished.

[thejakeformerlyknownasprince]

If you're still doing them, The Unexpected?

Short opinion: The meat of this book (i.e. everything that happens in Australia) is so interesting that I really really wish the plot had gotten there faster.

Long opinion:

I love how #44 opens: as of the very first page, the kids are already in the middle of a pitched battle at an airport for their very lives and the future of the planet.  I’ve mentioned I’m a sucker for the Batman Cold Open (#41, MM4, #50, #5, #19) even though in the case of this series it’s less likely to be “the heroes save a random guy in an alleyway” and more likely to be “the heroes stagger home from a horrific battle, newly traumatized and unable even to tell their parents about it for fear of being made into controllers” because that’s Animorphs for you.  By this point in the series it’s a refreshing change to have the characters skip the familiar opening steps (Erek hears about a new yeerk thing, the kids interrupt a normal school day to help Erek deal with the yeerk thing, Ax and Rachel advocate blowing up the new yeerk thing, Marco and Cassie come up with directly opposing reasons not to blow up the yeerk thing, Jake calls for a vote about the yeerk thing, everyone is filled with self-doubt while debating the moral implications of the yeerk thing, Cassie pulls a wacky new morph for everyone out of her ass to exploit the weaknesses of yeerk thing, Narrator of the Week wonders if s/he is the only one who has trouble keeping him/herself sane in light of yeerk things…) and instead get right down to brass tacks.  

Don’t get me wrong; I understand why most books in the series simply cannot open mid-battle, because if they did then there’d be almost no room for characterization or setup.  This series does have the enormous advantage of having an overall coherent plot (or eight or nine overall coherent plots, depending on how you chart it), logical character development for all six protagonists and several of the supporting characters, and a consistent tone throughout—while also allowing readers to pick up the series anywhere and read the books in any order.  However, I also like the sense that the kids are becoming a lot more competent at figuring out how to respond to what yeerk threats in which ways as of this point in the series, not bothering with too much debate when instead they could focus on kicking butts and taking names.  

It’s super frustrating, then, that this book opens so powerfully mid-battle… and nevertheless wastes a ton of its slender 150-page length on getting Cassie to Australia.  While I understand that it would be strange and disappointing to have a book that simply had several of the Animorphs not appearing in the story (this isn’t AniTV, after all), the airport sequence drags on for a long time in an effort to establish the other five protagonists while also explaining how Cassie ended up separated from the group.  After Cassie ends up alone and off to SYD (I will forever be amused by her speculating that she’s going to South Y-Something Dakota, and anyone who disagrees can fight me), the book nevertheless wastes quite a while establishing Cassie’s debate about whether to steal from people’s luggage, her quest to find a few oranges, her elaborate ploy to fool the yeerks into thinking that she got sucked out of the plane, her not-so-elaborate ploy to appear demorphed in front of two hork-bajir-controllers that she ends up killing accidentally on purpose, and her moral hand-wringing about the fact that she killed some people in self-defense.  

And yeah, I get that it takes a long time to get from the U.S. to Australia, but does this story really have to take so goshdarn long to get from the U.S. to Australia?  

Anywhoo, when Cassie’s finally through the looking glass, what she finds there in Oz makes this book’s place in the series very interesting.  She once again excels under pressure when left to her own devices, making use of the environment around her and her above-average people skills to blend in, dig in, and take yeerks down.  She and Yami have undeniable chemistry together, and despite her Clueless American refusal to try any of the local grub (pun intended) she gets along quite well with his entire family.  The Australian people she meets value her not for her skills as a warrior or a moral check on everyone else’s homicidal machiavellianism, but for her ability to educate them about the local animals and act as an emergency healer under pressure.  Jake and Rachel both admit they’d have no clue what to do with themselves without the war; Cassie clearly has an entire alternate set of skills and competencies she can fall back on once the yeerks are defeated.  Cassie doesn’t need the war, she doesn’t need her team… and she doesn’t need Jake.  

