Feminism in decline

[Grave_n_idle]

The whole thread is based on a lie. Don't talk to me about 'good faith'.

It's only a lie to (most) feminists because they think that feminism = believes in equality of the sexes.

Nope, it's a lie because someone unpacked the figures and showed that feminism isn't in decline - which makes the whole thread somewhere between misrepresentation, and deliberately false.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Nope, it's a lie because someone unpacked the figures and showed that feminism isn't in decline - which makes the whole thread somewhere between misrepresentation, and deliberately false.

I don't suppose you can link us to the post where that happened, or quote it? Digging something out of a 25 page thread is pretty difficult.

[Llamalandia]

It's only a lie to (most) feminists because they think that feminism = believes in equality of the sexes.

Nope, it's a lie because someone unpacked the figures and showed that feminism isn't in decline - which makes the whole thread somewhere between misrepresentation, and deliberately false.

Well nominally it is isn't? I mean sure people believe in the ideal definition of feminism, but given what they have come to see the label the branding of feminism come to be associated with, they want no part of it. Hence the divide. That said, I need to re-read the op and parse it out, but at least the title as such isn't a lie. Feminism as a brand a term and label is in decline.

[Vettrera]

Nope, it's a lie because someone unpacked the figures and showed that feminism isn't in decline - which makes the whole thread somewhere between misrepresentation, and deliberately false.

Well nominally it is isn't? I mean sure people believe in the ideal definition of feminism, but given what they have come to see the label the branding of feminism come to be associated with, they want no part of it. Hence the divide. That said, I need to re-read the op and parse it out, but at least the title as such isn't a lie. Feminism as a brand a term and label is in decline.

It's a lie because OP tries to link two separate studies of different sizes & margins of error to make a claim that isn't true. The feminist movement really just went mainstream in the last few years. I haven't seen a lot of people saying that feminists are too militant, but even if they are, the issue is just now becoming heavily discussed. OP uses "reddit" as his main source of beliefs, and that must be the only reason why he finds the men's rights movement only created to demean the digital feminist movement. I'm not saying that feminism or growing or shrinking, and the way it has been presented in the media is definitely polarizing . But OP can't make that claim by simply linking two separate studies and talking about their online experiences with feminists.

[Ostroeuropa]

Well nominally it is isn't? I mean sure people believe in the ideal definition of feminism, but given what they have come to see the label the branding of feminism come to be associated with, they want no part of it. Hence the divide. That said, I need to re-read the op and parse it out, but at least the title as such isn't a lie. Feminism as a brand a term and label is in decline.

It's a lie because OP tries to link two separate studies of different sizes & margins of error to make a claim that isn't true. The feminist movement really just went mainstream in the last few years. I haven't seen a lot of people saying that feminists are too militant, but even if they are, the issue is just now becoming heavily discussed. OP uses "reddit" as his main source of beliefs, and that must be the only reason why he finds the men's rights movement only created to demean the digital feminist movement. I'm not saying that feminism or growing or shrinking, and the way it has been presented in the media is definitely polarizing . But OP can't make that claim by simply linking two separate studies and talking about their online experiences with feminists.

Polls often have differing methodologies and sizes. You're welcome to dispute the sample size in terms of the number of polls used, or to dispute each poll individually and its validity, but to claim that because the polls are done differently it invalidates the claim is silly. You can talk about the unreliability of polls, especially in a small sample size, and that's perfectly valid.
I don't use reddit as the main source of my beliefs, that's just a baseless attack, and additionally has nothing to do with the claim. Rather, I use reddit as an example of what real MRAs are like, because that is where most of them seem to congregate.
The MRM wasn't created just to demean the feminist movement, you can find examples of the MRM campaigning for mens rights and trying to found organizations to advocate for mens rights in addition to them countering feminism when it fucks up.
Seperate polls are often used to discuss a trend. That's kind of how you can tell there is a trend.
I talk about my online experiences with feminists (And my IRL ones) as an explanation for why I think the apparent trend has occured.
I also invited other people to talk about why they think the trend occured, and in the OP even included some arguments feminists might use to explain the trend that doesn't blame them for it. (I.E, the polarizing media you mention.)

I don't deny that feminism is more heavily discussed lately. In fact, that's partially why I think there has been a decline. It has come under greater scrutiny and opposing narratives are being presented.
If that's the best you have then I think it's fairly clear that grave and idle was basically just being belligerent when he claimed the OP was a lie.
It would be better to say that the evidence is not conclusive, but seems to support the OP at this time.


Here is a longer term trend by the way:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?c ... sm%3B%2Cc0

(Though sadly only goes to 2008. This is an N-Gram viewer showing an undeniable decline in feminist literature.)

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?c ... ry%3B%2Cc0

(One for Misandry.)

https://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore ... cmpt=q&tz=

Here we see google trends showing that feminism is googled about as much as it was in 2005, but roughly remaining steady.
I think the increase in number of people interested in feminism is overblown. Rather, it has more coverage. That coverage isn't converting people, it's making people realize that the movement is kind of bad, and leaving it. People who would be feminists, already are.

