The NS Mens Rights Thread

[Soldati Senza Confini]

One thing pointed out at Shedding of the Ego in a recent article, mostly talking about immigration and how it relates to MGTOW, is that movements such as Feminism, the MRAs and MGTOW is that they can only really develop in nations where most of the population doesn't have to work hard for their basic necessities, as they have time for self-reflection and analyzation. Can't really do that when you need to shut up and shovel the fuckin gravel(to quote the book of Zed, the Zen priest).

Linnk to the Shedding of the Ego article

Obviously I subscribe the MGTOW mindset, one of them anyways, which can more or less be described as committing yourself to being a bachelor at the least, which makes sense when you consider the pros and cons of a relationship, at least for me(legal risks and responsibilities included)

Does it really mean that feminism can only develop in developed nations where scarcity is not an issue?

Or is it more of the fact that the feminist movement takes shape and expresses itself differently depending on the culture where the idea of "gender equality" takes roots into.

See, I can't be a North American feminist nor a North American MRA because my cultural expression of gender equality is much much different than that of North American values of gender equality. I recognize that, and I realize that that keeps me from being a feminist or an MRA in North American culture, that I am not North American and therefore my culture is a layer that tones and makes my opinions on gender equality more or less unusual in comparison to North America or Europe.

[Ostroeuropa]

That tends to be the case with pretty much all rapists, they are generally in places of power or related to them as Rape IS about power and dominance. Sexual assault is just the tool used by them to hold control and fear over people.

of course, but for some reason it's not rarely talked about when women do it because they say they have no power over men because of archaic cultural norms. Men can't be weak, because weakness is associated with being feminine, and when you're feminine you need to be taken care of, and only women can be feminine, hence they can only be weak.

This is for the sake of men celebrating their utility and disposability for the sake of their ego and for a lot of women, their protection and provision.

It's notable that in order to convince people to do something that is clearly to their detriment, you have to hype the shit out of it.
Mens attachment to their disposability and utility-usage isn't surprising.
If they recognize their situation for what it is, they'll realize they've been played for fools.
This is what, in my opinion, traditionalist women are scared of, and what demi-traditionalist women (I.E, liberation is fine for me but not for thee) are ESPECIALLY scared of.
They'll no longer be able to use men as utilities.
The traditionalist woman can make some gestures toward the notion of a "trade" of roles, though this is almost certainly not going to work on an MRA or an MGTOW. The demi-traditionalist cannot do this. The situation is a pure loss for those women.

Non-Gynocentric women will ofcourse be happy at the opportunity to have an actual equal and partner, and with shouldering their share of the burdens and responsibilities as an expression of them being a proper adult, rather than a large and loud toddler.

The problem is, basically, do you think that given the opportunity, some people would choose never to grow up?
A lot of people?

Women have that opportunity.
The reason is because men are forced into protecting and providing for them by social pressures.
Liberating men from those pressures will force those women to grow up.
Ultimately, that is why the MRM is the gender equality movement that will work, and not feminism.

[Haktiva]

One thing pointed out at Shedding of the Ego in a recent article, mostly talking about immigration and how it relates to MGTOW, is that movements such as Feminism, the MRAs and MGTOW is that they can only really develop in nations where most of the population doesn't have to work hard for their basic necessities, as they have time for self-reflection and analyzation. Can't really do that when you need to shut up and shovel the fuckin gravel(to quote the book of Zed, the Zen priest).

Linnk to the Shedding of the Ego article

Obviously I subscribe the MGTOW mindset, one of them anyways, which can more or less be described as committing yourself to being a bachelor at the least, which makes sense when you consider the pros and cons of a relationship, at least for me(legal risks and responsibilities included)

Does it really mean that feminism can only develop in developed nations where scarcity is not an issue?

Or is it more of the fact that the feminist movement takes shape and expresses itself differently depending on the culture where the idea of "gender equality" takes roots into.

See, I can't be a North American feminist nor a North American MRA because my cultural expression of gender equality is much much different than that of North American values of gender equality. I recognize that, and I realize that that keeps me from being a feminist or an MRA in North American culture, that I am not North American and therefore my culture is a layer that tones and makes my opinions on gender equality more or less unusual in comparison to North America or Europe.

