The NationStates Feminist Thread

[Valystria]

They expect every aspect of public and private life to conform to their ideology. Everything within feminism, nothing outside feminism.
What you see as the release of a movie, they see as an opportunity to storm with smoke bombs and swarming the area, for no other than reason than to protest about something unrelated.

What gets me the most about the incident is that they haven't the slightest concern about how there isn't any funding towards domestic violence shelters for men. I'd say it certainly qualifies as more of a crisis than minor funding cuts to women's shelters here and there. Only women matter, seemingly.

Well this does not answer my question, I am certainly not sympathetic to your "Men's Rights" (another rising phenomenon in the Anglo-Saxon world, a reaction to silly theatrical feminism(?)) argument.

My question still stands, to those who support these kinds of actions -social media campaigns- etc- what have you- what do you think will come of this?

It's nice how you assumed I'm an MRA when I'm not one. Well done. Come up with a better character attack.


My post response made it clear what I think will come of it. What comes of it is perpetually throwing everyone else's inequalities under the bus.

[Ostroeuropa]

Well this does not answer my question, I am certainly not sympathetic to your "Men's Rights" (another rising phenomenon in the Anglo-Saxon world, a reaction to silly theatrical feminism(?)) argument.

My question still stands, to those who support these kinds of actions -social media campaigns- etc- what have you- what do you think will come of this?

It's nice how you assumed I'm an MRA when I'm not one. Well done. Come up with a better character attack.


My post response made it clear what I think will come of it. What comes of it is perpetually throwing everyone else's inequalities under the bus.

Given your stances on the subject, I would consider you an MRA. You are pro-mens issues being taken seriously and seem to use an androcentric perspective to discuss them.

You might identify as an egalitarian or something instead, and that's fine too, I wouldn't say you were an MRA necessarily then. I suppose it depends on whether you view it as one movement or two (Or indeed, more.) by necessity.

[Val Halla]

There's really nothing wrong with giving men extra rights and/or protection. Just, y'know, don't go overboard. I think that anyone can respect that

[Chessmistress]

An interesting article about unfair censorship against Feminism, for all those who continue to pretend that Feminism has "institutional power" or something
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... university

[Olerand]

I don't see it. Much of the Men's Rights Movement is a critic and rejection of feminism, not an assertion of some separate but non-conflicting ideology. Men's Rights seems to be "anti-feminsim", not "pro-men".

1- The two are unavoidably linked. Feminist ideology controls the establishment and it's institutions.

2- Those institutions discriminate against men as a result of unfettered feminist ideology.

3- When you discuss male domestic violence victims, it's impossible to give an accurate explanation of why they are fucked over without pointing out how feminism has contributed to and continues to contribute to this.

4- You may as well be saying feminists aren't pro-women, so much as they are anti-traditionalist roles for women.

Dude.

That is pro-women.

Just like being anti-feminism is pro-men, provided you are also anti-traditionalist. Which the MRM most decidedly is.

5- The MRM narratives are in part an explanation of why institutionalized feminism victimizes men. They don't claim to be a seperately emerging ideology. SOME aspects of it absolutely are, and the MRM androcentric lens is a valuable tool in understanding how traditionalism fucks over men.

That said, on the feminism issue:
You have 3 major camps.

MRAs who think MRM criticism of feminism will result in the movement reforming itself and becoming an egalitarian movement.

MRAs who think that MRM criticism of feminism will cause it to lose it's monopoly on institutional power and media control, at which point the two movements can counterbalance eachother working on men/womens issues seperately.

MRAs who think MRM criticism of feminism will cause the collapse of it's legitimacy as a movement and it's fall from power, at which point a new egalitarian movement will form from moderates on both sides.

6- What you're ignoring is that if the status quo discriminates against men, and feminism is the status quo, then ofcourse in order to be pro men you need to be anti-feminist.

Feminist "Moderates" who accept mens issues too and work on them from an androcentric perspective but don't call themselves something like Feminist-MRA are in total denial of where they got their androcentric viewpoints from, and whitewashing their movements history of persecution against men. They've been forced by MRM criticism and activism to adopt the MRMs views, but are disingenuously pretending those pieces of their ideology originate from within their movement, when they most assuredly do not.

