Betsy DeVos to meet with MRAs

[Dorkland]

[quote="Tahar Joblis";p="32138337"]
I have a lot of very critical things to say about the movement and about feminist ideology. The people? Some are good, some are bad. [quote]

Wholeheartedly agree. I'm willing to listen to anyone. Not every feminist is a shrieking man-hater, just as not every MRA is a fedora'd bigot.

There are points where both movements are both wrong and right. If we are to argue MRA groups don't have a right to be heard on issues that feminist organizations are often heard on due to things said by various MRAs, then we should also look at some of the things prominent feminists have said and done.

I don't believe a movement should be barred from any conversation based on every piece of negative rhetoric that's ever originated from them, or we'd find most political organizations would not be allowed into these sorts of debates.

[Tahar Joblis]

The whole point of toxic masculinity is that it is men policing the actions of other men for being insufficiently manly. Anyone who uses the terms beta, alpha, cuck, fag (or any other homophobic slur), questioning manliness (pacifism, career choice, assertiveness) or the perceived "no friendship possible" male-female dynamic are engaging in activities that we call "toxic masculinity". And fragile masculinity as a part of that - their masculinity is so facile and fragile that they perceive the need to lash out "toxically" to enforce it.

Toxic masculinity is about enforcing "manliness" because, through a feminist perspective, men are obviously privileged over women in most aspects of society, and this is an effort to batter men into line with the social script placing men at the top in positions of power.

That's all it is.

This is what my problem with "Men's Rights Activists" is - the NAME of the group.

I entirely get that there are male issues that have to be dealt with. The suicide rate for males under 40s is far too high. The fact that women under 40 are more likely to try to kill themselves, but men under 40 are more likely to succeed is truly depressing. The fact that men feel pressured to provide, to be "the man" (which is a bullshit term to start with) and all that crap.

But I don't see that as an issue of men's rights. Men's issues, men's problems - sure. But men's rights? Seriously?

Go back 100, 200 years. Women were not allowed to vote. Not allowed to own property. Some were not allowed to work. Some were not allowed to get an education, instead they were expected, sometimes forced, to stay home and raise kids.

These are why we have Women's Rights organisations and Women's RIghts Activists. Because the things that men took for granted - that they were given by the government simply because they were men - were not given to women simply because they were women.

So while agree there are issues for men that need dealing with, they are not RIGHTS that need fighting for. So calling a group "Men's Rights Activists" is bullshit, and patronising and frankly insulting.

Some of them are rights - formally and informally.

A lot of big ones are rights that were central to the Second Wave of feminism. The modern MRM is as much about rights as Second Wave feminism. Remember, women already had voting rights, property rights... what was on the agenda of Second Wave feminists?

• Discrimination against women on the basis of sex (in law and in private action).
• Sexual harassment of women in the workplace.
• Equal and fair access to education.
• Reproductive rights - control over whether or not women can be forced to become biological mothers.
• Addressing domestic violence [by men against women] and rape [of women by men].
• Maintaining supremacy of maternal rights and inferiority of paternal rights.

What's on the men's rights movement's agenda?

• Fathers' rights - which are currently treated as inferior to mothers' rights.
• Reproductive rights - control over whether or not men can be forced to become legal fathers.
• Equal and fair access to education.
• Discrimination against men on the basis of sex (in law, in court, and in private action).
• Addressing domestic violence [by women against men] and rape [of men by women].
• Restoring due process protections to men accused of crimes against women.
• Equal obligations for men and women (see in particular Selective Service System).

The men's rights movement is not about rights any less than Second Wave feminism... and as you may note from the victories of the Second Wave on most of its agenda, the men's rights movement is presently much more about rights than feminism is.

The big central theme of the Second Wave - and the Men's Rights Movement - really boils down to eliminating various forms of sexual discrimination, just as with the Civil Rights movement.