It's funny you bring that up because there appears to be conflict with feminists along cultural lines. white feminism, black feminism, arguably different cultures, and those are just here in North America. I don't think there's a lot of chemistry between US feminists and Indian ones.

[Haktiva]

of course, but for some reason it's not rarely talked about when women do it because they say they have no power over men because of archaic cultural norms. Men can't be weak, because weakness is associated with being feminine, and when you're feminine you need to be taken care of, and only women can be feminine, hence they can only be weak.

This is for the sake of men celebrating their utility and disposability for the sake of their ego and for a lot of women, their protection and provision.

It's notable that in order to convince people to do something that is clearly to their detriment, you have to hype the shit out of it.
Mens attachment to their disposability and utility-usage isn't surprising.
If they recognize their situation for what it is, they'll realize they've been played for fools.
This is what, in my opinion, traditionalist women are scared of, and what demi-traditionalist women (I.E, liberation is fine for me but not for thee) are ESPECIALLY scared of.
They'll no longer be able to use men as utilities.
The traditionalist woman can make some gestures toward the notion of a "trade" of roles, though this is almost certainly not going to work on an MRA or an MGTOW. The demi-traditionalist cannot do this. The situation is a pure loss for those women.

Non-Gynocentric women will ofcourse be happy at the opportunity to have an actual equal and partner.

I honestly just think it's funnier that shit that women turned down the Equal Right's Amendment because it would have meant they'd have gotten the same responsibilities as men by law.

I can understand why, who would willingly give up their advantage when they know they'd get nothing good out of it? People are selfish.

[Galloism]

I'm reminded of a joke.

This woman who's husband died was laid out in a brown suit, and she complained that he always looked better in blue. They said no problem, and an hour later she comes back and he's in a beautiful blue suit. She asks if they switched suits with another body, and they tell her "oh, no madam - we merely switched heads. "

The MRA thread is about feminism, and the feminism thread is about MRAs. Maybe we should just swap titles.

[The Huskar Social Union]

I'm reminded of a joke.

This woman who's husband died was laid out in a brown suit, and she complained that he always looked better in blue. They said no problem, and an hour later she comes back and he's in a beautiful blue suit. She asks if they switched suits with another body, and they tell her "oh, no madam - we merely switched heads. "

The MRA thread is about feminism, and the feminism thread is about MRAs. Maybe we should just swap titles.

Ha, okay that gave me a chuckle, also come on this was expected from the get go.

And if you did swap titles the topic would probably swap with it, its a never ending cycle.

[Wolfmanne]

*grabs popcorn*

This thread should be good.

[Haktiva]

I'm reminded of a joke.

This woman who's husband died was laid out in a brown suit, and she complained that he always looked better in blue. They said no problem, and an hour later she comes back and he's in a beautiful blue suit. She asks if they switched suits with another body, and they tell her "oh, no madam - we merely switched heads. "

The MRA thread is about feminism, and the feminism thread is about MRAs. Maybe we should just swap titles.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm reminded of a joke.

This woman who's husband died was laid out in a brown suit, and she complained that he always looked better in blue. They said no problem, and an hour later she comes back and he's in a beautiful blue suit. She asks if they switched suits with another body, and they tell her "oh, no madam - we merely switched heads. "

The MRA thread is about feminism, and the feminism thread is about MRAs. Maybe we should just swap titles.

Well, we're back on topic a bit.
I'd actually be interested in your perspective on traditionalist and demi-traditionalist women, and what the answer to them is.

[Haktiva]

I'm reminded of a joke.

This woman who's husband died was laid out in a brown suit, and she complained that he always looked better in blue. They said no problem, and an hour later she comes back and he's in a beautiful blue suit. She asks if they switched suits with another body, and they tell her "oh, no madam - we merely switched heads. "

The MRA thread is about feminism, and the feminism thread is about MRAs. Maybe we should just swap titles.

