MRA's: Fighting for Men or Fighting Against Women?

[Kelinfort]

I agree with MRA's on several ideas, most notably shelters for male rape victims, increased support for the homeless, paper abortions before birth, equalising custody law, etc. But I do not agree that men have less rights or protections than women. The same hierarchy feminists oppose is the same MRA's oppose in their ideas. Such a hierarchy expects men to be sole caretakers and completely responsible while women are to be pure and demure.

[Murkwood]

Exactly, I have never seen a feminist dismiss an issue because "it only affects men!"
Because how about there are no issues that only affect men.

But, but... Murky and his ilk are the real victims here, people! If only women would know their place, all of this would not have been necessary! Do you think those guys like to send anonymous rape threats to independent women?

Rape threats are like death threats: horrific and sent by troubled individuals. Almost every MRA condemn them.

[Naretion]

The men's rights movement has been involved in a variety of areas related to law (including family law, parenting, reproduction and domestic violence), government services (including education, compulsory military service and social safety nets), and health that they believe discriminate against men.

I definitely find good in this. I don't see why so many people think they're a hate group if they're pushing for things that make sense like this. In a draft- men have to serve, and women don't. For insurance of any kind, men have to pay more than women. In court after a divorce, women almost always win. And a woman can easily get away with abusing a man in a relationship.

If those are the kinds of the things they are pushing to be fixed. I don't see what everybody hates about them. Those are very valid concerns.

[New Edom]

The men's rights movement has been involved in a variety of areas related to law (including family law, parenting, reproduction and domestic violence), government services (including education, compulsory military service and social safety nets), and health that they believe discriminate against men.

I definitely find good in this. I don't see why so many people think they're a hate group if they're pushing for things that make sense like this. In a draft- men have to serve, and women don't. For insurance of any kind, men have to pay more than women. In court after a divorce, women almost always win. And a woman can easily get away with abusing a man in a relationship.

If those are the kinds of the things they are pushing to be fixed. I don't see what everybody hates about them. Those are very valid concerns.

Because most people who speak for feminism seem to believe that any criticism of women's behaviour or claim that men are treated unfairly by women as well as by other men is misogyny.

[Avenio]

At least they're not TERFs.

As has been noted, the MR movement is not exactly that far removed from them. You don't see AVFM or some subreddit banding together to donate to the Trevor Project or advocate for the rights of trans men - the issues that the MR movement is beholden to is largely by straight men, for straight men.

[Murkwood]

I hate when I hear the phrase "male privilege".

http://i.imgur.com/G2vU9ud.png

[Avenio]

I hate when I hear the phrase "male privilege".

http://i.imgur.com/G2vU9ud.png

Probably not the best examples to use in your random aside to your own thread, since women have historically considered to be too weak, stupid and emotionally unstable to serve in the military (including combat roles) and to work industrial jobs. Women are discouraged from going for positions in either of those fields as a result of those lingering attitudes, and hence the gender disparity.

[Murkwood]

I hate when I hear the phrase "male privilege".

http://i.imgur.com/G2vU9ud.png

Probably not the best examples to use in your random aside to your own thread, since women have historically considered to be too weak, stupid and emotionally unstable to serve in the military (including combat roles) and to work industrial jobs. Women are discouraged from going for positions in either of those fields as a result of those lingering attitudes, and hence the gender disparity.

What I'm trying to say is that men don't always have it 100% perfect. They have the most homicide deaths, for example.

[Avenio]

Probably not the best examples to use in your random aside to your own thread, since women have historically considered to be too weak, stupid and emotionally unstable to serve in the military (including combat roles) and to work industrial jobs. Women are discouraged from going for positions in either of those fields as a result of those lingering attitudes, and hence the gender disparity.

What I'm trying to say is that men don't always have it 100% perfect. They have the most homicide deaths, for example.

You're not saying it very well, since you've basically cherry picked a bunch of stats with a gender disparity and shouted 'See feminists, male privilege doesn't exist!' without giving a moment's thought as to the actual causal relationships involved.