[Ors Might]

I would argue that the right to terminate parental responsibilities up to a point is a right that men are frequently denied but whatever. I suppose American feminists should cease claiming to be for equal rights considering that women already have de jure equality, at the very least. They are considered legal equals to men, with all the rights associated with that. So surely it's bullshit, and patronizing and insulting for "women's rights activists" to claim that title if they only operate in countries like the US, yes?

You are still missing the point. All the groups that were set up over the past century fighting for women's rights were fighting for ACTUAL RIGHTS. The right to vote. The right to work. The right to be treated like HUMAN BEINGS.

And, for the most part - you say - they have achieved those goals.

Except (and correct me if I am wrong) a Republican state senator wanted to pass a bill that allowed Doctors to lie to their female patients to prevent women having abortions. Another Republican state senator wanted to pass a bill that basically called women "incubating machines for babies" and give them NO RIGHTS over their bodies. Generally speaking abortion law is written more by men than it is by women, despite the fact it adversely affects women far more than men. Trumpcare (or whatever the frickityfrack they are calling it) is pretty much stripping out maternity care, abortion rights and several other things that will adversely affect far more women than men) and now Betsy Devos wants to give rapists anonymity because accused of forcibly fucking a sleeping girl might damage some rich white boy's future career prospects?

The example you give - about having a say about abortion - is a good example, I will grant you that. But some of the other "rights" that men are bitching about? They are not rights in the way that the right to vote, the right to work, the right to be paid the same per hour for the same job and so on are "rights". They are issues, some of them serious, very serious indeed, but they are not what I would consider to be rights.

My apologies, I was under the impression that we were discussing groups in the here and now. If you want to compare and contrast the various positives and negatives between the first wave feminists and modern day MRAs, we can certainly do that.

Do you have a source for those Republican senators? And going by your language, am I correct in assuming that they failed in what you claim they tried to do? I'd also appreciate if you could source that Betsy Devos wants to give people accused of a crime anonymity to prevent retaliation because of a crime they may not have committed. That would make Trump way better than I have any reason to believe he is.

What rights are men supposedly bitching about? Like say, the right for your rape to be taken seriously by the police and a court of law? What about the right to report your domestic abuser and seek justice? Those are the rights I typically hear MRAs discussing. Regardless, it seems pretty petty to dismiss a group solely because you dislike their name. Especially when, as you admit numerous times, they bring up issues worth taking into consideration.

[Dorkland]

I would argue that the right to terminate parental responsibilities up to a point is a right that men are frequently denied but whatever. I suppose American feminists should cease claiming to be for equal rights considering that women already have de jure equality, at the very least. They are considered legal equals to men, with all the rights associated with that. So surely it's bullshit, and patronizing and insulting for "women's rights activists" to claim that title if they only operate in countries like the US, yes?

You are still missing the point. All the groups that were set up over the past century fighting for women's rights were fighting for ACTUAL RIGHTS. The right to vote. The right to work. The right to be treated like HUMAN BEINGS.

And, for the most part - you say - they have achieved those goals.

Except (and correct me if I am wrong) a Republican state senator wanted to pass a bill that allowed Doctors to lie to their female patients to prevent women having abortions. Another Republican state senator wanted to pass a bill that basically called women "incubating machines for babies" and give them NO RIGHTS over their bodies. Generally speaking abortion law is written more by men than it is by women, despite the fact it adversely affects women far more than men. Trumpcare (or whatever the frickityfrack they are calling it) is pretty much stripping out maternity care, abortion rights and several other things that will adversely affect far more women than men) and now Betsy Devos wants to give rapists anonymity because accused of forcibly fucking a sleeping girl might damage some rich white boy's future career prospects?

The example you give - about having a say about abortion - is a good example, I will grant you that. But some of the other "rights" that men are bitching about? They are not rights in the way that the right to vote, the right to work, the right to be paid the same per hour for the same job and so on are "rights". They are issues, some of them serious, very serious indeed, but they are not what I would consider to be rights.

I really don't see the problem with feminists protesting those sorts of things. These are valid issues. They have my support as a voter, when such politicians are on the ballot in my district or state. These sort of issues necessitate the existence of women's rights movements.

