Feminist Activism vs MRM

[pharphis]

I'm fairly new to the topic overall and was wondering what some people thought about an argument I've heard repeatedly, lately.

The argument goes that because feminism is for gender equality (I'll accept this as a majority view for the sake of argument - I believe it is probably true but I don't actually know), that the Men's Rights Movement is unnecessary.

To me this seems like a double standard based on one's preference for one over the other. If both are defined as being for gender equality, why is one unnecessary while the other is required? Does this argument make sense that I am not understanding? Is the MRM full of misogynists who only work to oppose feminism rather than compliment it? (I've seen this claim a lot as well)

I will qualify my own beliefs: I believe that there are both advantages and disadvantages to both men and women and that to pretend one side has issues while the other does not is dishonest.

 

[theprestige]

I'm fairly new to the topic overall and was wondering what some people thought about an argument I've heard repeatedly, lately.

The argument goes that because feminism is for gender equality (I'll accept this as a majority view for the sake of argument - I believe it is probably true but I don't actually know), that the Men's Rights Movement is unnecessary.

The issue is that some strategies and values attributed to "feminism" are perceived as infringing upon the rights of men. As this kind of infringement would go beyond simple equality, some people believe it is necessary to take a stand as advocates for the preservation of those human rights which men should still enjoy in a gender-equal society.

One real-world arena where this debate goes on is in the legal system, where men are often treated as second class citizens in child custody cases.

There are others, as well. You may have noticed the "rape hoax" threads here. When false rape allegations are made, the woman is given the benefit of the doubt, and the man or men are given the shaft (so to speak).

It seems that when "feminism" intersects with men, a lot of times the men find their voices silenced and their rights abridged.

There will be a huuuge debate about what counts as "feminism", what counts as "rights", and whether men actually have anything to complain about in any specific case. But the above is a quick sketch of the debating field.

I would say, read through one of the rape hoax threads, or the "kill all men" thread. If, as you read through the threads, you find yourself thinking, "huh, it seems like the men may not be getting treated fairly/equally here", then you are experiencing the essence of Male Rights Advocacy (a.k.a., the Male Rights Movement).

There will also be a huuuge debate about No True Male Rights Advocate, and which advocates have a legitimate issue, and which advocates are just douchebag misogynists looking for a way to keep women down.

Note that to some "feminists" any male rights advocacy, or hint of advocacy, is automatically judged to be douchbags keeping women down. This judgement cannot be appealed.

 

[Corsair 115]

One thing I'd point out here is that there is a tendency on the feminist side to conflate MRA (men's rights advocates), MGTOW (men going their own way), and PUA (pick-up artists) as all being the same thing. They're not. They are distinct entities each with their own ideologies, beliefs, and focus. There is some overlap between MRA and MGTOW, but these two things are certainly not synonymous.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The thing is that the real issues that men face many feminists will agree that those are issues. And of course most people who identify as men's rights activists hate women.

 

[Edx]

The thing is that the real issues that men face many feminists will agree that those are issues. And of course most people who identify as men's rights activists hate women.

This is sarcasm right?

Because they definitely don't agree those are real issues. The second sentence is demonstrably false.

 

[Edx]

One thing I'd point out here is that there is a tendency on the feminist side to conflate MRA (men's rights advocates), MGTOW (men going their own way), and PUA (pick-up artists) as all being the same thing. They're not. They are distinct entities each with their own ideologies, beliefs, and focus. There is some overlap between MRA and MGTOW, but these two things are certainly not synonymous.

You also missed "any one who says anything bad about feminists", "traditional conservatives" and "a man that does something bad to women".

 

[rustypouch]

I'm fairly new to the topic overall and was wondering what some people thought about an argument I've heard repeatedly, lately.

The argument goes that because feminism is for gender equality (I'll accept this as a majority view for the sake of argument - I believe it is probably true but I don't actually know), that the Men's Rights Movement is unnecessary.