[Rutuba]

Male privilege exists, and so does female privilege. Since traditional gender roles are different for men and for women, it is obvious that in some fields one gender will have it easier than the other. Gender roles are not something intentionally created by men in order to oppress women (or vice versa), they are a product of gender co-operation in a particular culture throughout the ages.

[Aequalitia]

Male privilege exists, and so does female privilege. Since traditional gender roles are different for men and for women, it is obvious that in some fields one gender will have it easier than the other. Gender roles are not something intentionally created by men in order to oppress women (or vice versa), they are a product of gender co-operation in a particular culture throughout the ages.

Tell me then what for female privileges existing.

[Tahar Joblis]

But, but... Murky and his ilk are the real victims here, people! If only women would know their place, all of this would not have been necessary! Do you think those guys like to send anonymous rape threats to independent women?

Rape threats are like death threats: horrific and sent by troubled individuals. Almost every MRA condemn them.

Also, if you look deeper, many things labeled "rape threats from MRAs" or "death threats from MRAs" are not actually rape/death threats or are not actually from MRAs. We had a 54 page thread where we talked about allegations of rape/death threats from MRAs, nothing that was demonstrably a threat and also demonstrably from an MRA.

My experience is that it's quite a bit more normal for feminists to issue "death threats" and "rape threats" than MRAs. A couple of example quotes endorsing violent behavior from NSG feminists:

MRAs are vile, vile, utterly vile, misogynists pretending to be normal people. Who make up claims to attract sympathy and spend 90% lying about feminists and trying to undermine women's issues. They should throw them all in a big fire so the world can be rid of their toxic, malcontent, spite-driven behaviour. =)

Rape him.

Emphasis added. In an environment where "you need a good fuck" is viewed as a "rape threat" and "I hope you kill yourself" is treated as a "death threat," those are as good as any.

The truth of the matter is not that feminists are not particularly likely to attract death threats or rape threats. (Or, for that matter, even women.) And then if you look closely, you find that people are if anything more likely to issue rape threats (or even the sort of things that get called "rape threats" that are not actually rape threats) towards men.

It's just that we don't tend to treat such threats seriously when they are aimed at men or issued by women. And somehow, feminists' good press renders them largely immune to the consequences of being associated with threats against people who say things they find disagreeable, like reporting the results of studying the abuse of men by women. See p. 801 of this source for an example involving a bomb threat made to the ACLU. Another example I will simply quote directly:

Because of my opposition to the hijacking of the refuge movement, I was a target for abuse. Anywhere I spoke there was a contingent of screaming, heckling feminists waiting for me. Hounslow Council decided to proceed against me in court and I was packed to go to prison for most of the twelve years that I ran my refuge. Abusive telephone calls to my home, death threats and bomb scares, became a way of living for me and for my family. Finally, the bomb squad, asked me to have all my mail delivered to their head quarters. The final outrage occurred when I was asked to travel to Aberdeen University to stand as a candidate for the post of Rector for the University in 1981. I was hopeful that I could have an influence on the young students at the university. At the polling booths Scottish Women’s Aid made it their business to hand out leaflets claiming that I believed that women ‘invited violence,’ and ‘provoked male violence,’ this was the gist of their message.

...

Exhausted and disillusioned at the growing hostility towards men in the Courts and the lack of support for family life from the government, I went reluctantly into exile with my children and grandchildren. My plan was to go to Santa Fe, New Mexico to write novels. I thought then that I could reach the people who read my non-fiction in my novels. Very soon I was running another refuge nearby and working against sexual abusers and paedolphiles. I found to my cost that Santa Fe was sufficiently lawless to attract these dangerous people. When I returned to England for the publication of my book ‘PRONE TO VIOLENCE,’ I was met with a solid wall of feminist demonstrators. ‘ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS,’ ‘ALL MEN ARE BATTERERS,’ read the placards. The police insisted that I have an escort all round England for my book tour. By then I knew that my position in America could not be permanent. The women’ movement there was even stronger and their strangle hold over the refuges( called shelters) and access to government and state resources was almost absolute. Although I was invited to lecture, every time I did the gender feminists were waiting to invade my workshops and to heckle my speeches. The threats and the persecution began again. Finally, one of my dogs was shot on Christmas day on my property, and I knew the time had come to leave.