I think feminism needs to reform itself and jettison the gynocentric focus, take on the criticism the MRM has of it, and then merge with the MRM.
That way we can move forward.

[Llamalandia]

Well nominally it is isn't? I mean sure people believe in the ideal definition of feminism, but given what they have come to see the label the branding of feminism come to be associated with, they want no part of it. Hence the divide. That said, I need to re-read the op and parse it out, but at least the title as such isn't a lie. Feminism as a brand a term and label is in decline.

It's a lie because OP tries to link two separate studies of different sizes & margins of error to make a claim that isn't true. The feminist movement really just went mainstream in the last few years. I haven't seen a lot of people saying that feminists are too militant, but even if they are, the issue is just now becoming heavily discussed. OP uses "reddit" as his main source of beliefs, and that must be the only reason why he finds the men's rights movement only created to demean the digital feminist movement. I'm not saying that feminism or growing or shrinking, and the way it has been presented in the media is definitely polarizing . But OP can't make that claim by simply linking two separate studies and talking about their online experiences with feminists.

I don't think the op was necessarily making a claim about the movement as a whole besides it just dropping the label of feminist. I mean at this point yeah, feminists in the traditional seem to basically just be everyone more or less. I mean no is seriously like "yeah, put women back in their place!" It's more like, "shut the hell up, a video game or movie is just art it doesn't have to be critically deconstructed to illuminate some supposed patriarchy that beneath in the collective unconscious of the nation" or some such bullshit. I should find an actual ridiculous feminist quote to go there I suppose.

[Vettrera]

It's a lie because OP tries to link two separate studies of different sizes & margins of error to make a claim that isn't true. The feminist movement really just went mainstream in the last few years. I haven't seen a lot of people saying that feminists are too militant, but even if they are, the issue is just now becoming heavily discussed. OP uses "reddit" as his main source of beliefs, and that must be the only reason why he finds the men's rights movement only created to demean the digital feminist movement. I'm not saying that feminism or growing or shrinking, and the way it has been presented in the media is definitely polarizing . But OP can't make that claim by simply linking two separate studies and talking about their online experiences with feminists.

Polls often have differing methodologies and sizes. You're welcome to dispute the sample size in terms of the number of polls used, or to dispute each poll individually and its validity, but to claim that because the polls are done differently it invalidates the claim is silly. You can talk about the unreliability of polls, especially in a small sample size, and that's perfectly valid.
I don't use reddit as the main source of my beliefs, that's just a baseless attack, and additionally has nothing to do with the claim. Rather, I use reddit as an example of what real MRAs are like, because that is where most of them seem to congregate.
The MRM wasn't created just to demean the feminist movement, you can find examples of the MRM campaigning for mens rights and trying to found organizations to advocate for mens rights in addition to them countering feminism when it fucks up.
Seperate polls are often used to discuss a trend. That's kind of how you can tell there is a trend.
I talk about my online experiences with feminists (And my IRL ones) as an explanation for why I think the apparent trend has occured.
I also invited other people to talk about why they think the trend occured, and in the OP even included some arguments feminists might use to explain the trend that doesn't blame them for it. (I.E, the polarizing media you mention.)

I don't deny that feminism is more heavily discussed lately. In fact, that's partially why I think there has been a decline. It has come under greater scrutiny and opposing narratives are being presented.
If that's the best you have then I think it's fairly clear that grave and idle was basically just being belligerent when he claimed the OP was a lie.
It would be better to say that the evidence is not conclusive, but seems to support the OP at this time.

I think it's flawed of you to believe that the MRA or "Meninist" movement is some great ideology that simply corrects the faults of feminists and isn't filled with a good share of its own sexist or delusional members. And if you use a place a reddit to determine what the general views on MRAs is, then I think that's pretty ridiculous. Beyond that, I think it's important to note that just as MRAs view modern "feminists" with derision, it also works in the reverse.

I am saying that it is best to say that evidence is not conclusive. The past few years have seen the most public/vocal support for feminism being discussed in the public eye, which makes me wary to believe self-described feminism is dying. The question also revolves around what type of feminism we're discussing here. If the movement has decreased, a lot of it may be because FEMINISM is used as an umbrella term for a bunch of different types of ideologies where some types are easier to s

Intersectional Feminism
Definitional Feminism
"Beyonce" Feminism (pop culture based, self-image and sexuality)
Aggressive/Militant Feminism (misandry)

I think the first three listed are necessary, generally beneficial, and are appropriate. The last one (which happens to be the most vocal) is probably a huge cause for the polarization (and possible decline in self-description). Maybe some people are wary to use a word where a subset of that group is generally negative. But most people I've dealt with, consider themselves and act in accordance with the first three. Because of that, I (as a male) see feminism as a good, but the militant form as bad. Depending on what groups you hear the most about or deal with the most, your views on what "feminism" means and what its decline means may change.