7- To be a feminist without also being an MRA is to be a sexist. That is why the MRM is anti-feminism.

Feminist-MRAs would fall under the first category of MRA.

1- It does?
2- They do?
3- Is that so? Why? Kindly elaborate.
4- That does seem to be a version of feminism that is gaining strength, true enough.
5- So Men's Rights is not a movement asserting its own ideals and beliefs, but one centered around the rejection of another's.
6- Feminism is "the status quo", in what nation(I can see it in France-Sweden-Denmark etc, not too much in Britain, certainly not in America)? And it harms men how?
7- That doesn't explain it at all. One cannot advocate for better treatment for male rape victims and male victims of abuse, without having to stand against those who do the same for women? Interesting dichotomy, if a little forced.

Well this does not answer my question, I am certainly not sympathetic to your "Men's Rights" (another rising phenomenon in the Anglo-Saxon world, a reaction to silly theatrical feminism(?)) argument.

My question still stands, to those who support these kinds of actions -social media campaigns- etc- what have you- what do you think will come of this?

It's nice how you assumed I'm an MRA when I'm not one. Well done. Come up with a better character attack.


My post response made it clear what I think will come of it. What comes of it is perpetually throwing everyone else's inequalities under the bus.

Your positions seem to coincide with theirs. And what character attack? Was it an insult? I did not intend it as such.

Conformity? Well that's unrealistic. Is there a more concrete, real world, plan?

[Val Halla]

An interesting article about unfair censorship against Feminism, for all those who continue to pretend that Feminism has "institutional power" or something
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... university

The brand of feminism you like to promotes deserves censorship, imo

[New Benian Republic]

An interesting article about unfair censorship against Feminism, for all those who continue to pretend that Feminism has "institutional power" or something
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... university

Well they have ruined Iceland, Ireland and Denmark.

[Royal Denmark]

You saying women cannot be sexist is the most sexist thing I've ever heard.

Sexism = prejudice + power.
We lack power, so we cannot be sexist.
As you can see my idea is not unique to me, nor just only unique to Feminism: even Paul Blest at the good men project is confirming that idea with his own words. He CLEARLY wrote that "sexism is grounded on power, and women have no power". The ONLY meaning of this reasoning is that women cannot be sexist, because we have, on the whole, no power within society.

You have power, but you're not realizing you do. Take Hilary Clinton for a few examples.

[Valystria]

There's really nothing wrong with giving men extra rights and/or protection. Just, y'know, don't go overboard. I think that anyone can respect that

The problem is anyone advocating for giving men extra rights tends to be automatically dismissed as an MRA or gender-supporting anti-feminist.

An interesting article about unfair censorship against Feminism, for all those who continue to pretend that Feminism has "institutional power" or something
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... university

The irony. You're wanting us to read an article about censorship against feminism while you're censoring your opponents by refusing to reply when they've proved you wrong.

Going to answer the question yet?

Convention of Istanbul is about domestic violence and gender violence: it defines gender violence as a thing perpetrated by males against women.
It doesn't show an imaginary power of Feminism, it's just a first, little, step to narrow the gap of power between males and women.

And you didn't answer the question at all. You said what the Convention of Istanbul is about. You didn't answer how "If feminists lack power then how can they get things like the Convention of Istanbul passed?

[Ostroeuropa]

1- The two are unavoidably linked. Feminist ideology controls the establishment and it's institutions.

2- Those institutions discriminate against men as a result of unfettered feminist ideology.

3- When you discuss male domestic violence victims, it's impossible to give an accurate explanation of why they are fucked over without pointing out how feminism has contributed to and continues to contribute to this.

4- You may as well be saying feminists aren't pro-women, so much as they are anti-traditionalist roles for women.

Dude.

That is pro-women.

Just like being anti-feminism is pro-men, provided you are also anti-traditionalist. Which the MRM most decidedly is.