Are all feminists involved in these threats? No. Your average feminist's ideas for dramatic direct action don't involve vigilante violence. However:

• To claim MRAs are in the habit of sending anonymous rape threats to women to shut them up is an attempt to invoke a claim of moral superiority on behalf of feminism.
• This claim is based implicitly on the idea that MRAs are somehow more likely than feminists to silence their opponents with threats.
• That idea is in turn does not have material evidence in its favor.
• If anything, the opposite holds; we can tie feminists far more directly to violent threats.

The idea that the MRM presents a credible threat of anti-female violence rests on a foundation of things like trying to classify Elliot Rodgers (anti-PUA website member with no relationship to the MRM) as an MRA.

[Aequalitia]

-snip-

The idea that the MRM presents a credible threat of anti-female violence rests on a foundation of things like trying to classify Elliot Rodgers (anti-PUA website member with no relationship to the MRM) as an MRA.

For the first time in my life, I starting to be angry towards so much people. Clamming MRA's are always bad, radfems got a point and that woman's got it so more worse with issues like sexual violence.

When we males finally dare a little bit to saying about sexual violence towards males, then we see it even here that still so much people don't want to open their eyes, making rape jokes or even wished that you be raped.

But well, we are males, we don't got the rights to be talking about sexual violence, woman's got only that right, its what most here just want to say.

No, being raped as a male don't exist, you must even quiet you mouth and you never can be raped because you are a male, you deserve it.

Thank you NSG, you all lose humanity. Image how you would feel as a male victim of rape and see this words.

[Tahar Joblis]

At least they're not TERFs.

As has been noted, the MR movement is not exactly that far removed from them. You don't see AVFM or some subreddit banding together to donate to the Trevor Project or advocate for the rights of trans men - the issues that the MR movement is beholden to is largely by straight men, for straight men.

It's interesting how often this claim has come up in this thread, generally without any evidence in its favor. As I have now pointed out several times, the men's rights movement actually appears to have a disproportionately large number of bisexual male participants, and that the most passionate intactivists are drawn from the MRM, the gay community, or both.

I have also pointed out that men's issues are also issues for both transwomen (when people incorrectly fail to treat them as women) and transmen (when people correctly do treat them as men).

I've already pointed out, by fighting for total gender equality. Most notably, a gender-neutral definition of rape.

But let me ask you this. How is MRM fighting for ciswomen? Transwomen? Transmen? Those of us outside the gender binary? People of every sexual orientation aside from heterosexuals?

In much the same way that some feminists fought "for" cismen, transwomen, transmen, et cetera: By attacking particular gender-specific privileges. There is an article titled "From woman to man to red pill" that you might look up. Is helping ciswomen a goal of the MRM? Not particularly. Do transmen and transwomen have many of the same issues men do? Yes; transmen in success at being treated as male, and transwomen in failure to be treated as female. (And those with non-binary identities will typically be treated as male some reasonable fraction of the time.)

It is because of the tight regulation of male sexuality that transwomen face more violence than transmen; because those who object to transwomen generally see them as deviant men. Those who object to transmen generally see them as deviant women... and therefore subject them to the level of violence they would ordinarily subject a deviant woman to, which is (on average) quite a bit less.

Is the MRM unified in its consideration of transsexuals? No. There may even be MRAs who are as hostile to transsexual identity as the infamous TERFs... who remain quite alive and well.

That's gender identity. Anyone who was, is, or will be a man has a concern with systematic sexist mistreatment of men. What about sexuality?