[Natapoc]

It's more like, "shut the hell up, a video game or movie is just art it doesn't have to be critically deconstructed to illuminate some supposed patriarchy that beneath in the collective unconscious of the nation" or some such bullshit.

I think part of this is the american tradition of anti-intellectualism. Anyone who has a university education (from a real university), knows that "critically deconstructed" as you say it and criticism of art is an important and useful academic process.

Unfortunately when the uneducated are exposed to an academic feminist analysis of art (usually misinterpreted by the mainstream press) they are enraged and have no idea that this is normal and not something they should be upset over.

Don't worry: No one is going to take away your xbox. But people will continue to discuss the ways that patriarchy impacts art and culture.

[Vettrera]

It's a lie because OP tries to link two separate studies of different sizes & margins of error to make a claim that isn't true. The feminist movement really just went mainstream in the last few years. I haven't seen a lot of people saying that feminists are too militant, but even if they are, the issue is just now becoming heavily discussed. OP uses "reddit" as his main source of beliefs, and that must be the only reason why he finds the men's rights movement only created to demean the digital feminist movement. I'm not saying that feminism or growing or shrinking, and the way it has been presented in the media is definitely polarizing . But OP can't make that claim by simply linking two separate studies and talking about their online experiences with feminists.

I don't think the op was necessarily making a claim about the movement as a whole besides it just dropping the label of feminist. I mean at this point yeah, feminists in the traditional seem to basically just be everyone more or less. I mean no is seriously like "yeah, put women back in their place!" It's more like, "shut the hell up, a video game or movie is just art it doesn't have to be critically deconstructed to illuminate some supposed patriarchy that beneath in the collective unconscious of the nation" or some such bullshit. I should find an actual ridiculous feminist quote to go there I suppose.

Well sexism in the Video Game Industry is easily discovered without heavy analysis everywhere from how general gamers treat women, to how the industry chooses to operate. But I see what you're getting at...

[Ostroeuropa]

Polls often have differing methodologies and sizes. You're welcome to dispute the sample size in terms of the number of polls used, or to dispute each poll individually and its validity, but to claim that because the polls are done differently it invalidates the claim is silly. You can talk about the unreliability of polls, especially in a small sample size, and that's perfectly valid.
I don't use reddit as the main source of my beliefs, that's just a baseless attack, and additionally has nothing to do with the claim. Rather, I use reddit as an example of what real MRAs are like, because that is where most of them seem to congregate.
The MRM wasn't created just to demean the feminist movement, you can find examples of the MRM campaigning for mens rights and trying to found organizations to advocate for mens rights in addition to them countering feminism when it fucks up.
Seperate polls are often used to discuss a trend. That's kind of how you can tell there is a trend.
I talk about my online experiences with feminists (And my IRL ones) as an explanation for why I think the apparent trend has occured.
I also invited other people to talk about why they think the trend occured, and in the OP even included some arguments feminists might use to explain the trend that doesn't blame them for it. (I.E, the polarizing media you mention.)

I don't deny that feminism is more heavily discussed lately. In fact, that's partially why I think there has been a decline. It has come under greater scrutiny and opposing narratives are being presented.
If that's the best you have then I think it's fairly clear that grave and idle was basically just being belligerent when he claimed the OP was a lie.
It would be better to say that the evidence is not conclusive, but seems to support the OP at this time.

I think it's flawed of you to believe that the MRA or "Meninist" movement is some great ideology that simply corrects the faults of feminists and isn't filled with a good share of its own sexist or delusional members. And if you use a place a reddit to determine what the general views on MRAs is, then I think that's pretty ridiculous. Beyond that, I think it's important to note that just as MRAs view modern "feminists" with derision, it also works in the reverse.

I am saying that it is best to say that evidence is not conclusive. The past few years have seen the most public/vocal support for feminism being discussed in the public eye, which makes me wary to believe self-described feminism is dying. The question also revolves around what type of feminism we're discussing here. If the movement has decreased, a lot of it may be because FEMINISM is used as an umbrella term for a bunch of different types of ideologies where some types are easier to s

Intersectional Feminism
Definitional Feminism
"Beyonce" Feminism (pop culture based, self-image and sexuality)
Aggressive/Militant Feminism (misandry)

I think the first three listed are necessary, generally beneficial, and are appropriate. The last one (which happens to be the most vocal) is probably a huge cause for the polarization (and possible decline in self-description). Maybe some people are wary to use a word where a subset of that group is generally negative. But most people I've dealt with, consider themselves and act in accordance with the first three. Because of that, I (as a male) see feminism as a good, but the militant form as bad. Depending on what groups you hear the most about or deal with the most, your views on what "feminism" means and what its decline means may change.

Where did I claim the MRM doesn't have it's share of sexists? I've consistently said the opposite in fact. Maybe you should try asking me my opinion instead of just assuming it for me. I do happen to think the tenets of the MRM would fix feminisms flaws though, and to some extent visa versa.