Ha, okay that gave me a chuckle, also come on this was expected from the get go.

And if you did swap titles the topic would probably swap with it, its a never ending cycle.

well what did you expect? It's not like us talking here will get anything done

[The Rich Port]

While I would prefer that men's rights, as a non-issue as presented by MRAs, not be discussed, I get the feeling it won't be that simple, since it never is, so, I might as well say my piece.

Men face discrimination, but not from women. Rather, they face discrimination by the conservative patriarchy that has dominated politics for thousands of years. Within that conservative patriarchy lie every single issue that has affected both men and women for those same thousands of years: mental illness as weakness (as if willpower is all that it takes to overcome schizophrenia, for example), the denial of rape of men (because men can't be raped by women, they're physically stronger than women, etc.), excessive punishment (men do more damage to society, they commit more violent crimes, we need to be harsher on criminals, rehabilitation doesn't work), denial of parental rights (a classic, women are the nurturers, they're the ones that stay at home to raise children while men go out to work), and, in the military, the disposable nature of men, the physical superiority of men, the mental superiority of men, the viciousness inherent in men, all of which means they're the "Grunts" that die by the thousands in pointless conflicts to satisfy the same patriarchy of rich, white men, who have been passing around these older-than-dirt stereotypes since the beginning of civilization.

Absolutely the MRM is a reactionary movement, when the denial of the patriarchy and the equality of men and women is something that the Feminist movement has been fighting for and continues to fight for in the contemporary.

By denying that patriarchy, the Men's Rights Movement does more damage to malekind than anything "feminazis" do today.

There's pretty scarce evidence that feminism has been fighting to get female rapistsof men recognized as rapists, female domestic abusers punished, to make child custody more gender neutral, to get more domestic violence shelters that are open to men, to make selective service gender neutral, to undo the stigma regarding males and mental health, to fix the gender gap in the Justice system, to remove the sexism against male teachers, or any of the other issues facing men.

Your claim that feminism fights the patriarchy in this way is suspicious at best and downright delusional at worst.

Admittedly, those issues have not been consistently addressed by feminist movements, and that's a shame.

However, that in no way justifies MRMs.

If anything, that just means more men should join the feminist movement to bring attention to those issues, rather than opposing feminism by joining an MRM movement...

... And theorize about a conspiracy by women to shame men for sensitivity and maintain the patriarchal delusions of powerful men who have no emotions and should expend themselves for the sake of society.

Right, Ostro?

Being an "MRA" is detrimental to men's rights.

[Haktiva]

There's pretty scarce evidence that feminism has been fighting to get female rapistsof men recognized as rapists, female domestic abusers punished, to make child custody more gender neutral, to get more domestic violence shelters that are open to men, to make selective service gender neutral, to undo the stigma regarding males and mental health, to fix the gender gap in the Justice system, to remove the sexism against male teachers, or any of the other issues facing men.

Your claim that feminism fights the patriarchy in this way is suspicious at best and downright delusional at worst.

Admittedly, those issues have not been consistently addressed by feminist movements, and that's a shame.

However, that in no way justifies MRMs.

If anything, that just means more men should join the feminist movement to bring attention to those issues, rather than opposing feminism by joining an MRM movement...

... And theorize about a conspiracy by women to shame men for sensitivity and maintain the patriarchal delusions of powerful men who have no emotions and should expend themselves for the sake of society.

Right, Ostro?

Being an "MRA" is detrimental to men's rights.

our men could just ignore women

[Ostroeuropa]

There's pretty scarce evidence that feminism has been fighting to get female rapistsof men recognized as rapists, female domestic abusers punished, to make child custody more gender neutral, to get more domestic violence shelters that are open to men, to make selective service gender neutral, to undo the stigma regarding males and mental health, to fix the gender gap in the Justice system, to remove the sexism against male teachers, or any of the other issues facing men.

Your claim that feminism fights the patriarchy in this way is suspicious at best and downright delusional at worst.

Admittedly, those issues have not been consistently addressed by feminist movements, and that's a shame.

However, that in no way justifies MRMs.