5- The MRM narratives are in part an explanation of why institutionalized feminism victimizes men. They don't claim to be a seperately emerging ideology. SOME aspects of it absolutely are, and the MRM androcentric lens is a valuable tool in understanding how traditionalism fucks over men.

That said, on the feminism issue:
You have 3 major camps.

MRAs who think MRM criticism of feminism will result in the movement reforming itself and becoming an egalitarian movement.

MRAs who think that MRM criticism of feminism will cause it to lose it's monopoly on institutional power and media control, at which point the two movements can counterbalance eachother working on men/womens issues seperately.

MRAs who think MRM criticism of feminism will cause the collapse of it's legitimacy as a movement and it's fall from power, at which point a new egalitarian movement will form from moderates on both sides.

6- What you're ignoring is that if the status quo discriminates against men, and feminism is the status quo, then ofcourse in order to be pro men you need to be anti-feminist.

Feminist "Moderates" who accept mens issues too and work on them from an androcentric perspective but don't call themselves something like Feminist-MRA are in total denial of where they got their androcentric viewpoints from, and whitewashing their movements history of persecution against men. They've been forced by MRM criticism and activism to adopt the MRMs views, but are disingenuously pretending those pieces of their ideology originate from within their movement, when they most assuredly do not.

7- To be a feminist without also being an MRA is to be a sexist. That is why the MRM is anti-feminism.

Feminist-MRAs would fall under the first category of MRA.

1- It does?
2- They do?
3- Is that so? Why? Kindly elaborate.
4- That does seem to be a version of feminism that is gaining strength, true enough.
5- So Men's Rights is not a movement asserting its own ideals and beliefs, but one centered around the rejection of another's.
6- Feminism is "the status quo", in what nation(I can see it in France-Sweden-Denmark etc, not too much in Britain, certainly not in America)? And it harms men how?
7- That doesn't explain it at all. One cannot advocate for better treatment for male rape victims and male victims of abuse, without having to stand against those who do the same for women? Interesting dichotomy, if a little forced.

It's nice how you assumed I'm an MRA when I'm not one. Well done. Come up with a better character attack.


My post response made it clear what I think will come of it. What comes of it is perpetually throwing everyone else's inequalities under the bus.

Your positions seem to coincide with theirs. And what character attack? Was it an insult? I did not intend it as such.

Conformity? Well that's unrealistic. Is there a more concrete, real world, plan?

Go read the mens rights thread.
If you don't know why institutionalized feminism isn't a problem, you havn't actually been talking to MRAs, and it's obvious you havn't.

So you've come here and given your opinion on something you know nothing about.

Here is one example.

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gende ... d%208-.pdf

They do similar things for every issue.

When you control institutions and the media narrative, while also engaging in gynocentricity, yes. It is impossible to advocate for men without opposing you.

[Chessmistress]

An interesting article about unfair censorship against Feminism, for all those who continue to pretend that Feminism has "institutional power" or something
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... university

The brand of feminism you like to promotes deserves censorship, imo

The article of Suzanne Moore I linked is not about me, it's about censorship against Bahar Mustafa and Julie Bindel.
Suzanne Moore wrote it's unjust (and I agree) because even if Bahar Mustafa tweeted #killallwhitemen it was just only a stupid joke and males cannot be afraid because they already have an HUGE safe space: the entire world.
I would like comments about the article, much more than comments about me, thank you.

[Val Halla]

There's really nothing wrong with giving men extra rights and/or protection. Just, y'know, don't go overboard. I think that anyone can respect that

The problem is anyone advocating for giving men extra rights tends to be automatically dismissed as an MRA or gender-supporting anti-feminist.

An interesting article about unfair censorship against Feminism, for all those who continue to pretend that Feminism has "institutional power" or something
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... university

The irony. You're wanting us to read an article about censorship against feminism while you're censoring your opponents by refusing to reply when they've proved you wrong.

Going to answer the question yet?

And you didn't answer the question at all. You said what the Convention of Istanbul is about. You didn't answer how "If feminists lack power then how can they get things like the Convention of Istanbul passed?