Why do you think it's ridiculous? It's where they congregate. The best way to determine the views of people is to ask them.
Yes, yes it does work in reverse. The difference being that the MRM is experiencing growth, both in terms of membership and in terms of awareness of MRM issues, and in the number of organizations that deal with their issues.

Fine, then say the evidence isn't conclusive. That's fine with me. I view all of those ideologies as fundamentally flawed because of their gynocentric perspective which doesn't consider mens view of the situation, nor prioritize their issues as heavily as womens.
Misandrist feminism is an expression of hatred. The other feminisms are just expressions of casual sexism resulting from gynocentricity.
A small number of feminists also identify as MRAs and counter this problem, and a small number have no need to because their particular school of feminism already rejected gynocentricity and considers the notion of women being oppressed relative to men to be a nonsense.

I think it's partially that people are wary of the word, and partially that mens issues have seen a lot of press too lately, which could lead many people who were feminists to abandoning the label once they realize the majority of the movement is actively impeding progress toward equality.
It isn't just militant feminists that are the problem. It's most of them. Through their insistence on a OOGD (oppressor-oppressed gender dynamic) appropriation of male issues, and minimization of male victimization that results from an overbearing focus on women and their problems.
I think you'll continue to see more and more opposition to feminism until it takes the criticism from the MRM on board. It's becoming a more mainstream opinion, to the point where subsections of the feminist movement are basically starting to argue it too.

(That feminism has categorically failed in it's objective of gender equality, and will continue to fail, because it is too focused on women, in some cases actively oppressing men, and in others merely making women a privileged class.)

A classic example of feminism fucking up is the Duluth model.
This is extremely misandrist in effect, but originates from feminist theory being gynocentric. No hatred was necessary for feminists to enact what I would consider a crime against humanity almost, considering the hundreds of thousands of men it's actively fucking over and denying their basic rights to (Arresting them for daring to complain about their abusive partner.). Just a really fucking stupid worldview that sees women as oppressed and men as their oppressors, instead of a tapestry of gender roles that victimizes everyone and which everyone takes part in. Notably, this means that mens issues are woefully underdiscussed, especially when you consider the amount of coverage given to trivial shit by feminists in the media.

[Vettrera]

I think it's flawed of you to believe that the MRA or "Meninist" movement is some great ideology that simply corrects the faults of feminists and isn't filled with a good share of its own sexist or delusional members. And if you use a place a reddit to determine what the general views on MRAs is, then I think that's pretty ridiculous. Beyond that, I think it's important to note that just as MRAs view modern "feminists" with derision, it also works in the reverse.

I am saying that it is best to say that evidence is not conclusive. The past few years have seen the most public/vocal support for feminism being discussed in the public eye, which makes me wary to believe self-described feminism is dying. The question also revolves around what type of feminism we're discussing here. If the movement has decreased, a lot of it may be because FEMINISM is used as an umbrella term for a bunch of different types of ideologies where some types are easier to s

Intersectional Feminism
Definitional Feminism
"Beyonce" Feminism (pop culture based, self-image and sexuality)
Aggressive/Militant Feminism (misandry)

I think the first three listed are necessary, generally beneficial, and are appropriate. The last one (which happens to be the most vocal) is probably a huge cause for the polarization (and possible decline in self-description). Maybe some people are wary to use a word where a subset of that group is generally negative. But most people I've dealt with, consider themselves and act in accordance with the first three. Because of that, I (as a male) see feminism as a good, but the militant form as bad. Depending on what groups you hear the most about or deal with the most, your views on what "feminism" means and what its decline means may change.

Where did I claim the MRM doesn't have it's share of sexists? I've consistently said the opposite in fact. Maybe you should try asking me my opinion instead of just assuming it for me. I do happen to think the tenets of the MRM would fix feminisms flaws though, and to some extent visa versa.

(A) Why do you think it's ridiculous? It's where they congregate. The best way to determine the views of people is to ask them.
Yes, yes it does work in reverse. The difference being that the MRM is experiencing growth, both in terms of membership and in terms of awareness of MRM issues, and in the number of organizations that deal with their issues.

(B) Fine, then say the evidence isn't conclusive. That's fine with me. I view all of those ideologies as fundamentally flawed because of their gynocentric perspective which doesn't consider mens view of the situation, nor prioritize their issues as heavily as womens.
Misandrist feminism is an expression of hatred. The other feminisms are just expressions of casual sexism resulting from gynocentricity.
A small number of feminists also identify as MRAs and counter this problem, and a small number have no need to because their particular school of feminism already rejected gynocentricity and considers the notion of women being oppressed relative to men to be a nonsense.