If anything, that just means more men should join the feminist movement to bring attention to those issues, rather than opposing feminism by joining an MRM movement...

... And theorize about a conspiracy by women to shame men for sensitivity and maintain the patriarchal delusions of powerful men who have no emotions and should expend themselves for the sake of society.

Right, Ostro?

Being an "MRA" is detrimental to men's rights.

Who said anything about a conspiracy?
How is arguing that men must be allowed to express emotions, and shouldn't be considered canon fodder, arguing for the maintainence of the opposite?

You're talking complete and utter bollocks.

Men were driven out of the feminist movement.
Demanding us back now is abusive.
Feminism should fuck off. We've made our own movement now.
You are not entitled to our support.

The complete failure of feminism to address mens issues, and their hostility in talking about them, has meant men have founded their own movement.
And that's fine.
It's similar to black feminism.
Just for men.

[Haktiva]

Admittedly, those issues have not been consistently addressed by feminist movements, and that's a shame.

However, that in no way justifies MRMs.

If anything, that just means more men should join the feminist movement to bring attention to those issues, rather than opposing feminism by joining an MRM movement...

... And theorize about a conspiracy by women to shame men for sensitivity and maintain the patriarchal delusions of powerful men who have no emotions and should expend themselves for the sake of society.

Right, Ostro?

Being an "MRA" is detrimental to men's rights.

Who said anything about a conspiracy?
How is arguing that men must be allowed to express emotions, and shouldn't be considered canon fodder, arguing for the maintainence of the opposite?

You're talking complete and utter bollocks.

Men were driven out of the feminist movement.
Demanding us back now is abusive.
Feminism should fuck off. We've made our own movement now.
You are not entitled to our support.

I would argue that WAF and female MRAs kinda mean it's not men's own movement, but that's just semantics on my part. Plus there's male(?) feminists out there. Also Kermit the Frog and Ms. Piggy.

[Ostroeuropa]

Who said anything about a conspiracy?
How is arguing that men must be allowed to express emotions, and shouldn't be considered canon fodder, arguing for the maintainence of the opposite?

You're talking complete and utter bollocks.

Men were driven out of the feminist movement.
Demanding us back now is abusive.
Feminism should fuck off. We've made our own movement now.
You are not entitled to our support.

I would argue that WAF and female MRAs kinda mean it's not men's own movement, but that's just semantics on my part. Plus there's male(?) feminists out there. Also Kermit the Frog and Ms. Piggy.

It is not a movement of men, but it is a movement FOR men.
Something that feminism never really was, and has only recently changed it's tune due to suffering an existential crisis.

Women are welcome, and can share their opinions and perspectives, but ultimately, the movement is androcentrist.
It is in order to provide counterweight to feminisms gynocentrism.

That doesn't mean we can't talk about womens issues. It just means we do so from an androcentric perspective.
Crucially, MRAs also don't think it's MRM business to be dealing with womens issues, because of the failure of feminism to deal with mens. We recognize our limits.

[Ashkera]

Why we can't all just focus on Egalitarianism and making both genders equal in terms of societal standing is beyond me.

Because people tend to approach gender relations from the perspective of their own experience. Feminism is fundamentally about the female experience, and that is a necessarily incomplete view of gender relations. Men talking about the male experience outside of the feminist frame (which tends to paint masculinity as adversarial) *or* traditionalist frame (which tries to trap men in their roles) is a pretty new thing and is being fought by both.

I agree with many of their goals, but I'll never call myself one.

That's how I feel about Feminism. I call myself an MRA-and-Feminist sympathizer.

While I would prefer that men's rights, as a non-issue as presented by MRAs, not be discussed, I get the feeling it won't be that simple, since it never is, so, I might as well say my piece.

...

The reason men don't trust in or believe your movement is that they're too used to being backstabbed by it. This is essentially inevitable since it defines an oppressor-oppressed duality with women as the oppressed class.