I also think there are a laundry list of problems that validate the existence of mens rights groups.

It's never been so black and white that any one demographic is solely oppressor or oppressed. Also, part of the problem stems from specifying any one group as the oppressor, rather than looking at the oppression as coming from society as a whole. In the latter perspective, it's much easier to see how both men and women are oppressed, albeit in different (and at time overlapping--i.e. treatment of both male and female inmates) ways. Take for instance the empathy gap in areas such as sentencing, education, victims of domestic violence. Statistics show males and females experience domestic violence at very similar rates. It becomes irrelevant who the majority of abusers are as it indicates a sickness in society as a whole rather than a sickness of any one demographic. But because we continue to treat it as an issue on male on female violence, we have what, less than a handful of male shelters in the US, while we have thousands for women? Why not accommodate both? Feminists often argue that MRAs aren't needed because feminism is an egalitarian movement that will result in all of these issues being fixed, yet MRA groups formed partly because feminists and others ignored issues affecting men. Or the disparity in prison sentencing, where international feminist organizations, rather than advocating to fix sentencing for both genders, simply focus on reducing it more for women (who already tend to enjoy shorter sentences for the same crimes) and try to push for replacements like house arrest. It's fine that feminists don't devote more resources to the issue of male sentencing, but let's not pretend it's a movement concerned with gender equality when it's concerned with women's rights. There is a distinction, and it needs to be made. And because it is focused on women's rights, there is no good reason not to have groups focused on men's rights.

When we split hairs about "rights" and "issues" then it's very easy to say either movement isn't needed. It's unfair to say women's rights movements/feminism is no longer needed given the issues women face and the fact there are still politicians working to curtail certain rights, but by the same token, it's unfair to say MRA groups aren't needed, and dishonest given the number of issues already mentioned by myself and other posters in this thread.

[Liriena]

If they did, I would be displeased, to put it mildly. The incel subreddit is a cesspool and I've seen little of MGTOW and the red pill that make me think they're much better.

I'd say far more MRAs are merely asserted by others to be involuntarily celibate than claim to be. If there's any correlation with virginity it's through fear of child support induced dropout that non-MRAs are less likely to even think about.

The overlap with MGTOW and/or the red pill is unclear, but at least that overlap makes sense. Guys who are worried the system is stacked against them would probably be less likely to bother with relationships, and almost certainly less likely to bother with marriage. Guys who feel the conversation is stacked against MRAs are going to see themselves as more enlightened for being one.

Sounds about right. Although we're still ignoring the elephant in the room: at least some of the overlap is rooted in good old fashioned misogyny, and sometimes not even subtly so.

Feminist here. If you're mad about people generalizing MRAs and otherizing the stuff out of them, maybe don't do it to us.

If you want to pretend it's a coincidence that a movement of so many people fails to distance itself from those smears, that's up to you. But it doesn't make it so.

Oh, it's not a coincidence. I'm not that daft.

[Liriena]

Because male feminists aren't decent people, am I right?

Male feminists are annoying. I agree with socialist feminism, but the movement's not for me nor about me.

But one can support the movement, no?

[Liriena]

Feminist here. If you're mad about people generalizing MRAs and otherizing the stuff out of them, maybe don't do it to us.

I don't.

I have a lot of very critical things to say about the movement and about feminist ideology. The people? Some are good, some are bad.

(1) Of course, feminists are encouraged to conflate the personal and the political, (2) and take attacks on the movement as attacks on women, including themselves. That's part of how we get a narrative like the one in the hatchet job laid out in the OP's article, where the chain of arguments jumps from SAVE disagreeing with feminist dogma to SAVE literally hating women.

1. By who?
2. We're back to overgeneralizations.
3. I don't know about them literally hating women, but... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/violence-against-women-act_n_1500693.html?ref=politics

[Galloism]

Actually, they point out toxic masculinity, as a concept, is just another way to victim blame men for their problems, as society almost always does.