That's stupid and unfair

The brand of feminism you like to promotes deserves censorship, imo

The article of Suzanne Moore I linked is not about me, it's about censorship against Bahar Mustafa and Julie Bindel.
Suzanne Moore wrote it's unjust (and I agree) because even if Bahar Mustafa tweeted #killallwhitemen it was just only a stupid joke and males cannot be afraid because they already have an HUGE safe sapece: the entire world.
I would like comments about the article, much more than comments about me, thank you.

That definitely sounds like it needs censorship. Bindel sure as shit does.

And no, they really don't. What with the lack of shelters for specifically men and the amount of men being turned away from shelters...

[Valystria]

It's nice how you assumed I'm an MRA when I'm not one. Well done. Come up with a better character attack.


My post response made it clear what I think will come of it. What comes of it is perpetually throwing everyone else's inequalities under the bus.

Your positions seem to coincide with theirs. And what character attack? Was it an insult? I did not intend it as such.

Conformity? Well that's unrealistic. Is there a more concrete, real world, plan?

You saying "I am certainly not sympathetic to your "Men's Rights" can only be interpreted as you dismissing me as being an MRA when I had made no such indications of that. Are you against men having rights equal to women? Is that why you're "not sympathetic to men's rights"?

And what's unrealistic?

It's nice how you assumed I'm an MRA when I'm not one. Well done. Come up with a better character attack.


My post response made it clear what I think will come of it. What comes of it is perpetually throwing everyone else's inequalities under the bus.

Given your stances on the subject, I would consider you an MRA. You are pro-mens issues being taken seriously and seem to use an androcentric perspective to discuss them.

You might identify as an egalitarian or something instead, and that's fine too, I wouldn't say you were an MRA necessarily then. I suppose it depends on whether you view it as one movement or two (Or indeed, more.) by necessity.

I identify as an egalitarian which is why I'll advocate for women's and men's rights. Inequality can affect anyone. I'm anti-feminist because of how feminism is a movement that assures us we'll reach equality by focusing on women exclusively while ignoring everyone else's problems.

[Chessmistress]

There's really nothing wrong with giving men extra rights and/or protection. Just, y'know, don't go overboard. I think that anyone can respect that

The problem is anyone advocating for giving men extra rights tends to be automatically dismissed as an MRA or gender-supporting anti-feminist.

An interesting article about unfair censorship against Feminism, for all those who continue to pretend that Feminism has "institutional power" or something
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... university

The irony. You're wanting us to read an article about censorship against feminism while you're censoring your opponents by refusing to reply when they've proved you wrong.

Going to answer the question yet?

And you didn't answer the question at all. You said what the Convention of Istanbul is about. You didn't answer how "If feminists lack power then how can they get things like the Convention of Istanbul passed?

I already answered, but I'll answer again: Convention of Istanbul was not passed by Feminists, but by governments, because European governments are full aware that women have it far worse when it comes to domestic violence. European governments are also aware that Feminism is the only ideology suited to deal with this issue: that's why the GREVIO is composed just only by women, ALL Feminists, most them Radical Feminists.
It's the same even in USA: Duluth Model is a Feminist policy.

[Olerand]

1- It does?
2- They do?
3- Is that so? Why? Kindly elaborate.
4- That does seem to be a version of feminism that is gaining strength, true enough.
5- So Men's Rights is not a movement asserting its own ideals and beliefs, but one centered around the rejection of another's.
6- Feminism is "the status quo", in what nation(I can see it in France-Sweden-Denmark etc, not too much in Britain, certainly not in America)? And it harms men how?
7- That doesn't explain it at all. One cannot advocate for better treatment for male rape victims and male victims of abuse, without having to stand against those who do the same for women? Interesting dichotomy, if a little forced.


Your positions seem to coincide with theirs. And what character attack? Was it an insult? I did not intend it as such.

Conformity? Well that's unrealistic. Is there a more concrete, real world, plan?

Go read the mens rights thread.
1- If you don't know why institutionalized feminism isn't a problem, you havn't actually been talking to MRAs, and it's obvious you havn't.