To me this seems like a double standard based on one's preference for one over the other. If both are defined as being for gender equality, why is one unnecessary while the other is required? Does this argument make sense that I am not understanding? Is the MRM full of misogynists who only work to oppose feminism rather than compliment it? (I've seen this claim a lot as well)

I will qualify my own beliefs: I believe that there are both advantages and disadvantages to both men and women and that to pretend one side has issues while the other does not is dishonest.

Whether feminism is for equality really depends on the type in question.

The fact is that there are areas where men are disadvantaged. But few people seem to care, and when these issues are brought up, they tend to be ignored, hand waved away, or otherwise dismissed.

The idea that men don't have problems and aren't allowed safe spaces fuels a lot of discontent and bitterness.

Edited to add: There definitely are different standards when it comes to reaction to hate speech against men, compared to other groups. Look at the recent #killallmen from the diversity officer at a university. Would she have been able to express that sentiment about any other group, without sever, immediate repercussions?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Is this sarcasm? Parody?

No. Most self identified feminists I know have no problems admitting things like that female on male domestic abuse is condoned by popular media and a serious problem that gets ignored.

There seem to be no organized groups of male rights activists who don't take serious issue with looking for actual equality.

 

[ThunderChunky]

Both groups occasionally hit on legitimate issues, but they are primarily just excuses to vent hostility.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Both groups occasionally hit on legitimate issues, but they are primarily just excuses to vent hostility.

The ones who get the most press certainly.

 

[Edx]

No. Most self identified feminists I know have no problems admitting things like that female on male domestic abuse is condoned by popular media and a serious problem that gets ignored.

Except they don't. They won't accept the actual statistics that show to what extent men are affected by domestic violence and sexual assault. It's therefore meaningless for them to say they think it is a serious problem that often gets ignored while waving around statistics that ignore and marginalize male victims, and campaigning/supporting lobbying campaigns and domestic violence and rape organizations that exclude men by definition. The definition of rape used in the statistics literally does not allow men to be considered raped by women, if a woman forces a man to have sex, that's either not included in the statistics at all or it's considered "other sexual violence".

The infamous Mary Koss even said that for men this is just "unwanted sex" and shouldn't be considered rape, even though her own study in the 80s that came up with the "1 in 4" statistics defined rape as unwanted sex, but only for women, of course. And then they will use this as evidence that rape is a male behaviour and that's why only men need to taught/told not to rape, and we know this is true because the statistics don't have any female rapists, because they defined women forcing men to have sex as not-rape. They ignore the reality of domestic violence research showing that most DV is reciprocal, and that women are more aggressive and violent in relationships than men are. That doesn't fit their paradigm that women are the victims and that men are the problem, so they have to deny it, so forgive me if I think what you said rings hollow.

Even when the studies shows men are more affected, such as with the study on childhood sexual abuse which found more boys were raped than girls the boys statistics were instead mixed with the girls who experienced more of the least serious form of abuse and now girls appeared to be more affected by 1 in 4 girls vs 1 in 6 boys. You find this attitude everywhere. Aside from a very tiny minority feminists only cares about accepting male problems so long as they get to be the biggest victims at all times. That is feminisms identity, gynocentrism and victimhood. They aren't interested in equality, they aren't interested in not being victims.

There seem to be no organized groups of male rights activists who don't take serious issue with looking for actual equality.

It's my experience that most people that identify as feminists don't know what equality would even looks like. The only people that seem to understand what equality would look like are MRA's or feminists like Christina Hoff Sommers. Everyone else you can easily demonstrate is not about equaloty

 

[Corsair 115]

You also missed "any one who says anything bad about feminists", "traditional conservatives" and "a man that does something bad to women".

I was only pointing out that the three groups exist and should not be conflated. That "MRA" is sometimes thrown around as a pejorative in the manner you describe is perhaps a related matter but is outside the specific point I wanted to address.

 

[Edx]

I was only pointing out that the three groups exist and should not be conflated. That "MRA" is sometimes thrown around as a pejorative in the manner you describe is perhaps a related matter but is outside the specific point I wanted to address.