After all, you never hear about the wage gap being caused by "toxic femininity", other than MRAs who throw that out to be ironic.

Toxic masculinity is not masculinity, and is not caused by people, but culture, and it harms both sexes. Men are blamed for violent crimes more often due to either being more violent than women generally

There we go blaming men again.

or the society seeing men as stronger thus more capable. I feel like it's both, and both are caused by cultural toxic masculinity, the idea that men are emotionless, strong and violent. In comparison, toxic femininity causes women to become more prone to cause strife, to be submissive, etc.
Masculinity and femininity are natural things, the toxic either are simply cultural phenomena that lead to higher male suicide rates

By blaming the victims who already blame themselves enough they want to die.

It's also worth noting, and this has been cited repeatedly, women are the primary enforcers of the male gender role. Women are also the primary enforcers of the female gender role.

But, you know, it's masculinity that's toxic.

This and higher female domestic violence victims and the such.

I'll tell you, blatant counterfactual sexism continually appearing when people are attempting to defend feminism, as a movement, never gets old.

[Liriena]

If they did, I would be displeased, to put it mildly. The incel subreddit is a cesspool and I've seen little of MGTOW and the red pill that make me think they're much better.

So rather than do a bit of research, it's better instead to tar everyone with the same brush?

Been there, done that, and the conclusion I derived from my explorations was: cesspools, the lot of them. Contempt, resentment and poorly addressed sexual insecurity masquerading as philosophies. Oh, and a whole lot of actual, unironic dehumanization of women.

Because male feminists aren't decent people, am I right?

Depends. Do you willingly acknowledge that men can be raped?

Yes, men can be and are raped. And in this still profoundly sexist society we live in, the rape of men is still often dismissed as a concern, when not treated like something laughable. It sucks, and it doesn't help one bit that, on top of the culturally ingrained chauvinism that already is a huge obstacle to male victims of sexual violence, some feminist circles further add to those obstacles with their own dismissive, if not outright hostile attitude towards male victims of sexual violence.

If you're mad about people generalizing MRAs and otherizing the stuff out of them, maybe don't do it to us.

I think the MRA movement doesn't give feminism enough credit for opening their eyes up to the shitty deal that men have in terms of societal and legal double standards and discrimination. So, at least on the behalf of myself, I thank you for making me see the world in a wonderful new light.

Of course, the MRA movement only gives back what it gets dished out. After all, you can only beat a dog so much before it bites back.

Sure, sure. It's all defensive aggression and contempt towards feminists.

[Liriena]

Toxic masculinity is not masculinity, and is not caused by people, but culture, and it harms both sexes. Men are blamed for violent crimes more often due to either being more violent than women generally

There we go blaming men again.

or the society seeing men as stronger thus more capable. I feel like it's both, and both are caused by cultural toxic masculinity, the idea that men are emotionless, strong and violent. In comparison, toxic femininity causes women to become more prone to cause strife, to be submissive, etc.
Masculinity and femininity are natural things, the toxic either are simply cultural phenomena that lead to higher male suicide rates

By [i]blaming the victims[/url] who already blame themselves enough they want to die.

This and higher female domestic violence victims and the such.

I'll tell you, blatant counterfactual sexism continually appearing when people are attempting to defend feminism, as a movement, never gets old.

Even if Kvatchdom's arguments are flawed, toxic masculinity is a real thing. I witness it first-hand on a regular basis. The toxic policing of men's masculinity by other men is real. And what's worse, sometimes it even manifests in spaces ostensibly created by and for men who've been hurt by it.

[Galloism]

Actually, they point out toxic masculinity, as a concept, is just another way to victim blame men for their problems, as society almost always does.

After all, you never hear about the wage gap being caused by "toxic femininity", other than MRAs who throw that out to be ironic.

The whole point of toxic masculinity is that it is men policing the actions of other men for being insufficiently manly.

This does happen of course, but the primary enforcers of the male gender role are actually women.

