Unashamedly male-positive in the sense of traditional gender roles, perhaps, which is why CAFE provide no semblance of care to gay or trans males issues, or issues of male-on-male rape. Am I perhaps female-positive and you can't tell the difference between that and feminism? Or is it that I'm not a fedora-wearing woman-hating sadist?

I'm just going to shoot the shit here and I'm probably gonna be speaking to myself, but it's nice to flesh out these ideas, even if it is stream of consciousness or all over the place.

One thing I've witnessed anecdotally that's been reinforced by my cursory studies of feminism which sheds light on the disconnect of traditional gender roles in modern society at its starkest, and I'll bring it up now as it's relevant to my experience, is breakups: men and women often have far different reactions or outcomes.

I feel as though women have a far easier time of getting over it; not for any biological reason, but social: they have other women they can seek counsel with, they have no problems being emotional to their friends about their experiences or even crying. Gender roles don't exclude them from being emotional, it encourages it.

Speaking from experience, men on the other hand, also dictated by the traditional gender roles, and reinforced by film and media of male heroes, are less likely to be emotional with their male friends; instead, feelings become bottled up and advice from other males often amounts to "fuck that bitch." We're taught from a young age the men don't cry, emotions are a sign of weakness, etc. We're scared to be perceived as weak, when growing up with Superman as our childhood hero. Gender roles don't include them to being emotional with their peers, and when they are, often their peers can not be as receptive (or offer the most helpful of counsel).

So how do we get to a point where men are more economically and politically advantageous (to the extent of owning most industry, the capitalist class, lawmakers/politcians being mostly male, more professional working class male disproportionately employed in high-salary STEM fields), where all women have only recently been given voting rights, yet males still feel threatened and persecuted by female independence, feminism and a legal system which recognizes their disadvantage and provides accordingly (especially in cases of burdened with child-rearing)?

Part of it is from development, absorbing a cultural hegemony that reinforces the traditional gender roles, but reality being far more inclusive to the independence of women from men (eg, no longer having the traditionalist relationship style of a working father, and a housewife economically dependent on him and catering to his whim; courts recognizing the economic disadvantage of women particularly burdened by children).

This comes back to attitudes on male emotionlessness, Elliot Rodgers and breakups/rejection. Feeling so disenfranchised by the latter, which then becomes perpetuated by the former, both as a result of (or not made anymore helpful by) traditional gender roles (eg of entitlement by even the most mediocre of men [Rodgers]), you have mentally troubled males with no healthy outlet for counsel, themselves feeling persecuted, turning to like-minded MRAs or those burned by their own sense of entitlement [Rodgers' PUAHate], resulting in a compounding of this confusion and rhetorically violent attitudes toward women, which can preface physical targeted violence.

This is the manner in which MRAs and Elliot Rodgers are connected: reinforcement of traditional gender roles, of male entitlement, of a perceived male emotionlessness, of perceived female fragility, etc.