I think it's partially that people are wary of the word, and partially that mens issues have seen a lot of press too lately, which could lead many people who were feminists to abandoning the label once they realize the majority of the movement is actively impeding progress toward equality.
It isn't just militant feminists that are the problem. It's most of them. Through their insistence on a OOGD (oppressor-oppressed gender dynamic) appropriation of male issues, and minimization of male victimization that results from an overbearing focus on women and their problems.
I think you'll continue to see more and more opposition to feminism until it takes the criticism from the MRM on board. It's becoming a more mainstream opinion, to the point where subsections of the feminist movement are basically starting to argue it too.

(That feminism has categorically failed in it's objective of gender equality, and will continue to fail, because it is too focused on women, in some cases actively oppressing men, and in others merely making women a privileged class.)

A - So most MRAs can be found on one website? About how big is the movement? Or I guess a better question would be how much is it growing relative to feminism? This isn't me being sarcastic or anything, I just really want to know the extent of the movement, cause I've never heard of it even approaching the size of the feminist one

B- So if most facets feminism ignores men's perspectives on the issues and is part of casual sexism, does the MRM ignore the female perspective and also contribute to casual sexism? In my experience the latter is true, but since you to some degree prefer MRA > FEM, what makes the MRA more equal?

[Ostroeuropa]

Where did I claim the MRM doesn't have it's share of sexists? I've consistently said the opposite in fact. Maybe you should try asking me my opinion instead of just assuming it for me. I do happen to think the tenets of the MRM would fix feminisms flaws though, and to some extent visa versa.

(A) Why do you think it's ridiculous? It's where they congregate. The best way to determine the views of people is to ask them.
Yes, yes it does work in reverse. The difference being that the MRM is experiencing growth, both in terms of membership and in terms of awareness of MRM issues, and in the number of organizations that deal with their issues.

(B) Fine, then say the evidence isn't conclusive. That's fine with me. I view all of those ideologies as fundamentally flawed because of their gynocentric perspective which doesn't consider mens view of the situation, nor prioritize their issues as heavily as womens.
Misandrist feminism is an expression of hatred. The other feminisms are just expressions of casual sexism resulting from gynocentricity.
A small number of feminists also identify as MRAs and counter this problem, and a small number have no need to because their particular school of feminism already rejected gynocentricity and considers the notion of women being oppressed relative to men to be a nonsense.

I think it's partially that people are wary of the word, and partially that mens issues have seen a lot of press too lately, which could lead many people who were feminists to abandoning the label once they realize the majority of the movement is actively impeding progress toward equality.
It isn't just militant feminists that are the problem. It's most of them. Through their insistence on a OOGD (oppressor-oppressed gender dynamic) appropriation of male issues, and minimization of male victimization that results from an overbearing focus on women and their problems.
I think you'll continue to see more and more opposition to feminism until it takes the criticism from the MRM on board. It's becoming a more mainstream opinion, to the point where subsections of the feminist movement are basically starting to argue it too.

(That feminism has categorically failed in it's objective of gender equality, and will continue to fail, because it is too focused on women, in some cases actively oppressing men, and in others merely making women a privileged class.)

A - So most MRAs can be found on one website? About how big is the movement? Or I guess a better question would be how much is it growing relative to feminism? This isn't me being sarcastic or anything, I just really want to know the extent of the movement, cause I've never heard of it even approaching the size of the feminist one

B- So if most facets feminism ignores men's perspectives on the issues and is part of casual sexism, does the MRM ignore the female perspective and also contribute to casual sexism? In my experience the latter is true, but since you to some degree prefer MRA > FEM, what makes the MRA more equal?

1. I wouldn't say most. Merely that it's the largest congregation that i've found. Find the largest feminist site in terms of people discussing it with eachother and i'd bet it's a similar size in terms of participants.
I agree it doesn't approach the extent of the wider feminist movement though. It lacks the institutional/media/financial backing and power that the feminist ideology has.

2. Feminism ignores mens perspectives BECAUSE of casual sexism. The result of this however, is institutional sexism and oppression.
Yes, the MRM does not take into account female perspectives on issues, however it does so out of conscious acknowledgement of that fact.
I prefer the MRM over feminism because the MRM doesn't claim to be a movement for womens rights, just for mens rights.
Feminism on the other hand occasionally makes claims for both, and is extremely hostile to the concept of a seperate mens movement. However, it also insists that any mens advocacy be done from a female perspective (By using core feminist principles and dogmas), which is pretty sexist, and immediately discounts a number of male issues. (Notably, any time men would have a grievance with how women treat them is immediately disqualified.)
The MRM doesn't claim to be for women. If a female rape victim turned up to the MRM, they would direct her to the feminist movement.
Conversely a male rape victim turning up to talk to feminists would be at risk of running into a bunch of misandrists. Speaking as a survivor of domestic violence (Yeh, this is why I got into this shit.) The feminist movement is a complete clusterfuck that has severe chilling effects on talking about how sexism effects you if you are a male.
It's a constant parade of double standards, silencing, "BUT WIMMINZ HAS IT WORSE!", denials, etc.
After the first couple of feminists, why the fuck would I ever want to talk to another one about my experience ever again?
Basically, I prefer the MRM because it doesn't have delusions of grandeur about it's purpose.
It's their to advocate for mens rights. Not womens too, it isn't an appropriate venue for that. Too many men are in the movement who have been burned by sexism and are as a result hostile to women. (Which in absolutely no way delegitimizes their demands for equality as some seem to routinely insist. I'd also say it isn't a majority, but a loud minority that is tolerated out of sympathy.) It is not a safe space for women to discuss their issues.
A problem that feminism categorically refuses to acknowledge about it's own movement because of the collective ego of feminists and how they think their movement is the be all and end all of gender equality and none others can be allowed to exist.