Does the MRM fight for gay and bisexual cismen? Yes, which is why they are disproportionately represented in the movement, as I pointed out earlier in this thread; and share several areas of activism, such as intactivism. The movement to treat male circumcision as a form of genital mutilation (much like something that was once commonly called female circumcision) and ban its application to minors too young to consent is an area where the MRM and the community of gay men share common interest.

San Francisco stood ready to ban male circumcision, with the rug being pulled out from under that ballot measure by the state government. This is not an issue that feminists get passionate about, as a general rule.

Are some of what's on the MRM's agenda helpful to people who are not, were not, and will not become men? About as much as is on the feminist movement's agenda to help people who are not, were not, and will not become women.

[New London2]

The idea that the MRM presents a credible threat of anti-female violence rests on a foundation of things like trying to classify Elliot Rodgers (anti-PUA website member with no relationship to the MRM) as an MRA.

Got a source for that lie?

[Aequalitia]

The idea that the MRM presents a credible threat of anti-female violence rests on a foundation of things like trying to classify Elliot Rodgers (anti-PUA website member with no relationship to the MRM) as an MRA.

Got a source for that lie?

Got a source of feminists who really support equal rights and be supportive for all genders?

[New London2]

Got a source for that lie?

Got a source of feminists who really support equal rights and be supportive for all genders?

I asked first.

[Aequalitia]

Got a source of feminists who really support equal rights and be supportive for all genders?

I asked first.

Well, you asked it to Tahar, I did asked you an other question.

You don't have?

[Seriong]

The idea that the MRM presents a credible threat of anti-female violence rests on a foundation of things like trying to classify Elliot Rodgers (anti-PUA website member with no relationship to the MRM) as an MRA.

Got a source for that lie?

A source for the fact that he didn't associate with the MRM? How about the fact that all of his associations that have been demonstrated aren't to the MRM? And that it's therefore silly to contend that he is in fact associated with such a movement?

[Avenio]

It's interesting how often this claim has come up in this thread, generally without any evidence in its favor. As I have now pointed out several times, the men's rights movement actually appears to have a disproportionately large number of bisexual male participants,

I wouldn't call it disproportionately large, at least for an internet community, since internet demographics are so skewed anyway. The most recent NSG sexuality poll came back with 17% of 1169 respondants identifying as bisexual, (twice as much as the subreddit's) and 11% identifying as gay (also just over double the subreddit's demographics).

Either way, bisexuals (particularly males) are still capable of hitching their proverbial wagons to the MRM's hobby horses, since they can and do engage in opposite-sex relationships. That's not the same thing as branching out to deal with other issues affecting men, that's having an overlapping sphere of interest.

and that the most passionate intactivists are drawn from the MRM, the gay community, or both.

And if the issue of circumcision is the only common ground that you can come up with in which part of the gay community shares a common interest, well... that's not really a good sign for the intersectionality of the movement, particularly considering its title proclaims itself as the 'men's' rights movement, unmodified and referring to the entire gender.

I have also pointed out that men's issues are also issues for both transwomen (when people incorrectly fail to treat them as women) and transmen (when people correctly do treat them as men).

Taking that at face value, you appear to be one of the few people to actually care about trans issues. In your survey's question about 'most important mens' rights issues', didn't even make the top 13 responses, and is presumably lumped (if it appeared at all) in the small 'Other' category. Gender minorities also make up a vanishingly small part of the MRM community, with only 1% of respondents choosing the only gender minority available - 'Other'. To compare, that's similar to the number of users of the subreddit that are over 60 years old. Not exactly an important component of the community.

[Tahar Joblis]

It's interesting how often this claim has come up in this thread, generally without any evidence in its favor. As I have now pointed out several times, the men's rights movement actually appears to have a disproportionately large number of bisexual male participants,

I wouldn't call it disproportionately large, at least for an internet community, since internet demographics are so skewed anyway. The most recent NSG sexuality poll came back with 17% of 1169 respondants identifying as bisexual, (twice as much as the subreddit's) and 11% identifying as gay (also just over double the subreddit's demographics).