Anyone who uses the terms beta, alpha, cuck, fag (or any other homophobic slur), questioning manliness (pacifism, career choice, assertiveness) or the perceived "no friendship possible" male-female dynamic are engaging in activities that we call "toxic masculinity". And fragile masculinity as a part of that - their masculinity is so facile and fragile that they perceive the need to lash out "toxically" to enforce it.

Toxic masculinity is about enforcing "manliness" because, through a feminist perspective, men are obviously privileged over women in most aspects of society, and this is an effort to batter men into line with the social script placing men at the top in positions of power.

That's all it is.

Words have meanings, both explicit and implicit. That's why feminism, as a movement, dishes out a LOT of sexist terms all the time -

Toxic masculinity. Mansplaining. Manspreading. Male violence. Patriarchy. All gendered terms describing something "evil".

You never hear about toxic femininity. Because according to feminism, as a movement, feminism isn't toxic. Masculinity is. Pay attention. Open your eyes.

[Calladan]

This is what my problem with "Men's Rights Activists" is - the NAME of the group.

I entirely get that there are male issues that have to be dealt with. The suicide rate for males under 40s is far too high. The fact that women under 40 are more likely to try to kill themselves, but men under 40 are more likely to succeed is truly depressing. The fact that men feel pressured to provide, to be "the man" (which is a bullshit term to start with) and all that crap.

But I don't see that as an issue of men's rights. Men's issues, men's problems - sure. But men's rights? Seriously?

Go back 100, 200 years. Women were not allowed to vote. Not allowed to own property. Some were not allowed to work. Some were not allowed to get an education, instead they were expected, sometimes forced, to stay home and raise kids.

These are why we have Women's Rights organisations and Women's RIghts Activists. Because the things that men took for granted - that they were given by the government simply because they were men - were not given to women simply because they were women.

So while agree there are issues for men that need dealing with, they are not RIGHTS that need fighting for. So calling a group "Men's Rights Activists" is bullshit, and patronising and frankly insulting.

Some of them are rights - formally and informally.

A lot of big ones are rights that were central to the Second Wave of feminism. The modern MRM is as much about rights as Second Wave feminism. Remember, women already had voting rights, property rights... what was on the agenda of Second Wave feminists?

• Discrimination against women on the basis of sex (in law and in private action).
• Sexual harassment of women in the workplace.
• Equal and fair access to education.
• Reproductive rights - control over whether or not women can be forced to become biological mothers.
• Addressing domestic violence [by men against women] and rape [of women by men].
• Maintaining supremacy of maternal rights and inferiority of paternal rights.

What's on the men's rights movement's agenda?

• Fathers' rights - which are currently treated as inferior to mothers' rights.
• Reproductive rights - control over whether or not men can be forced to become legal fathers.
• Equal and fair access to education.
• Discrimination against men on the basis of sex (in law, in court, and in private action).
• Addressing domestic violence [by women against men] and rape [of men by women].
• Restoring due process protections to men accused of crimes against women.
• Equal obligations for men and women (see in particular Selective Service System).

The men's rights movement is not about rights any less than Second Wave feminism... and as you may note from the victories of the Second Wave on most of its agenda, the men's rights movement is presently much more about rights than feminism is.

The big central theme of the Second Wave - and the Men's Rights Movement - really boils down to eliminating various forms of sexual discrimination, just as with the Civil Rights movement.

See - when it is calmly, and sensibly, explained like that, it makes far more sense and sounds a lot less stupid. However a lot of the people advocating for MRAs apparently lack the ability to apply reason and logic, and just whine and bitch about it make them sound like little boys crying about the mean girls. And whenever laws are strengthened to protect women from domestic violence (which is something that needs doing in some cases), the little boys whine and cry and say "Why is it always the girls who get all the rules made for them and why do the men never get the breaks?" suggesting that - throughout history - women have ALWAYS been given preferential treatment over men.

Which, you have to admit, is not entirely true. Or even close to being true.