2- So you've come here and given your opinion on something you know nothing about.

Here is one example.

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gende ... d%208-.pdf

They do similar things for every issue.

When you control institutions and the media narrative, while also engaging in gynocentricity, yes. It is impossible to advocate for men without opposing you.

1- No, I have not had much exposure to this phenomenon -France is one of a handful of nations on Earth one can claim has made male-female equality a central tenant of its political establishment- nor am I entirely interested in being exposed to it either.
2- Well, my question was regarding theatrical feminism, not the Men's Rights Movement at all, my involvement in this discussion was in response to another poster who brought up the subject.
3- So this study critiques feminist initiatives targeted only towards women. Alright. What prevents the same being done for initiatives targeted towards men. If an organization were to conduct a study on male victims of domestic violence, with the expressed aim of studying and publicizing this badly-understood phenomenon and finding solutions -rather than antagonize and attack feminists- what exactly prevents them from doing so?

Complaining about popular attitudes towards male victims of domestic violence, and raging against feminists, won't bring about change. Publicizing the issue with the intent of solving it, rather than using it as an attack on the "opposing" faction, will.

EDIT:

Your positions seem to coincide with theirs. And what character attack? Was it an insult? I did not intend it as such.

Conformity? Well that's unrealistic. Is there a more concrete, real world, plan?

1- You saying "I am certainly not sympathetic to your "Men's Rights" can only be interpreted as you dismissing me as being an MRA when I had made no such indications of that. 2- Are you against men having rights equal to women? Is that why you're "not sympathetic to men's rights"?

3- And what's unrealistic?

1- Your positions painted you as such; if you are not, I do apologize for mis-characterizing you, but it was not intended as an insult regardless.
2- No, I do not see the "Men's Rights Movement" standing up for men, as much as it stands up against feminists. I perceive this movement as a rejection of feminism, rather than a defense of battered men.
3- The belief, if that is what they believe, by these theatrical feminists that such silly displays will enact conformity in society vis à vis their views.

[Dumb Ideologies]

The brand of feminism you like to promotes deserves censorship, imo

The article of Suzanne Moore I linked is not about me, it's about censorship against Bahar Mustafa and Julie Bindel.
Suzanne Moore wrote it's unjust (and I agree) because even if Bahar Mustafa tweeted #killallwhitemen it was just only a stupid joke and males cannot be afraid because they already have an HUGE safe space: the entire world.
I would like comments about the article, much more than comments about me, thank you.

Tweeting about wanting to kill a whole group of people, even as a joke, is a pretty big way to be designated a security risk and a likely troublemaker. You seem to think that radical feminists not being treated differently in one instance (i.e. not having comments handwaved away through special privileges), somehow implies that feminists don't have institutional power in any contexts.

That's a typically bonkers non sequitur.

[Valystria]

The problem is anyone advocating for giving men extra rights tends to be automatically dismissed as an MRA or gender-supporting anti-feminist.


The irony. You're wanting us to read an article about censorship against feminism while you're censoring your opponents by refusing to reply when they've proved you wrong.

Going to answer the question yet?

I already answered, but I'll answer again: Convention of Istanbul was not passed by Feminists, but by governments, because European governments are full aware that women have it far worse when it comes to domestic violence. European governments are also aware that Feminism is the only ideology suited to deal with this issue: that's why the GREVIO is composed just only by women, ALL Feminists, most them Radical Feminists.
It's the same even in USA: Duluth Model is a Feminist policy.

Uhuh, so, you insist on refusing to admit you falsely claimed feminists have no power.

Indeed, the best country is Iceland, where a radical feminist prime minister banned prostitution and even strip clubs (I agree!)
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle ... st-country

Right. How does that happen? I mean, you said feminists have no power. So how do they run governments like Iceland's? Not to mention getting things like the Convention of Istanbul passed which you of course will deny is an example of feminists having power. Do learn what soft power is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power

Your movement has immense soft power. That's a form of power. That's how you get things like the Convention of Istanbul passed when you don't have outright control of a government, like when a government is run by an openly feminist prime minister passing laws conforming to your ideology of oppressing women who may want a career in sex work. But feminists still have no power. Somehow.

