Calling Anita Sarkeesian a "c*nt and a loon" is evidently high-class Men And Boys Right's Activism. As is falsely reporting her to the IRS because ???

I've begun to wonder how much the issue is tied to sexual shame. We have a real problem with sex in the West. It's so idealized or degraded that nobody even seems comfortable talking about it without innuendo or bravado. Brutal violence is more acceptable to expose our children to than a passionate night.

But we've constructed a system that is deeply afraid of women's sexual energy. A woman can't express her sexuality or desire for a man openly without being labelled a slut. But if she is more restrained or cautious she is labelled a prude or a tease. We have obnoxious notions that a woman having a one night stand makes her whorish. Or if she has had a varied sex life, she must be somehow untrustworthy. For example: a man can sleep with as many women as he wants to, and he'll be allowed to do so on the basis of "exploring himself and his desires". But if a woman wants to do the same, she's unwholesome and a poor choice of partner.

This leads us to blaming women for sexual violence. Women are idealized for their virginity, and any woman who doesn't obey that is perceived as unworthy of respect. A woman who shows skin is whorish. A woman who "sleeps around" must lack self-respect. We conflate a women's desire to feel attractive with her hunger for a sexual partner - which culture has decided is not virginal, and therefore unwholesome.

The idea of provoking men is, at its core, a shame issue. The twisted belief is that if she were to be a good girl, this wouldn't happen. But if she was rejecting him, she was playing hard to get. It's that lose-lose situation taken to the extreme. Therefore we have the virginal ideal that, if a woman wants to be considered good, she can't have a variety of sexual partners. But if she abstains and tries to play the good girl, she's an unfair tease toying with male sexuality.

As to why it's a lose-lose situation, I guess it's a conflict between a patriarchy that wants women to be innocent and poses these as the "girls to get" and sexual desire simply not abiding by those rules.

The opposite end is that we want men to prove themselves to get women. The foundation of the idea that a man must "prove" to her father he is worthy for her. This means that, if a women were to reject him, instead of accepting it, a man may consider “proving” himself to her, which leads him to pursuing her long after the line of sanity. It’s ingrained in every romantic-comedy and sitcom. If you want a woman, just keep trying and pushing, and she’ll eventually come around. They don't consider themselves rapey, I assume, because they always see their advances from the hero's perspective: they're the romantic guy trying to sweep her off her feet, and they've been taught that she will appreciate it.

I just find their reasoning funny. They will openly belittle and shame women's sexuality whilst bemoaning how they can't get sex. They're caught in a cycle that is negatively affecting them because of misogyny. If women were allowed to express themselves sexually more openly and safely, lack of sex wouldn't be a problem for men.

At its core, I see the issue becoming the repression of women being sexual due to outdated patriarchal values. Women can't express their sexuality freely because there's been a social stigma attached to it, which makes men consider meeting and being sexual with women a "skill" that dictates status. In our misogyny we believe that a woman being open to a one-night-stand makes her undesirable or "easy", whereas one who withholds sex as being "desirable". This ties male ego to sex. Seducing women becomes a way to validate yourself; which, in turn, brings out male entitlement. If they're not succeeding at seducing women, they feel weak and unworthy.

So if a woman is totally not interested, it's interpreted as calling them worthless. Which leads to aggression. Which can lead to rape or harassment. Men may feel that, if they jump through hoops, much like the Disney Princes of old, she should realise how great he is and go for him. Of course, in reality, when she's made her mind up and he keeps pushing, it just gets all kinds of freaky.

Or at least that's the angle I've been looking at it from. The professional victims, I think, comes from MRAs feelings of victimization. They will convince themselves that women are liars and unwholesome, and attention-seeking, and so when someone like Sarkeesian challenges her bullies, they'll just twist it into her being an attention whore. These are the same people who actively bemoan no one caring about men and boys. That Sarkeesian has showed up her detractors and been given praise and reward for it, is probably really threatening to their self-pity.

/r/againstmensrights Thread Link - np.reddit.com