So, like I said, the calm, logical explanation makes more sense than the advocates who just go off on one whenever women's rights are mentioned.

[Galloism]

Even if Kvatchdom's arguments are flawed, toxic masculinity is a real thing. I witness it first-hand on a regular basis. The toxic policing of men's masculinity by other men is real. And what's worse, sometimes it even manifests in spaces ostensibly created by and for men who've been hurt by it.

That's called gender policing, and both men and women do it. It IS wrong. Women gender police more than men do according to current science, to both men AND women.

The thing is, when women do it we call it "internalized misogyny" - she's the victim. When men do it we call it "toxic masculinity" - it's his fault. And this is true even though women do it more than men do it.

Because, socially, we view women as objects and men as actors. And this is also true in the feminist narrative as well - maybe even moreso.

[Galloism]

And whenever laws are strengthened to protect women from domestic violence (which is something that needs doing in some cases), the little boys whine and cry and say "Why is it always the girls who get all the rules made for them and why do the men never get the breaks?" suggesting that - throughout history - women have ALWAYS been given preferential treatment over men.

For the last century, women have generally received preferential treatment over men. There are some contra-indications, and I'll give you a good current day example.

Are you aware that, depending on your dataset, men make up 40-60% of domestic violence victims?

[Dorkland]

I agree that toxic masculinity happens. I also see toxic femininity happening on a regular basis. My wife complains of it. People are shits. Most people are conditioned very young and it ifnroms their ideas of what is normal and acceptable.

Both toxic masculinity and toxic femininity are a result of traditional gender roles and more representative of collectivist thinking than they are of individualism. Both are indicative of a greater toxic culturalism.

Funny, both feminists and MRAs complain about harmful gender roles and stereotypes, so you'd think there'd be more agreement and cooperation.

[Galloism]

Funny, both feminists and MRAs complain about harmful gender roles and stereotypes, so you'd think there'd be more agreement and cooperation.

You would think, but that has been attempted multiple times (and continues to be attempted up through today by well-meaning people trying to bridge the gap, like me just a year or two ago) and all you get for your careful and considered gender neutral approach is vicious attacks.

[Dorkland]

And whenever laws are strengthened to protect women from domestic violence (which is something that needs doing in some cases), the little boys whine and cry and say "Why is it always the girls who get all the rules made for them and why do the men never get the breaks?" suggesting that - throughout history - women have ALWAYS been given preferential treatment over men.

For the last century, women have generally received preferential treatment over men. There are some contra-indications, and I'll give you a good current day example.

Are you aware that, depending on your dataset, men make up 40-60% of domestic violence victims?

If I remember correctly, 40 % based on CDC data. It may be higher but hard to say, as it's likely many men don't report it, especially when victims of a female partner or parent.

This is one area where I think the cultural bias against men is more apparent and affects how the problem is treated. Men are more likely to experience and feel shame, therefore less likely to report it. they're also more likely to be assumed the primary aggressor by authorities in DV cases where the violence is reciprocal (and even in some instances where he didn't touch her, or in cases where he defended himself). If that's not indicative of a bias, then we're blind as a society.


Here's something to look up, semi-related. Look into the Boko Haram and their massacre of boys. It was barely covered. When Boko Haram kidnapped girls, there was an international movement with major media coverage and people like the first lady advocating their safe return. Why no coverage or concern when the boys were kidnapped and burned alive? This is evidence of an empathy gap in our culture. Women are oppressed in many ways. Society on a whole is more likely to see that oppression and feel compassion for women and girls. When it happens to boys and men, we are more likely to remain blind to it. Another good case is the rape of men and women in African nations. Women's rape receives more funding and coverage. Men's rape is ridiculed and they are shunned not just by their communities, but receive less aid from major human rights organizations. Both are raped at similar rates in some areas. Often the women POWs/hostages are even spared the rape and forced to cook and clean clothes for the soldiers, whereas almost all of the male captives are raped in an effort to break and humiliate their spirit and the spirit of their cultures.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

I'd say far more MRAs are merely asserted by others to be involuntarily celibate than claim to be. If there's any correlation with virginity it's through fear of child support induced dropout that non-MRAs are less likely to even think about.