It's a movement that defines all male benefits from the gender system as "male privilege" and all female benefits as "benevolent sexism," and goes so far as to twist being conscripted into war as a "privilege" men receive in order to maintain frame. By placing men as the oppressors, it also reinforces the traditionalist hypoagency/hyperagency model. (In fact, it is rife with reinforcements of Traditionalism if you actually go looking for them.)

It should not then be very surprising that many men would go off to form their own movement, especially if their issues are described as a "non-issue" due to hyperagency and treatment of men as a uniform blob.

Is there really a "fence" between feminism and the male rights' movement? Or is it merely a figure of speech?

Because, while I sometimes agree with Ostro and Gallo and other people who agree with male rights' ideas, and sometimes agree with feminists and their ideas, I don't believe that taking sides solves anything other than the way you choose to construct said issue. Feminists say "patriarchy" while MRAs say something entirely different.

It's perfectly fine to pick and choose from each. They both have different perspectives and priorities that are incomplete views of the gender picture.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Who said anything about a conspiracy?
How is arguing that men must be allowed to express emotions, and shouldn't be considered canon fodder, arguing for the maintainence of the opposite?

You're talking complete and utter bollocks.

Men were driven out of the feminist movement.
Demanding us back now is abusive.
Feminism should fuck off. We've made our own movement now.
You are not entitled to our support.

I would argue that WAF and female MRAs kinda mean it's not men's own movement, but that's just semantics on my part. Plus there's male(?) feminists out there. Also Kermit the Frog and Ms. Piggy.

Yeah there are male feminists out there.

[Ostroeuropa]

Why we can't all just focus on Egalitarianism and making both genders equal in terms of societal standing is beyond me.

Because people tend to approach gender relations from the perspective of their own experience. Feminism is fundamentally about the female experience, and that is a necessarily incomplete view of gender relations. Men talking about the male experience outside of the feminist frame (which tends to paint masculinity as adversarial) *or* traditionalist frame (which tries to trap men in their roles) is a pretty new thing and is being fought by both.

I agree with many of their goals, but I'll never call myself one.

That's how I feel about Feminism. I call myself an MRA-and-Feminist sympathizer.

While I would prefer that men's rights, as a non-issue as presented by MRAs, not be discussed, I get the feeling it won't be that simple, since it never is, so, I might as well say my piece.

...

The reason men don't trust in or believe your movement is that they're too used to being backstabbed by it. This is essentially inevitable since it defines an oppressor-oppressed duality with women as the oppressed class.

It's a movement that defines all male benefits from the gender system as "male privilege" and all female benefits as "benevolent sexism," and goes so far as to twist being conscripted into war as a "privilege" men receive in order to maintain frame. By placing men as the oppressors, it also reinforces the traditionalist hypoagency/hyperagency model. (In fact, it is rife with reinforcements of Traditionalism if you actually go looking for them.)

It should not then be very surprising that many men would go off to form their own movement, especially if their issues are described as a "non-issue" due to hyperagency and treatment of men as a uniform blob.

Is there really a "fence" between feminism and the male rights' movement? Or is it merely a figure of speech?

Because, while I sometimes agree with Ostro and Gallo and other people who agree with male rights' ideas, and sometimes agree with feminists and their ideas, I don't believe that taking sides solves anything other than the way you choose to construct said issue. Feminists say "patriarchy" while MRAs say something entirely different.

It's perfectly fine to pick and choose from each. They both have different perspectives and priorities that are incomplete views of the gender picture.

This is also my perspective.
I have no issue with feminism being understood as womens experience of sexism and their gender.
My problem is when it tries to assert universality.

I feel the MRM provides a necessary counterweight to it.

Crucially, because in topics where men and women disagree, the feminist movement will assert misogyny and drive men out of the movement.

One example is womens hangups about sex and all the sex negativity.

MRA's view that as an expression of womens sexism.

Being a sex positive feminist as a man is risky business, because you are never really a full member of their movement.

[British Empire Strikes Back]

Kilt-wearing barmen have ditched the tartan because they are fed up of being sexually harassed by rowdy women.
They now wear trousers at the Hootananny pub, in Inverness, after one too many attempts to see what they wore underneath.
Iain Howie, the pub's assistant manager, said the incidents mostly happened at weekends when the bar was particularly busy.
Staff became fed up with groups of female revellers lifting up their kilts to check whether or not they are "true Scotsmen".