A fair point. It would be best to compare it to a Reddit baseline (which I suspect is somewhat more mainstream than NSG - we're a weird lot) but it isn't as strange for an internet community. It definitely isn't unusually straight, but that may indeed have more to do with being an internet community than with being a men's rights community.

Either way, bisexuals (particularly males) are still capable of hitching their proverbial wagons to the MRM's hobby horses, since they can and do engage in opposite-sex relationships. That's not the same thing as branching out to deal with other issues affecting men, that's having an overlapping sphere of interest.

What MRA "hobby horses" have to do with "opposite-sex" relationships? Well, we have a problem with recognizing either female perpetration or male victimhood when it comes to sexual violence (which usually comes from SOs) & domestic violence (likewise). MRAs want to address that and attack the public narrative that domestic & sexual violence is a male-on-female problem and directs funding accordingly. That's one example.

So who is affected by failure to take female perpetrators seriously or by failure to take male victims seriously?

• Straight men (male victimhood, female perpetration)
• Bisexual men (male victimhood, female perpetration)
• Gay men (male victimhood)
• Bisexual women (female perpetration)
• Lesbians (female perpetration)

That includes a number of trans individuals as well, including all transmen who aren't asexual, and the transwomen who date women. The only group who don't have an overlapping sphere of interest with MRAs on that issue are straight women. This is not a "by straight men for straight men" issue by any stretch of the imagination; straight men are the largest group and perhaps the most strongly affected, but not at all the only group with an interest, and bisexual men aren't the only ones we can add as having shared interests.

And if the issue of circumcision is the only common ground that you can come up with in which part of the gay community shares a common interest

It isn't, but it's one of the more striking ones.

Feminists, by ideological principles, ought to be against circumcision based on the arguments feminists offer against FGM. In practice, feminists are generally inactive on the subject, and if anything tend to be more likely to be found supporting circumcision, or busily saying that cutting little girls' genitals is completely different from cutting little boys' genitals, than doing anything to oppose it.

Taking that at face value, you appear to be one of the few people to actually care about trans issues. In your survey's question about 'most important mens' rights issues', didn't even make the top 13 responses, and is presumably lumped (if it appeared at all) in the small 'Other' category. Gender minorities also make up a vanishingly small part of the MRM community, with only 1% of respondents choosing the only gender minority available - 'Other'. To compare, that's similar to the number of users of the subreddit that are over 60 years old. Not exactly an important component of the community.

That's not an unusually large (or small) number of individuals checking "other," though I will caution you that when the options are "male," "female," and "other," most trans individuals will choose either "male" or "female." People identifying as non-binary genders make up a minority of what we might term "gender minorities," as the term is usually intended to include people who feel they are male or feel they are female. I suspect that this person on /r/MensRights probably checked the "female" box, but that you would probably also consider them to be a "gender minority" for having transitioned from male to female.

Overall, from what I have seen, the trans presence in the MRM is not particularly significant; you can find articles written by trans individuals, and can find on /r/MensRights discussion threads (such as where trans people are talking to each other about the intersection of trans issues and MRA issues; but there are very few trans people period, and much as with feminism, there are people in the MRM who do not have a particularly fond view of transgender identity and transgender politics.

I would, actually, suggest that people who approached that survey are probably quite likely to tell you that many of the explicitly listed issues apply to trans individuals... or simply don't think of trans issues as a category of "men's rights issues," even if they care about them.

I care about trans issues individually, but I'm generally not viewed as an MRA when I'm talking about them. I care about environmental issues and like to gently promote vegetarianism, but I'm not viewed as an MRA while doing those, either, nor do I think that the MRM should be emphasizing them as a priority. I see one of the mistakes of the feminist movement as to pronounce loudly that feminism will cure everything, or to justify everything from dietary habits to entertainment preferences in terms of feminist ideology.