The overlap with MGTOW and/or the red pill is unclear, but at least that overlap makes sense. Guys who are worried the system is stacked against them would probably be less likely to bother with relationships, and almost certainly less likely to bother with marriage. Guys who feel the conversation is stacked against MRAs are going to see themselves as more enlightened for being one.

Sounds about right. Although we're still ignoring the elephant in the room: at least some of the overlap is rooted in good old fashioned misogyny, and sometimes not even subtly so.

If you want to pretend it's a coincidence that a movement of so many people fails to distance itself from those smears, that's up to you. But it doesn't make it so.

Oh, it's not a coincidence. I'm not that daft.

Then it's a meaningful generalization, so long as it's not directly stated to apply to everyone in the group. (And really, no one should need to outright state that it doesn't. Such caveats apply to just about any generalization, because duh.)

[Dorkland]

Funny, both feminists and MRAs complain about harmful gender roles and stereotypes, so you'd think there'd be more agreement and cooperation.

You would think, but that has been attempted multiple times (and continues to be attempted up through today by well-meaning people trying to bridge the gap, like me just a year or two ago) and all you get for your careful and considered gender neutral approach is vicious attacks.

I've gotten shit from both sides myself.

Some feminists think I'm blind to women's suffering. some MRAs think I am an SJW for admitting women still face hurdles and discrimination.

Admitting or acknowledging a disadvantage for one doesn't equate to ignoring the other. Empathy shouldn't be a zero-sum game, oppression shouldn't be treated as a game where only the group with the most attention or disadvantages receives all of the support and the other gets a pat on the back at best.

This is why I primarily identify as an egalitarian humanist. I try to open my eyes to troubles humans face, not troubles faced by black or white, male or female, et al.

[Dorkland]

You would think, but that has been attempted multiple times (and continues to be attempted up through today by well-meaning people trying to bridge the gap, like me just a year or two ago) and all you get for your careful and considered gender neutral approach is vicious attacks.

I've gotten shit from both sides myself.

Some feminists think I'm blind to women's suffering. some MRAs think I am an SJW for admitting women still face hurdles and discrimination. It's hard to be attacked from both sides.

Admitting or acknowledging a disadvantage for one doesn't equate to ignoring the other. Empathy shouldn't be a zero-sum game, oppression shouldn't be treated as a game where only the group with the most attention or disadvantages receives all of the support and the other gets a pat on the back at best.

This is why I primarily identify as an egalitarian humanist. I try to open my eyes to troubles humans face, not troubles faced by black or white, male or female, et al.

[Galloism]

For the last century, women have generally received preferential treatment over men. There are some contra-indications, and I'll give you a good current day example.

Are you aware that, depending on your dataset, men make up 40-60% of domestic violence victims?

If I remember correctly, 40 % based on CDC data. It may be higher but hard to say, as it's likely many men don't report it, especially when victims of a female partner or parent.

Well, it's 43% based on lifetime data. 53% for violence occurring in the last year (per the 2011 survey).

This is one area where I think the cultural bias against men is more apparent and affects how the problem is treated. Men are more likely to experience and feel shame, therefore less likely to report it. they're also more likely to be assumed the primary aggressor by authorities in DV cases where the violence is reciprocal (and even in some instances where he didn't touch her, or in cases where he defended himself). If that's not indicative of a bias, then we're blind as a society.

We ARE blind as a society.

Here's something to look up, semi-related. Look into the Boko Haram and their massacre of boys. It was barely covered. When Boko Haram kidnapped girls, there was an international movement with major media coverage and people like the first lady advocating their safe return. Why no coverage or concern when the boys were kidnapped and burned alive? This is evidence of an empathy gap in our culture. Women are oppressed in many ways. Society on a whole is more likely to see that oppression and feel compassion for women and girls. When it happens to boys and men, we are more likely to remain blind to it. Another good case is the rape of men and women in African nations. Women's rape receives more funding and coverage. Men's rape is ridiculed and they are shunned not just by their communities, but receive less aid from major human rights organizations. Both are raped at similar rates in some areas. Often the women POWs/hostages are even spared the rape and forced to cook and clean clothes for the soldiers, whereas almost all of the male captives are raped in an effort to break and humiliate their spirit and the spirit of their cultures.