Mr Howie said: "You get large groups of drinking women circling around when you are collecting glasses and asking whether you are true Scotsman - and they find out for themselves," he said.
"The first few times, it is funny. But when it is really busy and everyone has to work fast and hard, and your hands are full of glasses, you feel quite vulnerable.
"You are thinking are you going to get broken glasses or is your kilt going to get lifted up again? They see it as a bit of fun, but it is a bit of an embarrassment."

• Draught guidance: a kilt needs underwear
• Och aye! Lidl launches new £30 kilt

Kit Fraser, the owner of Hootananny in Inverness, described it as "pure sexism".
"It may seem funny, but it is serious, too," he said. "The women are sticking their hands up their kilts. Can you imagine if I went into a restaurant and stuck my hand up a girl's skirt? I would be taken to the police station and rightly so.
"I look after my customers, but equally important are my staff. I am not forcing them to do something they don't want to do. We fellows are very, very aware of sexism. I think the women need to catch up."

Ramsay McGhee, of the Scottish Licensed Trade Association, said no employee of either sex should put up with harassment at work.
"It seems these guys have found a pragmatic and common-sense solution to an irritating problem," said Mr McGhee, the association's area manager for Inverness and the Highlands.
"It is a shame, wearing the kilt in a place like Hootananny adds to the whole character and atmosphere."

• Help ma boab! That's no way to treat a kilt
• Kilts invented by English, book claims

A Scottish Government spokesman said: "Everybody in Scotland should have the right to work without fear of harassment and it is important management in all working environments do what they can to ensure this happens."

[Ostroeuropa]

We fellows are very, very aware of sexism. I think the women need to catch up."

Pretty much the MRM position there. Or one of them at least. A lot of men are misandrist too.

That article was posted a while back on the reddit. It's similar to the one I just posted about women sexually assaulting men in gay bars being commonplace.

[The Rich Port]

One thing pointed out at Shedding of the Ego in a recent article, mostly talking about immigration and how it relates to MGTOW, is that movements such as Feminism, the MRAs and MGTOW is that they can only really develop in nations where most of the population doesn't have to work hard for their basic necessities, as they have time for self-reflection and analyzation. Can't really do that when you need to shut up and shovel the fuckin gravel(to quote the book of Zed, the Zen priest).

Linnk to the Shedding of the Ego article

Obviously I subscribe the MGTOW mindset, one of them anyways, which can more or less be described as committing yourself to being a bachelor at the least, which makes sense when you consider the pros and cons of a relationship, at least for me(legal risks and responsibilities included)

Does it really mean that feminism can only develop in developed nations where scarcity is not an issue?

Or is it more of the fact that the feminist movement takes shape and expresses itself differently depending on the culture where the idea of "gender equality" takes roots into.

See, I can't be a North American feminist nor a North American MRA because my cultural expression of gender equality is much much different than that of North American values of gender equality. I recognize that, and I realize that that keeps me from being a feminist or an MRA in North American culture, that I am not North American and therefore my culture is a layer that tones and makes my opinions on gender equality more or less unusual in comparison to North America or Europe.

Well, no.

It's widely believed hunter-gatherer civilizations of both the past and the present had and have no conception of "gender roles" specifically because of scarcity. Well, the modern ones, not so much, due to the fact they are surrounded and therefore forced to interact with sedentary civilizations, and inevitably assimilate into those civilizations and otherwise adopt their views.

Well, I'm not originally an American, but the problem was the same... It's just that there were less people willing to make a fuss about it, because it's Puerto Rico, and my people are somehow more jingoistic and conservative than the Tea Party movement.

Explain?

Why we can't all just focus on Egalitarianism and making both genders equal in terms of societal standing is beyond me.

Because people tend to approach gender relations from the perspective of their own experience. Feminism is fundamentally about the female experience, and that is a necessarily incomplete view of gender relations. Men talking about the male experience outside of the feminist frame (which tends to paint masculinity as adversarial) *or* traditionalist frame (which tries to trap men in their roles) is a pretty new thing and is being fought by both.