I happen to think that both movements can merge, and this problem can be solved, by abandoning gynocentric and androcentric narratives. Seperate spaces within the movement can exist for hostile venting, but the bulk of the movement should move forward with a unified understanding of sexism instead of a gyno or andro perspective of it.
Feminisms gynocentric narrative only contributes to the problem of them being unable to address mens issues.

In addition, the MRM was founded specifically out of acknowledgement that feminism was failing to live up to its mandate.
You've basically asked
"Well, so what if my Bread and Milk delivery company is only delivering milk and has for decades. Your bread company founded last year only delivers bread! How are you any better huh!?"
That's ridiculous. The latter is a direct result of the formers failure. So yes, I prefer the MRM to feminism.

Because it has acknowledged the flaws in feminism, and built itself not to repeat them.

[Llamalandia]

It's more like, "shut the hell up, a video game or movie is just art it doesn't have to be critically deconstructed to illuminate some supposed patriarchy that beneath in the collective unconscious of the nation" or some such bullshit.

I think part of this is the american tradition of anti-intellectualism. Anyone who has a university education (from a real university), knows that "critically deconstructed" as you say it and criticism of art is an important and useful academic process.

Unfortunately when the uneducated are exposed to an academic feminist analysis of art (usually misinterpreted by the mainstream press) they are enraged and have no idea that this is normal and not something they should be upset over.

Don't worry: No one is going to take away your xbox. But people will continue to discuss the ways that patriarchy impacts art and culture.

Well I don't disagree, but I'm not talking about say, Dostoyevsky or Faulkner here. These are video games, largely mindless entertainment, not some mass conspiracy by the patriarchy to oppress women. So you can beat the shit of hookers and steal their cash in gta so what? Why is that problematic? It is not a reflection of reality, it is an escape from it. I don't even play games that much but I sure as hell don't want to see a bunch of politically correct bs in them. Nor do I want them censored. But that is what many feminist want. They want changes to be made to gaming and gaming culture. Plus don't forget that whole discussion over "mansplaining the statue" that was hot on here.
I mean maybe in the 18 th century Rousseau was a sexist dick, ok, I can see that, does the fact that cortana in HALO is hot really say anything meaningful about culture as a whole? Not really, at least not beyond, marketers know how to use sex to sell and make money.

[Llamalandia]

I don't think the op was necessarily making a claim about the movement as a whole besides it just dropping the label of feminist. I mean at this point yeah, feminists in the traditional seem to basically just be everyone more or less. I mean no is seriously like "yeah, put women back in their place!" It's more like, "shut the hell up, a video game or movie is just art it doesn't have to be critically deconstructed to illuminate some supposed patriarchy that beneath in the collective unconscious of the nation" or some such bullshit. I should find an actual ridiculous feminist quote to go there I suppose.

Well sexism in the Video Game Industry is easily discovered without heavy analysis everywhere from how general gamers treat women, to how the industry chooses to operate. But I see what you're getting at...

Plus as I've said many a time before on this site, it isn't about gamers hating women in particular. They hate anyone who messes with the games they love. They tore down jack Thompson, they went after Hillary in the nineties and all the politicians blaming columbine on video game violence. The fact is gamer are passionate and even vicious people when it comes to games. The industry itself, largely doesn't care, they are only concerned with making the most money possible. That is basically capitalism for you. Alas, but then I'm going to probably get the obligatory, but " capitalism is another tool of the patriarchy" from someone on here.

[Llamalandia]

It's more like, "shut the hell up, a video game or movie is just art it doesn't have to be critically deconstructed to illuminate some supposed patriarchy that beneath in the collective unconscious of the nation" or some such bullshit.

I think part of this is the american tradition of anti-intellectualism. Anyone who has a university education (from a real university), knows that "critically deconstructed" as you say it and criticism of art is an important and useful academic process.

Unfortunately when the uneducated are exposed to an academic feminist analysis of art (usually misinterpreted by the mainstream press) they are enraged and have no idea that this is normal and not something they should be upset over.

Don't worry: No one is going to take away your xbox. But people will continue to discuss the ways that patriarchy impacts art and culture.