It's more complicated than that. Sexism was probably part of it, but there's one major rule about Africa:

It's Africa. Nobody cares about Africa. - Some movie.

[Liriena]

Funny, both feminists and MRAs complain about harmful gender roles and stereotypes, so you'd think there'd be more agreement and cooperation.

You would think, but that has been attempted multiple times (and continues to be attempted up through today by well-meaning people trying to bridge the gap, like me just a year or two ago) and all you get for your careful and considered gender neutral approach is vicious attacks.

To be fair, the problem with a gender neutral, universalist approach is that it runs the serious risk of forgetting the importance of the historical and material causes of the problems affecting all genders. This is a problem that was already observed within feminism itself by some feminist authors decades ago, particularly when it came to something as basic as who the women that feminism fights for are.

[Tahar Joblis]

I'd say far more MRAs are merely asserted by others to be involuntarily celibate than claim to be. If there's any correlation with virginity it's through fear of child support induced dropout that non-MRAs are less likely to even think about.

The overlap with MGTOW and/or the red pill is unclear, but at least that overlap makes sense. Guys who are worried the system is stacked against them would probably be less likely to bother with relationships, and almost certainly less likely to bother with marriage. Guys who feel the conversation is stacked against MRAs are going to see themselves as more enlightened for being one.

Sounds about right. Although we're still ignoring the elephant in the room: at least some of the overlap is rooted in good old fashioned misogyny, and sometimes not even subtly so.

Actual hatred of women is quite a bit rarer than sexism. It's rare even in circles that are overtly sexist.

"Misogynist" was an insult back in the 1600s, and is still an insult today.

There's no elephant in the room.

The overlap between /r/TheRedPill and men going their own way is the diagnosis that there's something deeply dysfunctional about how women typically relate to men in the here and now. TRP puts this in the framework of "this is how you work with psychology to make the dysfunction work for you," but some men respond to that diagnosis by deciding not to deal with it.

Is there some sexism there? Yes. It's very easy to jump from "these are very common problems in how women treat men" to "all women are [X]." It's a tendency that is demonstrated just as clearly by feminists as redpillers.

[Liriena]

Even if Kvatchdom's arguments are flawed, toxic masculinity is a real thing. I witness it first-hand on a regular basis. The toxic policing of men's masculinity by other men is real. And what's worse, sometimes it even manifests in spaces ostensibly created by and for men who've been hurt by it.

That's called gender policing, and both men and women do it. It IS wrong. Women gender police more than men do according to current science, to both men AND women.

The thing is, when women do it we call it "internalized misogyny" - she's the victim. When men do it we call it "toxic masculinity" - it's his fault. And this is true even though women do it more than men do it.

Because, socially, we view women as objects and men as actors. And this is also true in the feminist narrative as well - maybe even moreso.

That's not an entirely unfair point to make.

[Dorkland]

It's Africa. Nobody cares about Africa. - Some movie.

Well, yeah, but a whole lot of people in the west cared about those girls. I saw stories spun about how the Boko Haram are a fundamentalist group who wants to ban girls from education. Those stories failed to acknowledge they also want to ban boys from education, unless it's education in Sharia law and how to wield an AK-47. I'm not saying this concern for the girls was not warranted, but it breaks my heart to see boys burned alive given little attention. Where was Michelle Obama holding a sign for those boys?

My point also with the rape issue, that there's a lot of attention to the female victims and mention of rape culture in Africa, yet the same attention isn't afforded when males are also affected by that rape culture. We're blind to that type of male suffering, it's even a frequent topic of joking.