I'd say feminism as a movement is terribly suited to dealing with domestic violence when your idea of "dealing with it" is ignoring more than 40% of the victims of it for no other reason than because they happen to be men.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

[Ostroeuropa]

Go read the mens rights thread.
1- If you don't know why institutionalized feminism isn't a problem, you havn't actually been talking to MRAs, and it's obvious you havn't.

2- So you've come here and given your opinion on something you know nothing about.

Here is one example.

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gende ... d%208-.pdf

They do similar things for every issue.

When you control institutions and the media narrative, while also engaging in gynocentricity, yes. It is impossible to advocate for men without opposing you.

1- No, I have not had much exposure to this phenomenon -France is one of a handful of nations on Earth one can claim has made male-female equality a central tenant of its political establishment- nor am I entirely interested in being exposed to it either.
2- Well, my question was regarding theatrical feminism, not the Men's Rights Movement at all, my involvement in this discussion was in response to another poster who brought up the subject.
3- So this study critiques feminist initiatives targeted only towards women. Alright. What prevents the same being done for initiatives targeted towards men. If an organization were to conduct a study on male victims of domestic violence, with the expressed aim of studying and publicizing this badly-understood phenomenon and finding solutions -rather than antagonize and attack feminists- what exactly prevents them from doing so?

Complaining about popular attitudes towards male victims of domestic violence, and raging against feminists, won't bring about change. Publicizing the issue with the intent of solving it, rather than using it as an attack on the "opposing" faction, will.

The study I linked told you what prevents it. You didn't read it.

It's clear you have no interest in finding out what's actually true, you're here to push a narrative.

[Olerand]

1- No, I have not had much exposure to this phenomenon -France is one of a handful of nations on Earth one can claim has made male-female equality a central tenant of its political establishment- nor am I entirely interested in being exposed to it either.
2- Well, my question was regarding theatrical feminism, not the Men's Rights Movement at all, my involvement in this discussion was in response to another poster who brought up the subject.
3- So this study critiques feminist initiatives targeted only towards women. Alright. What prevents the same being done for initiatives targeted towards men. If an organization were to conduct a study on male victims of domestic violence, with the expressed aim of studying and publicizing this badly-understood phenomenon and finding solutions -rather than antagonize and attack feminists- what exactly prevents them from doing so?

Complaining about popular attitudes towards male victims of domestic violence, and raging against feminists, won't bring about change. Publicizing the issue with the intent of solving it, rather than using it as an attack on the "opposing" faction, will.

The study I linked told you what prevents it. You didn't read it.

It's clear you have no interest in finding out what's actually true, you're here to push a narrative.

Bias. But this bias is societal, not institutional. Feminists, in Britain, and certainly in America, are in no position to pass institutional measures that will enforce this bias. To clarify, there are no laws enforcing these biases. People in institutions that refuse to consider male victims of domestic violence do so due to ingrained societal and cultural bias, not any institutional measure forbidding them from doing so.

I do not deny there is a bias against male victims of domestic abuse. But this bias is not institutional, it is societal, and cultural. Those are fields that can only be dealt with through societal and cultural means. Such as awareness campaigns that target these issues -and related issues-, and nothing else.

[Valystria]

1- You saying "I am certainly not sympathetic to your "Men's Rights" can only be interpreted as you dismissing me as being an MRA when I had made no such indications of that. 2- Are you against men having rights equal to women? Is that why you're "not sympathetic to men's rights"?

3- And what's unrealistic?

1- Your positions painted you as such; if you are not, I do apologize for mis-characterizing you, but it was not intended as an insult regardless.
2- No, I do not see the "Men's Rights Movement" standing up for men, as much as it stands up against feminists. I perceive this movement as a rejection of feminism, rather than a defense of battered men.
3- The belief, if that is what they believe, by these theatrical feminists that such silly displays will enact conformity in society vis à vis their views.