I'm pretty annoyed by Anita sarkeesian, her analysis is shallow and trite and clearly comes as an external critique rather than an internal one as she would have us believe. I'm not saying all feminist analysis is invalid, some of it is legit. The problem is when the most popular feminist talking about the issue sounds like a freaking moron, just recycling lines from textbook with little original thought, well that is where you lose me.

[Vettrera]

I think you're going off the rails a bit here...

If someone describes themselves as a feminist that advocates for male and female rights, I don't see why you need to disagree and say that they actually only advocate for women. A good subset of the feminist movement does advocate for both, but there are definitely women in the movement that do not. I don't see in any scenario a male rape victim being attacked by feminists for claiming rape, but you can definitely make the assertion that they are more focused on womens issues that mens issues, and should be working harder to protest against things such as the male-rape stigma. I however think you make an error in assuming the majority of feminists are anti-Male or simply are complaining just to complain. The issue with the feminist movement is that the different subsets haven't truly agreed on what they stand for. There are definitely self-described feminists that are for true equality, and there are misandrists in the movement. On balance, the movement does focus more on female issues than male issues, but obviously the movement would always be centered towards the more inherently disadvantaged group. Obviously the issue is trying to supplement the two movements together in a non-toxic way that can achieve true equality. But I think issues arise when we assume all people involved in a movement believe in the same thing, it's obvious that the MRA isn't unified on what they believe as a general aim (there is a sizable subset that is sexist and exists simply to attack feminism) , and the same thing with feminism (there is a sizable chunk that advocates for hatred towards men). I don't make assumptions on you based on your brony flag...

[Vettrera]

Well sexism in the Video Game Industry is easily discovered without heavy analysis everywhere from how general gamers treat women, to how the industry chooses to operate. But I see what you're getting at...

Plus as I've said many a time before on this site, it isn't about gamers hating women in particular. They hate anyone who messes with the games they love. They tore down jack Thompson, they went after Hillary in the nineties and all the politicians blaming columbine on video game violence. The fact is gamer are passionate and even vicious people when it comes to games. The industry itself, largely doesn't care, they are only concerned with making the most money possible. That is basically capitalism for you. Alas, but then I'm going to probably get the obligatory, but " capitalism is another tool of the patriarchy" from someone on here.

You're not gonna get that from me. I don't love capitalism but I understand it's place in society.
I was speaking more in terms of the constancy of sexist attitudes and behavior that women experience while playing game specifically or trying to take part in the community. Issues can also be seen in the recent FIFA videogame controversy where some men are simply against women even having representation in games.

[Ostroeuropa]

I think you're going off the rails a bit here...

If someone describes themselves as a feminist that advocates for male and female rights, I don't see why you need to disagree and say that they actually only advocate for women. A good subset of the feminist movement does advocate for both, but there are definitely women in the movement that do not. I don't see in any scenario a male rape victim being attacked by feminists for claiming rape, but you can definitely make the assertion that they are more focused on womens issues that mens issues, and should be working harder to protest against things such as the male-rape stigma. I however think you make an error in assuming the majority of feminists are anti-Male or simply are complaining just to complain. The issue with the feminist movement is that the different subsets haven't truly agreed on what they stand for. There are definitely self-described feminists that are for true equality, and there are misandrists in the movement. On balance, the movement does focus more on female issues than male issues, but obviously the movement would always be centered towards the more inherently disadvantaged group. Obviously the issue is trying to supplement the two movements together in a non-toxic way that can achieve true equality. But I think issues arise when we assume all people involved in a movement believe in the same thing, it's obvious that the MRA isn't unified on what they believe as a general aim (there is a sizable subset that is sexist and exists simply to attack feminism) , and the same thing with feminism (there is a sizable chunk that advocates for hatred towards men). I don't make assumptions on you based on your brony flag...

*Sigh*
On what basis do you claim women are more inherently disadvantaged. See, this is the gynocentrism I was talking about.
The MRM is unified in that all of them are pro-mens rights in some form or another. Those MRAs who attack feminism attack it because it is antithetical to that goal.
The gynocentrism in the movement causes them to focus on womens issues, even if the ones they focus on are comparatively trivial to major mens issues.
Further, when feminists focus on both women and mens issues, they do so from a gynocentric perspective. An example of the reverse of this i've seen thrown around the MRM.

"Obviously we need women to have maternity leave. That way, they will be able to hold down a job of their own and not be mooching constantly from the men in their lives. See? The MRM advocates for womens issues too!"
This is the kind of shit feminism does all the time.
it advocates for mens issues from the perspective of an aggrieved woman.

Similarly, because of the gynocentric perspective that emerges from "Woman are more oppressed, and here is the narrative we're going to feed you to make that seem the case." a lot of mens issues are erased or overlooked.
Again, look at the duluth model.
No conscious effort to fuck over men needed. Just an assumption that women are oppressed relative to men, and the result is the oppression of men.

Go ahead. Justify your claim that women are oppressed relative to men. I'll point out how you're doing so from a gynocentric perspective and offer the androcentric counter to the issues you raise.