I agree with many of their goals, but I'll never call myself one.

That's how I feel about Feminism. I call myself an MRA-and-Feminist sympathizer.

While I would prefer that men's rights, as a non-issue as presented by MRAs, not be discussed, I get the feeling it won't be that simple, since it never is, so, I might as well say my piece.

...

The reason men don't trust in or believe your movement is that they're too used to being backstabbed by it. This is essentially inevitable since it defines an oppressor-oppressed duality with women as the oppressed class.

It's a movement that defines all male benefits from the gender system as "male privilege" and all female benefits as "benevolent sexism," and goes so far as to twist being conscripted into war as a "privilege" men receive in order to maintain frame. By placing men as the oppressors, it also reinforces the traditionalist hypoagency/hyperagency model. (In fact, it is rife with reinforcements of Traditionalism if you actually go looking for them.)

It should not then be very surprising that many men would go off to form their own movement, especially if their issues are described as a "non-issue" due to hyperagency and treatment of men as a uniform blob.

Is there really a "fence" between feminism and the male rights' movement? Or is it merely a figure of speech?

Because, while I sometimes agree with Ostro and Gallo and other people who agree with male rights' ideas, and sometimes agree with feminists and their ideas, I don't believe that taking sides solves anything other than the way you choose to construct said issue. Feminists say "patriarchy" while MRAs say something entirely different.

It's perfectly fine to pick and choose from each. They both have different perspectives and priorities that are incomplete views of the gender picture.

Well, see that's the thing.

You see it as "male privilege", as if it's somehow of benefit to men to be within this patriarchal society.

I see it as benevolent sexism disguised as gender favoritism that, in the end, causes harm to everyone.

You're going to have to explain what you mean by "backstabbing".

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Does it really mean that feminism can only develop in developed nations where scarcity is not an issue?

Or is it more of the fact that the feminist movement takes shape and expresses itself differently depending on the culture where the idea of "gender equality" takes roots into.

See, I can't be a North American feminist nor a North American MRA because my cultural expression of gender equality is much much different than that of North American values of gender equality. I recognize that, and I realize that that keeps me from being a feminist or an MRA in North American culture, that I am not North American and therefore my culture is a layer that tones and makes my opinions on gender equality more or less unusual in comparison to North America or Europe.

Well, no.

It's widely believed hunter-gatherer civilizations of both the past and the present had and have no conception of "gender roles" specifically because of scarcity. Well, the modern ones, not so much, due to the fact they are surrounded and therefore forced to interact with sedentary civilizations, and inevitably assimilate into those civilizations and otherwise adopt their views.

Well, I'm not originally an American, but the problem was the same... It's just that there were less people willing to make a fuss about it, because it's Puerto Rico, and my people are somehow more jingoistic and conservative than the Tea Party movement.

Explain?

Well, yes, but do you find yourself disagreeing with some feminists who are from North America or Europe, or Asia, or Australia, specifically prominent feminists about feminist issues and how their arguments are constructed (and, mind, are mainstream arguments in their regions)?

If so, you might have a different way of thinking about feminism than the mainstream population which you are actually arguing with.

I'm from El Salvador, so I've seen feminism in El Salvador and from my experiences with Mexican people, they also have a different experience with feminism than in the U.S., I'd say far more toned down than what I see and hear in the United States, so how do you explain these differences?

[Galloism]

There's pretty scarce evidence that feminism has been fighting to get female rapistsof men recognized as rapists, female domestic abusers punished, to make child custody more gender neutral, to get more domestic violence shelters that are open to men, to make selective service gender neutral, to undo the stigma regarding males and mental health, to fix the gender gap in the Justice system, to remove the sexism against male teachers, or any of the other issues facing men.

Your claim that feminism fights the patriarchy in this way is suspicious at best and downright delusional at worst.

Admittedly, those issues have not been consistently addressed by feminist movements, and that's a shame.

However, that in no way justifies MRMs.

