None of what he said were men's rights dog whistles. If you think this you clearly don't have an ear for them. The closest you could say is he was maybe inspired by Peterson and Slatestarcodex.
Please. I know the standard set of MRA talking points well, having spent way too much time as a teenager in the meta/drama internet cultures. This manifesto [0] hits most of the main ones.
> Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.
> Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role.
> Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race
> Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap.
> males are biologically disposable
> We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and whiner. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression.
> political correctness, which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause
Copy/paste any of those into an r/MensRights thread and you'll fit right in.
I'm just trying to be neutral in all of this. If you look through that thread, the internet at large seems to be taking this as an opportunity to flex men's rights issues pretty heavily. The reason they're doing this seems to be because of the content of his writings rather than the fact that he got fired.
EDIT: Actually, it's unfair to say "the internet at large." HN, reddit, and twitter all seem to be taking the news in unique ways.
I appreciate that, but I don't think raising up some random guy on reddit is a valid way of drawing a conclusion.
Person A thinks X.
Person B who belongs a group the blue tribe hates also thinks X.
Therefore person A is a bad person because they agree with person B about X.
We have failed to prove that the group person B belongs to is actually bad and not just an exercise in signaling and we are also trying to smear person A by saying they agree with some other completely unrelated person who may belong to a distasteful group. Additionally X can still be correct and both people can be distasteful, but it wont change the fact that X is correct.
Sorry if I am not being clear, it's been a long day.