[Llamalandia]

Plus as I've said many a time before on this site, it isn't about gamers hating women in particular. They hate anyone who messes with the games they love. They tore down jack Thompson, they went after Hillary in the nineties and all the politicians blaming columbine on video game violence. The fact is gamer are passionate and even vicious people when it comes to games. The industry itself, largely doesn't care, they are only concerned with making the most money possible. That is basically capitalism for you. Alas, but then I'm going to probably get the obligatory, but " capitalism is another tool of the patriarchy" from someone on here.

You're not gonna get that from me. I don't love capitalism but I understand it's place in society.
I was speaking more in terms of the constancy of sexist attitudes and behavior that women experience while playing game specifically or trying to take part in the community. Issues can also be seen in the recent FIFA videogame controversy where some men are simply against women even having representation in games.

Fair enough I guess. Though even there gamers make all kinds of inflammatory comments that don't really mean anything. Like calling other players the N word even without having anyway to possibly no the race of the other person, it's just meant to provoke for the most part.

[Des-Bal]

If I had to guess I'd say it's because of some of the press social justice warriors have gotten but pushing the narrative of patriarchy as the source of most if not all of societies ills is probably not doing any favors for the movements appeal. I think feminism's generally chilly attitude towards men's issues has probably lost a lot of good will from about half of their potential pool of supporters as well.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

If someone describes themselves as a feminist that advocates for male and female rights, I don't see why you need to disagree and say that they actually only advocate for women.

To advocate is an action. Whether someone is consistently taking that action is a matter of fact, not a question of identity. Someone could claim to be a transexual rights advocate, but if they shrug their shoulders and fail to speak up when, for instance, they see trans people losing their jobs for transitioning, then anyone should have a right to challenge that person's claim to being an advocate.

[Vettrera]

If someone describes themselves as a feminist that advocates for male and female rights, I don't see why you need to disagree and say that they actually only advocate for women.

To advocate is an action. Whether someone is consistently taking that action is a matter of fact, not a question of identity. Someone could claim to be a transexual rights advocate, but if they shrug their shoulders and fail to speak up when, for instance, they see trans people losing their jobs for transitioning, then anyone should have a right to challenge that person's claim to being an advocate.

i agree wholeheartedly, but I believe you judge that on an individual basis, and not by assuming that each feminist is only pro-Woman if they say otherwise.

@Osteo I'm on a phone right now and can't type out a lengthy response. But dont think ive forgotten about you!

[Des-Bal]

i agree wholeheartedly, but I believe you judge that on an individual basis, and not by assuming that each feminist is only pro-Woman if they say otherwise.

@Osteo I'm on a phone right now and can't type out a lengthy response. But dont think ive forgotten about you!

The movement as a whole is overwhelmingly gynocentric, the attitudes expressed and the policies pursued by feminism at large make more sense from the perspective that feminists generally don't really care about men. There's no reason you can't talk about things being generally true because people are all snowflakes.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

i agree wholeheartedly, but I believe you judge that on an individual basis, and not by assuming that each feminist is only pro-Woman if they say otherwise.

Indeed. At that point if what you're scrutinizing is a movement rather than a person, though, you have to start looking at statistics and patterns. There are a few important questions to be asked, I think, to establish whether feminism is advocating for men's rights as well as women's.

1: Does the average feminist advocate for men's issues when they come up?
2: When men's issues come up in society, are feminists stepping up to the plate to advocate for them? Or possibly to obstruct them?
3: To what degree does the rhetoric employed by the feminist movement enable and encourage advocating for solutions to men's issues? To what degree does it obstruct and deligitimize such advocacy?

[Ostroeuropa]

To advocate is an action. Whether someone is consistently taking that action is a matter of fact, not a question of identity. Someone could claim to be a transexual rights advocate, but if they shrug their shoulders and fail to speak up when, for instance, they see trans people losing their jobs for transitioning, then anyone should have a right to challenge that person's claim to being an advocate.

i agree wholeheartedly, but I believe you judge that on an individual basis, and not by assuming that each feminist is only pro-Woman if they say otherwise.

@Osteo I'm on a phone right now and can't type out a lengthy response. But dont think ive forgotten about you!

I might be in bed, but i'll get around to responding eventually.
As for assumptions about my flag, it's a show with female protagonists. My sig also has a female protagonist. (My favorite fictional character, as it happens.).
For a variety of reasons, I tend to prefer female protagonists to male ones. It's worth noting that this provides a convinient example of sexism for the andro/gyno dichotomy. People tend to assume I must find the characters sexually or romantically appealing.
From a gynocentric perspective, this implies that women only have worth as romantic partners and aren't worth respecting in their own right as inspirational figures. From an androcentric perspective, it implies that men rank sexual or romantic appeal over personality and badassitude(tm) when it comes to deciding who they like as a fictional character, and reinforces the usual stereotypes about men being sex crazed.