Although Jake and Cassie are still technically a couple as of this point in the series, this book makes it painfully obvious that the end is in sight.  Cassie barely spares a thought for anyone she has left at home the entire time she’s away, except for a few moments of asking herself What Would Rachel Do (always a valuable question) and speculating about whether her team has the means to find her.  The only time she really thinks about Jake is when Yami is showing her how to throw a boomerang—and the only reason she thinks about Jake at that time is because even she can’t deny that this interaction is headed toward UST-land, and she wants it to head in that direction.  Jake is a good kid, more or less, and a brilliantly well-written character, but he’s also not an easy person to love.  He’s socially awkward, terrible at expressing affection, prone to self-recrimination, and (although it’s not his fault) not much fun to be around.  Although he doesn’t get canonically diagnosed until #54, Jake is already showing signs of clinical depression by #16 and MM2.  He tends to be irritable, apathetic, manipulative, hypervigilant to the point of paranoia, absolutist in his thinking, and unforgiving of mistakes.  Again and again he refuses to show the slightest shred of vulnerability to his loved ones, making his motivations opaque and his true feelings impossible to guess.

Saying it again for the folks in the back: none of that is Jake’s fault, and none of it indicates the slightest shred of moral or emotional failing on his part.  The fact that he has depression does not in any way mean he’s not still a tough, loyal, hardworking, quick-thinking, morally decent (if kinda arrogant) person.  However, there is also not a single goddamn reason why any black woman should ever be asked to perform 100% of the emotional labor for a white man, and therefore Cassie’s decision to leave Jake because she’s not getting what she wants out of the relationship is also entirely valid.  And to be clear, Cassie is already exploring her options outside of Jake in this book.  She doesn’t cheat, even to the point of kissing or mutual flirtation, and she doesn’t explicitly consider what would happen if she started going out with Yami instead.  However, she does make note of the fact that she enjoys the afternoon she spends with this clearly-interested boy more than most of the times she’s spent with Jake lately.  She expresses a clear desire to get home, but more because she knows her friends need her than because she strongly misses anyone.  She’s just about ready to move on.  

I love Jake and Cassie’s relationship, I think it’s one of the healthier such relationships in YA fiction and definitely the healthiest relationship in the Animorphs series, and I do in fact ship those two.  I also recognize that saying Cassie’s refusal to kill Tom ended their relationship is sort of like saying that Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s death caused World War I: you can’t use a spark to set off an explosion if there’s not huge ton of gunpowder already stashed there ready to blow.  We find out after the fact that Jake spends this entire book running around frantically looking for Cassie, while Cassie spent much of this book hanging out with some other guy.  Well before the events of #50 drive them apart for good, Cassie is ready to move on.  

[reactionaryhater]

Field Guide to No MRAs

This is the first part of a freeform response to the “Field Guide to MRAs” by a user called @randomshoes​.  The series proposes to “edify” on the “Identification of MRAs and Anti-Feminists” (already we’re off to a bad start) according to several categories called “Levels.”  My intention here is not to give an elaborate response but just turn it on its head.

But first it’s appropriate to define what an MRA actually is,

the concise definition of which you would expect from an actual guide or just about anyone looking to make blanket statements about them.  There is no single authority on men’s rights, so I’ll define it here through a couple perspectives.

From Me:  A men’s rights activist (or advocate) is someone who advocates to spread awareness of the problems that men disproportionately or uniquely face within our society, or someone who acts to counter those disparities.  Excluded are people who prioritize other groups in ideology (eg. “Men are hurt as a side effect of misogyny”) or in action (eg, “We help women and their husbands benefit too”).

From Wikipedia: The men’s rights movement is made up of a variety of groups and individuals who focus on numerous social issues (including family law, parenting, reproduction, domestic violence) and government services (including education, compulsory military service, social safety nets, and health policies), which men’s rights advocates say discriminate against men.

An AVFM article pinned by r/mensrights puts MRAS in the perspective of what issues they fight for, which include: Default 50/50 custody of children after divorce, abolishing forced child support, VAWA reform, intoxicated rape (equality of laws), false rape accusations, and male genital mutilation.  The author concludes, “These are the main legal reforms MRAs seek to invoke and not one of them, I’ll type it again, not one of them, if made law, would take away any rights women have.”

From a related source is “A Men’s Human Rights Advocate/Activist (MHRA) refers to any individual involved in self-advocacy or group-advocacy for male human rights.”