1. Okay.
2. You're ignoring how that isn't the case. The MRM exists out of the reality that inequalities affecting men are ignored. They have little other place to go. As has been mentioned, some MRAs are feminists too and vice versa. It's not mutually exclusive. You're mistaken in your belief that the MRM and anti-feminism are somehow the same when they are not as they are two different things.
3. These aren't theatrical feminists. These are feminists. They're already doing a great job at bringing society in line with their views going by how much legislation caters to their views.

Bias. But this bias is societal, not institutional. Feminists, in Britain, and certainly in America, are in no position to pass institutional measures that will enforce this bias.

I do not deny there is a bias against male victims of domestic abuse. But this bias is not institutional, it is societal, and cultural. Those are fields that can only be dealt with through societal and cultural means. Such as awareness campaigns that target these issues -and related issues-, and nothing else.

Legislative and judicial biases are institutional.

[Olerand]

1- Your positions painted you as such; if you are not, I do apologize for mis-characterizing you, but it was not intended as an insult regardless.
2- No, I do not see the "Men's Rights Movement" standing up for men, as much as it stands up against feminists. I perceive this movement as a rejection of feminism, rather than a defense of battered men.
3- The belief, if that is what they believe, by these theatrical feminists that such silly displays will enact conformity in society vis à vis their views.

1. Okay.
2. You're ignoring how that isn't the case. The MRM exists out of the reality that inequalities affecting men are ignored. They have little other place to go. As has been mentioned, some MRAs are feminists too and vice versa. It's not mutually exclusive. You're mistaken in your belief that the MRM and anti-feminism are somehow the same when they are not as they are two different things.
3. These aren't theatrical feminists. These are feminists. They're already doing a great job at bringing society in line with their views going by how much legislation caters to their views.

Bias. But this bias is societal, not institutional. Feminists, in Britain, and certainly in America, are in no position to pass institutional measures that will enforce this bias.

I do not deny there is a bias against male victims of domestic abuse. But this bias is not institutional, it is societal, and cultural. Those are fields that can only be dealt with through societal and cultural means. Such as awareness campaigns that target these issues -and related issues-, and nothing else.

4- Legislative and judicial biases are institutional.

2- I simply do not see Men's Rights Activists standing up as loudly and publicly to defend injustices affecting men, as much as they do to stand up to feminists "opposing" them. Perhaps it is an issue of PR.
3- No, they are theatrical. The world, even the Western world, is not limited to Britain-USA-etc. Feminism varies by nation and region. Except for the FEMEN, who actually oppose things worth opposing -a salafi convention discussing women's theological subjugation to men for example, or the Catholic Church's murderous attitude towards contraception in the 3rd world- French feminists do not enact such silly displays. French feminism, in contrast, is more interested in legislative changes than overblown displays of contempt towards a feminist movie deemed not pure enough ideologically.

4- That they are. I see no laws in Britain and America making studies regarding male victims of violence illegal, or punishable, or reprehensible. That there is a bias amongst those people within the institutions is very true, but there are no institutional measures suppressing discussion, research, and the resolving of male domestic violence -rape- etc.

[Wolfmanne2]

This is the best news I've heard all day

What is the point of these actions? I see that they have become increasingly popular in the Anglo-Saxon world, but unlike say the FEMEN, they do not denounce something...well, worth denouncing. Targeting these soft cultural events, and organizing social media campaigns to do the same, or change burdensome to some -but not harmful- cultural phenomena, honestly accomplish nothing, concretely.

What do they think will come of this? Publicity, and then what?

Froggies are even worse.

[Ostroeuropa]

1. Okay.
2. You're ignoring how that isn't the case. The MRM exists out of the reality that inequalities affecting men are ignored. They have little other place to go. As has been mentioned, some MRAs are feminists too and vice versa. It's not mutually exclusive. You're mistaken in your belief that the MRM and anti-feminism are somehow the same when they are not as they are two different things.
3. These aren't theatrical feminists. These are feminists. They're already doing a great job at bringing society in line with their views going by how much legislation caters to their views.


4- Legislative and judicial biases are institutional.