If anything, that just means more men should join the feminist movement to bring attention to those issues, rather than opposing feminism by joining an MRM movement...

... And theorize about a conspiracy by women to shame men for sensitivity and maintain the patriarchal delusions of powerful men who have no emotions and should expend themselves for the sake of society.

Right, Ostro?

Being an "MRA" is detrimental to men's rights.

Given the open hostility many prominent feminists have engaged in to even thinking that these are issues that need to be addressed, and the very obvious and deliberate attempts by many feminists to marginalize such problems or try to convince people they are minor and unimportant, or to attempt to redefine them out of existence, I do not see how joining it in any way improves the situation.

I mean, it's kinda like a black woman trying to join the modern KKK to help them be more inclusive. Not quite that extreme, of course.

[Ostroeuropa]

Admittedly, those issues have not been consistently addressed by feminist movements, and that's a shame.

However, that in no way justifies MRMs.

If anything, that just means more men should join the feminist movement to bring attention to those issues, rather than opposing feminism by joining an MRM movement...

... And theorize about a conspiracy by women to shame men for sensitivity and maintain the patriarchal delusions of powerful men who have no emotions and should expend themselves for the sake of society.

Right, Ostro?

Being an "MRA" is detrimental to men's rights.

Given the open hostility many prominent feminists have engaged in to even thinking that these are issues that need to be addressed, and the very obvious and deliberate attempts by many feminists to marginalize such problems or try to convince people they are minor and unimportant, or to attempt to redefine them out of existence, I do not see how joining it in any way improves the situation.

I mean, it's kinda like a black woman trying to join the modern KKK to help them be more inclusive. Not quite that extreme, of course.

The MRM would say these women are demi-traditionalists.
Liberation is fine for me but not for thee.

They'd also say feminism is absolutely infested with them.

It comes back to the concept outlined in this post basically:

"What is womens place in society?"

What their place SHOULD be?
Striving to accept an equal share of responsibility and burdens as men do, allowing both sexes to be equal partners and enjoy a balanced lifestyle, and allowing them to become fully fledged adults instead of large, loud, toddlers.
What IS their place?
Some of them do that. Some of them are large, loud, toddlers. The ratio is up for debate.
The reason feminism is failing to emancipate the genders is that it rests on the assumption that everyone would grow up given the opportunity. That's clearly bollocks. Some people will refuse to grow up if they don't have to.
Women don't have to, because men have to provide and protect for them. And no amount of "But you could totes be an adult!" is going to make them. They are going to pressure men into babysitting them because they are infantile, and because they can. Many Men would do the same thing given the opportunity.
This is why gender equality will never be achieved by feminism.
The MRM method would emancipate those men, leaving women FORCED to grow up. That will achieve equality.

A demi-traditionalist would therefore be a toddler who's managed to berate their adult into letting them drive cars and do adult stuff.

This is obviously a very poor choice.

(The argument is inflammatory perhaps, but outlines a general concept.)

[Ashkera]

Well, see that's the thing.

You see it as "male privilege", as if it's somehow of benefit to men to be within this patriarchal society.

I see it as benevolent sexism disguised as gender favoritism that, in the end, causes harm to everyone.

I don't see it as "male privilege". Seeing men being conscripted into military service as a form of discrimination against women is how quite a few feminists see it.

You're going to have to explain what you mean by "backstabbing".

Trying to end the presumption of innocence in sex crime tribunals on University campuses and disallowing lawyers would be one example. The continuing narrative of men as predatory and dangerous is another, and is most dangerous to the men most sympathetic to feminism / most emotionally vulnerable. Then there's sneaking into non-feminist conferences to disrupt them with illegal acts, knowingly using misleading statistics, redefining "rape" to exclude men in studies...

Ostro can give you a nice big list, I'm sure, but Feminism is TBQF about as honest, truthful, and capital-G Good as political parties.

When I listen to mainstream, popular feminist rhetoric, I am always waiting for the moment to hit where they insult or blame men, and I am rarely disappointed.

I don't hate political parties, but I don't trust them.