My definition, which compared to the latter two is looser and based more in the spirit of the activism, doesn’t hold any particular weight but it shows my perspective, based on my own interaction with the MRM.  The Wikipedia/Reddit definitions are more expressly limited in scope (this isn’t to say that future groups or issues must be excluded from men’s rights).  You can also find statements about what an MRA is not.  For example Paul Elam in 2010 said that a traditionalist is not an MRA if he imposes that path on others, as a traditional lifestyle can be to some “good fortune” but to others “the mandated disposability to which men have been historically yoked."  The concept of male disposability here is referencing Warren Farrell’s ideas as coined in The Myth of Male Power.  From the broader perspective however, I say that the traditionalist’s focus is not on men but on a distorted view of historical norms, usually viewing those norms as building blocks to strong children, a strong family unit, or a strong nation.  It would be very rare to find a person who advocates returning to a 19__s world primarily on the basis of its effect on men, and such a person would be called very ill-informed or deluded by most voices in the MRM.

On another note it can be easy for someone who has been severely indoctrinated to view criticism of feminism and men’s rights as the same thing.  If feminism is a stand-in for all women, and everything that is not woman is man, the two are the same.  In no other case does it make sense to view an attack on feminism as necessarily advocating for men.

So keep these definitions in mind when we look at a bunch of stereotypes of people who, like the traditionalists mentioned, are not MRAs.   We start at the first category.

Level 0, The Gender Egalitarian

What Level 0 Is: Egalitarian (Common Definition), someone who believes that everyone is equal and should be treated as such. (Is also an MRA if they focus on men’s issues, otherwise is Not an MRA.)

What she says: “Agrees with the tenants of feminism, but is terrified of the word. Not an MRA, but exhibits warning signs.” … “This is not an MRA.”

“This type is by far the most likely to be female.” and “ Agrees with the tenants of feminism, but is terrified of the word.” (Just remember this for later.)

What I say: Right off the bat we can agree this is a separate category from MRA. And yet the OP cannot fathom an egalitarian who doesn’t believe in gender wars.  Or maybe that doubt is the “warning signs” which are the focus of ire here.  You “exhibit warning signs” of being a CIA operative.  What are those warning signs?  Hey, get off my case with your demands for evidence, I know how to spot CIA operatives without even researching them because they keep coming to me!

Ironically this “level” best fits my definition of MRA above, but only if they do not put other groups (eg. women) first.  One of the strongest groups advocating men’s issues today, CAFE, would seem to fit both this definition and my own.  Quoting their FAQ, “CAFE is a human rights group that advocates equality for all members of society. Our focus is currently on men and boys because that issue receives much less attention than equal rights for women. We do not consider ourselves a Men’s Rights Group because discrimination against men also adversely affects many women including the daughters, mothers, sisters, partners and friends of male victims. Inequality can affect anybody and should be everyone’s concern.”  I disagree with how they define MRA, but I respect their right to define themselves as they see fit.

Level 1, The Status Quo Warrior

What Level 1 Is: Middle Conservative, or Reactionary at most, someone who opposes change because change carries risk. (Not an MRA.)

What she says: “Any changes the feminists make now will simply upset the balance”

What I say: I expected to find another “this is not actually an MRA, but…” disclaimer here, but I guess not.  I haven’t known a single MRA who believes Men Have All The Rights, and can’t even imagine anyone reading that message from them.

Additionally, why on earth would you think that describing a problem to someone whose main trait is resistance to change will convince them that your solution (which is, I note, nowhere to be found) is the Way and the Truth and the Life?

Level 2, The Disclaimer

What Level 2 Is: Moderate, or “Average Joe” with little investment in political debate. (Not an MRA.)

What she says: “Women were oppressed in the past but not by me so why are you blaming me?…Will respond to any social justice critique of anything they like or feel connected to at all with “Are you calling me sexist??!”

“You can participate in a sexist system or express a sexist sentiment without believing anything truly misogynistic.”

[From the Introduction] “Level number denotes how far the MRA has bought into sexist ideology.”

What I say: Perhaps they believe you are calling them sexist because you declare that they “express sexist sentiment[s]” and you can’t hide behind a claim that you’re not calling their beliefs sexist when you have explicitly stated that all included in this guide have “bought into sexist ideology.”  Or perhaps it is, ehem, “complexity” about the manner in which you are speaking to them individually.  When you hate someone enough to write diatribes against them as above, I’m dubious about the innocence of your discourse.

You miscommunicated, or more likely have failed to convince someone of your own double-talk, and now you’re mad at them for it.