2- I simply do not see Men's Rights Activists standing up as loudly and publicly to defend injustices affecting men, as much as they do to stand up to feminists "opposing" them. Perhaps it is an issue of PR.
3- No, they are theatrical. The world, even the Western world, is not limited to Britain-USA-etc. Feminism varies by nation and region. Except for the FEMEN, who actually oppose things worth opposing -a salafi convention discussing women's theological subjugation to men for example, or the Catholic Church's murderous attitude towards contraception in the 3rd world- French feminists do not enact such silly displays. French feminism, in contrast, is more interested in legislative changes than overblown displays of contempt towards a feminist movie deemed not pure enough ideologically.

4- That they are. I see no laws in Britain and America making studies regarding male victims of violence illegal, or punishable, or reprehensible. That there is a bias amongst those people within the institutions is very true, but there are no institutional measures suppressing discussion, research, and the resolving of male domestic violence -rape- etc.

Do you think there is institutional discrimination against black people in america, or do you have a double standard?

I'm trying to figure out if you don't understand what institutional discrimination is, or if you're just a sexist.

[Olerand]

What is the point of these actions? I see that they have become increasingly popular in the Anglo-Saxon world, but unlike say the FEMEN, they do not denounce something...well, worth denouncing. Targeting these soft cultural events, and organizing social media campaigns to do the same, or change burdensome to some -but not harmful- cultural phenomena, honestly accomplish nothing, concretely.

What do they think will come of this? Publicity, and then what?

Froggies are even worse.

I am aware of boss-napping. Violence against employers is not uncommon in France, as the recent attacks against the management of Air France has demonstrated. Not entirely sure what this has to do with feminists, however.

Workers in such situations in France hope to, physically, force management not to fire them. Do feminists playing dead on the red carpet hope to do the same? Or anything similar? I do not understand.

2- I simply do not see Men's Rights Activists standing up as loudly and publicly to defend injustices affecting men, as much as they do to stand up to feminists "opposing" them. Perhaps it is an issue of PR.
3- No, they are theatrical. The world, even the Western world, is not limited to Britain-USA-etc. Feminism varies by nation and region. Except for the FEMEN, who actually oppose things worth opposing -a salafi convention discussing women's theological subjugation to men for example, or the Catholic Church's murderous attitude towards contraception in the 3rd world- French feminists do not enact such silly displays. French feminism, in contrast, is more interested in legislative changes than overblown displays of contempt towards a feminist movie deemed not pure enough ideologically.

4- That they are. I see no laws in Britain and America making studies regarding male victims of violence illegal, or punishable, or reprehensible. That there is a bias amongst those people within the institutions is very true, but there are no institutional measures suppressing discussion, research, and the resolving of male domestic violence -rape- etc.

Do you think there is institutional discrimination against black people in america, or do you have a double standard?

I'm trying to figure out if you don't understand what institutional discrimination is, or if you're just a sexist.

Institutionally, no. Actors within American institutions do have bias against Blacks. The law in and of itself does not. Not to my knowledge of course, I am not an expert of American legislation.

Sexist against my own gender? I would hope not. Institutional discrimination, at least in the developed world, is institutional in that people in the governing institutions apply their personal -societally and culturally built- biases against whatever group is in question. The inhuman institution, the law, is not -again to my knowledge- discriminatory.

[Wolfmanne2]

Froggies are even worse.

I am aware of boss-napping. Violence against employers is not uncommon in France, as the recent attacks against the management of Air France has demonstrated. Not entirely sure what this has to do with feminists, however.

Workers in such situations in France hope to, physically, force management not to fire them. Do feminists playing dead on the red carpet hope to do the same? Or anything similar? I do not understand.

I think it was just a bit of irony, for irony's sake. I don't think anything serious was intended, I think it's hilarious if anything. If a message is being made, probably a 'feminism is still relevant, blahblahblah, look at us on this red carpet for a feminist film'. Of course, if I was a feminist PR manager I'd go with the first response as an official reason. Saves the trouble of people judging and saying 'well, what was the point of that? Nothing is achieved'.