This community sends “All lives matter” vibes. I understand that there are issues with how men are treated and there is nothing wrong with talking about it, but it does seem a little bit like a distraction from feminism issues. Women are objectively under a lot bigger threat and talking about women rights more makes a lot more sense. Of course, mentioning how men are treated is also useful, but dedicating a whole community to exactly this part of the problem seems a bit problematic. It would be more useful for it to be about general issues of gender roles or something like that, this way it seems like it is targeting feminism.
Furthermore, I heard that unionbusting companies now are starting to focus on feminism, racial inclusion and etc. Because it makes everyone uncomfortable and devides people by some arbitary characteristics. That makes people less likely to unite in their common interests, because it is percieved that their interests are very different, which is not the case.
This kind of thinking is why MRAs succeed where Mens Lib fail. Mens Lib is all about men’s rights through a feminist lens, but feminism does not give a single shit about men. Even just having a space for mens issue leads to posts like this, which downplay and even try to silence men who try to talk about their issues.
And no, it is not harmful to talk about mens issues. We can have many different places all focusing on different things. Like a cat sub focusing on cats, and a dog sub focusing on dogs. A dog sub existing does not mean the cat sub is any less valid, it’s just a place about dogs.
When MRAs believe in a positive goal, it is almost certainly reached via a terrible thought process. Praising an MRA for coming to a good ethical decision is like praising Two-Face.
Which MRA thinkers have affected meaningful change for men, without throwing women under the bus in the process?
I’ll go google for a list if you answer a couple questions.
What is the thought process, and why is it terrible? Do you really think its a zero sum game?
First, let me define my terms. When I talk about MRAs, I talk about the ones in the broader online manosphere:
What is their thought process:
Do you really think its a zero sum game:
I don’t, but they do. The above Wikipedia article cites its sources, in case you don’t believe me.
Why it is terrible:
If the MRA movement believes men’s rights and women’s rights are a zero-sum game, then it’s a terrible movement right? I think we agree on that.
Okay, I dont strictly agree with those terms, that MRAs are part of the “manosphere”. Im sure you could probably find assholes who do hate women, but you can also find feminists who hate men, and feminism as a whole doesnt hate men. Thats just a case of wikipedia being absolute trash when it comes to politics.
In any case, I owe you a list. Google is giving me grief and only shows stuff from like splc and various other feminist groups. I did find this, but its not much. https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/wiki/faq#wiki_35._does_.2Fr.2Fmensrights_act_in_any_way_that_has_an_impact_on_the_real_world.3F
Based on your Reddit link, I would say that my Wikipedia link identifies the same group as you did. Of course, I’m not going to hold you to the opinions of individual shitty people within a group as long as that group doesn’t choose them or those particular positions as representative of the group.
I’m also not going to hold you as a representative of the group either. If you’re unfamiliar enough with them to not be able to rattle off a couple names (and not just withholding them out of spite) then I imagine you aren’t particularly committed to the movement as it exists, anyway. You can feel free to say “well fuck them” if you feel like it.
With that out of the way, allow me to tear into the largest and lowest hanging fruit. From your source:
I remember A Voice For Men because it is one of the worst groups that could represent men’s rights, period. With one of the most reprehensible people as its founder. From Wikipedia and extensively sourced:
So a doxxing website exclusively targeted at women, but at least they only targeted actual felons, right?
Nope.
Paul Elam himself:
You got it spot on, I’m not a MRA, Im honestly not very familar with the goings on. I just see them on /all and /popular from time to time, and thats when I glance at the front page on their respective subs.
Everytime I glance at the mens rights sub, its about the issues men face, and overcoming them, or solving them, or just talking about the issues. Uplifting men in general.
Everytime at glance at the mens lib, its a bunch of posts about how men are the real monsters, how men should be more feminine, how men are sexist without knowing it, how men are the oppressors, how men are to blame for their issues, how masculinity is toxic, etc etc.
Notably menslib fills their sub with the weird kind of feminism, and has no room left for overcoming mens issues or helping men in general.
And yes, like many groups, mras arent exactly coherent. Theres definitely some assholes among them, same as feminism, same as mens lib, Im sure. Hell, a few suffragettes went on to become OG fascists. Every large group of humans has assholes. That does not mean the group is bad, just that theyre human.
You really have to go with what they say and do as a whole, and make your own judgement. The klan was bad. The suffragettes were good. That sort of thing. I cant convince you of anything, this is an internet argument, but maybe give the sub a chance. And definitely stay away from A voice for men, fucking christ.
Well, that’s why I asked about the figureheads that you believed were correct in the movement. Anybody can stumble in and be accidentally correct or incorrect, but the issue with the men’s rights advocates as a whole is that their ideology springs from people like Paul Elam and his organization. They were the number one group in your link.
It’s important to start from a solid basis, and that’s where feminism starts from the right place and anti-feminism starts from absolutely the wrong one.
At risk of getting out of context, I (cis male) did not become aware of the systems that were damaging me until I started studying feminism. Whatever a “men’s liberation movement” looks like, it is so young and inexperienced that it would be well served to examine and learn from feminist ideologies and perspectives.
Many of the power structures that feminists have identified as being damaging to women in general are also damaging to men in general.
Many of the power structures that favour men in general are damaging to women in general. As we grow and develop, we should be striving to tear down those structures that are harmful to others, rather than further entrench them as if in battle or in a zero sum game.
I’m not aware of any modern feminist ideologies or initiatives that present a danger to men, but if there are any, they should be called out by both feminists and “masculinists” in the same way that both feminists and masculinists should be calling out any masculinist ideologies and initiatives that present a danger to women.
Modern intersectional feminism has grappled with the inclusion of women who have been “othered”. We should be trying to learn from that and avoid making the same mistakes.
In the end, we all have to figure out our place in the world, and that cannot be done without considering our relationships to the power structures and each other. At present, that looks like it’s necessary to have feminism and masculinism as separate movements, not as enemies, but as collaborators and intersectional movements. Biology, including the fact that sex and gender are spectra with bimodal distributions, may always mean that they remain at least somewhat separate even as shared goals are achieved.