I was adding to the list, those are people I've seen represented as MRA's purely because they don't agree with feminists.

 

[Wildy]

No. Most self identified feminists I know have no problems admitting things like that female on male domestic abuse is condoned by popular media and a serious problem that gets ignored.

I think the suggestion of sarcasm arises from encounters with feminists who either claim it's not a "serious" problem, see it as some kind of "revenge", somewhat dismiss it as "the patriarchy hurting men too", or claim that it's solely a feminist issue and imply people who aren't feminists aren't allowed to touch it.

 

[Corsair 115]

I was adding to the list, those are people I've seen represented as MRA's purely because they don't agree with feminists.

I understand, but I don't think it fits in with the specific point I was addressing, which was the conflation of three distinct groups/organizations/movements/whatever term one wishes to use.

 

[Edx]

I understand, but I don't think it fits in with the specific point I was addressing, which was the conflation of three distinct groups/organizations/movements/whatever term one wishes to use.

I think it fits completely. The main thing is understanding that not everyone who doesn't agree with feminists are MRA's. Then it becomes easy to understand that PUA's aren't MRA's

 

[pharphis]

The issue is that some strategies and values attributed to "feminism" are perceived as infringing upon the rights of men. As this kind of infringement would go beyond simple equality, some people believe it is necessary to take a stand as advocates for the preservation of those human rights which men should still enjoy in a gender-equal society.

One real-world arena where this debate goes on is in the legal system, where men are often treated as second class citizens in child custody cases.

There are others, as well. You may have noticed the "rape hoax" threads here. When false rape allegations are made, the woman is given the benefit of the doubt, and the man or men are given the shaft (so to speak).

It seems that when "feminism" intersects with men, a lot of times the men find their voices silenced and their rights abridged.

There will be a huuuge debate about what counts as "feminism", what counts as "rights", and whether men actually have anything to complain about in any specific case. But the above is a quick sketch of the debating field.

I would say, read through one of the rape hoax threads, or the "kill all men" thread. If, as you read through the threads, you find yourself thinking, "huh, it seems like the men may not be getting treated fairly/equally here", then you are experiencing the essence of Male Rights Advocacy (a.k.a., the Male Rights Movement).

There will also be a huuuge debate about No True Male Rights Advocate, and which advocates have a legitimate issue, and which advocates are just douchebag misogynists looking for a way to keep women down.

Note that to some "feminists" any male rights advocacy, or hint of advocacy, is automatically judged to be douchbags keeping women down. This judgement cannot be appealed.

This seems to match pretty closely what I have observed thus far but I wasn't sure if it was due to confirmation bias or something else.

I have looked at some of these threads and actually read the killallwhitemen one earlier, though I've heard of these things from other sources as well.

 

[pharphis]

Again, this is a new topic for me so I have another question about an argument I've heard before.

I've heard people say that the MRM is a reaction to feminism and they use this as a way to hand-wave it away as people who just oppose feminism and don't actually care about men's rights.

I don't know if the timeline is true (I suspect it is) but it seems to me that it doesn't logically follow that if a movement takes place in reaction to another one that it necessarily is doing so in opposition. Perhaps some of this was in opposition at first (or still is). Any idea if this is mainstream or a realistic timeline of the emergence of the MRM?

 

[The Greater Fool]

There will also be a huuuge debate about No True Male Rights Advocate, and which advocates have a legitimate issue, and which advocates are just douchebag misogynists looking for a way to keep women down.

The bad MRAs wear fedoras.

 

[Edx]

@Pharphis when they say the MRM is a "reaction" to feminism, what they mean mean is that men (because it's only men that care about the MRM obviously) are trying to keep their "privilege", that they don't want women to have rights and that they want to keep women in the kitchen.

I don't know if the timeline is true

The modern MRM is fairly recent but the roots have been around for over a hundred years. You should watch some Karen Straughan if you want to have a better idea of the MRM, and read books by Warren Farrell and/or watch some of his talks.