Betsy DeVos to meet with MRAs

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

I'm curious about how many of those MRAs are regular contributors to the MGTOW and incel subreddits or talk unironically about "the red pill".

I don't have sources about that, and as far as I know most people don't have such sources, but...something tell me that most them are incels and that's the main reason of their "political activity" (so-called)
You nailed it, I think.
That could also partially explain their relentless support of sex robots, even if I personally think that in most cases that's much more about will to dominate women (imitations of women, since those persons seems unable to have an healthy relationship with a real woman) than about sexual frustration.

And have you any, you know, evidence of these assertions on your part?

[Liriena]

I don't have sources about that, and as far as I know most people don't have such sources, but...something tell me that most them are incels and that's the main reason of their "political activity" (so-called)
You nailed it, I think.
That could also partially explain their relentless support of sex robots, even if I personally think that in most cases that's much more about will to dominate women (imitations of women, since those persons seems unable to have an healthy relationship with a real woman) than about sexual frustration.

And have you any, you know, evidence of these assertions on your part?

To be fair, they are not assertions so much as they are speculations.

[Galloism]

And have you any, you know, evidence of these assertions on your part?

To be fair, they are not assertions so much as they are speculations.

Not even good assertions though.

Costa loves the concept of sex robots, but I've not seen much of anything else except from him more than my position of "yeah, that's probably inevitable" and my wife's position that once it can clean house and do dishes, she's buying one if I haven't already.

[Costa Fierro]

I'm curious about how many of those MRAs are regular contributors to the MGTOW and incel subreddits or talk unironically about "the red pill".

And what if they did? What's it to you?

[Costa Fierro]

r/menslib, a generally good and constructive subreddit when it comes to these things, has about 23,000 subs. r/exredpill has about 2,600.

Menslib is basically just male feminists masquerading as "reasonable" human beings. They're basically just bluepilled orbiters of women who think being nice to them will get them laid.

The toxic and hateful communities are absolutely larger than the groups of people discussing issues constructively, and if you cared about being constructive you'd recognize that that's a problem.

Why is it a problem? The "toxic" and "hateful" communities would not exist if there wasn't a hugely anti-male bias that exists in Western society. There wouldn't be those communities if we weren't being thrown under the bus under the name of "progress" by spineless governments who roll over for feminists to pursue that sweet sweet female voter demographic.

Not even good assertions though.

Costa loves the concept of sex robots, but I've not seen much of anything else except from him more than my position of "yeah, that's probably inevitable" and my wife's position that once it can clean house and do dishes, she's buying one if I haven't already.

To be honest, I haven't said anything else because nothing else has come up. I can't make the argument I want to make, because it would just piss too many people off.

[Tahar Joblis]

And have you any, you know, evidence of these assertions on your part?

To be fair, they are not assertions so much as they are speculations.

They're "speculations" in the sense that they're intended to be taken as broad smears. And they're not original smears, either. Shall we proceed to speculate what proportion of feminists are 700 pounds with 10 or more cats waiting to devour them after they fall down the stairs? Perhaps we should speculate on how often you rape small children? Senator, have you stopped beating your wife? These sorts of "speculations" are simply weasel-worded attacks.

Claiming that MRAs are sexual losers is a standard tactic. About 40-50 years ago, it was a form of attack very commonly employed against feminists. It still lingers in anti-feminist circles today. You want to talk about how feminists are hairy, fat, and just plain ugly women who can't get laid and are taking it out on men? Great! There's an AM radio talk show for you to call into somewhere! It's an ad hominem attack, and it works wonderfully as a method of trying to push your point as long as your audience isn't thinking clearly. Same bullshit, different outlet.

It's common enough that on a widely circulated list of 16 shaming tactics employed by feminists against MRAs, this sort of bullshit is a central common theme in no less than 4 of them. See Code Tan, Code Pink, Code Lavender, and Code Purple on that list.

It's bullshit. It's an implied ad hominem. And the truth is, the fact that it's an implied ad hominem speaks volumes about the degree of sexist shaming aimed at male sexuality. Men are shamed for being too promiscuous - "fuckboi" being the slur du jour - or for not having sex enough. Whatever men are doing, if a woman is unhappy, it's wrong as far as feminists are concerned. Equality is not putting upon men the narrow Victorian tread of having sex with exactly the right number of people, no more and no less, while liberating women from those narrow expectations.

And do you know what? At the end of the day, the pickup artists - those assholes that feminists persistently insist on pretending are MRAs - are getting laid. They're getting laid because they're making it a priority above and beyond things like ethical behavior or meaningful relationships, but they're getting laid nonetheless, and they're laughing all the way to the bed as feminists madly conflate men going their own way, pick-up artists, and MRAs.

[Costa Fierro]

/TheRedPill has nothing to do with MRAs though. They're different ideologies with different goals and, in fact, generally dislike each other on general principle.

TheRedPill is sorta related and sorta isn't. It used to be a place that was related to the MRA, and "swallowing the red pill" did sort of mean that you did end up disliking women, or at the very least recognizing the kind of social double standards between women and men and who actually wanted to do something about it. These days it's just filled with PUA's, traditional conservatives and gym addicts who think the only solution to a man's problems is to go to the gym and "lift". A lot of people have pretty much said it's gone downhill in that respect, mainly because they've gone from giving a shit about men's rights to worshipping women (or pussy worshipping, whichever you feel suits).

Funnily enough, they seem to hate MGTOW types because they don't think we're pussies who won't "man up", hit the gym and find a good woman to settle down with.

You might have well as referred to r/communism to point out the popular opinion of feminists when it comes to TRP.

Nah, /r/feminism is pretty close. There's usually some sort of bullshit you can find on the front page. Recently it was a picture of Maisie Williams and one of her quotes saying that society should start referring to non-feminists as "sexist".

Also, MensLib is pretty disgusting as a reddit. They frequently censor information regarding female perpetration of rape and domestic violence or play down and dismiss it. You'll see lots of deletions on almost any thread on the subject. They use nice language and avoid swearing, but their actions are pretty horrible.

As I said, they're male feminists masquerading as decent people.

[Kvatchdom]

MRA just seems pointless and made up of either cringy teens or angry adults. There is no reason for the movement to exist other than to combat supposed feminism in power, and turning the other side ever more radical.

MRAs exist to combat sexist stereotypes against men, and they're about equivalent to feminists in my eyes.

That is to say, there's plenty of relevant points, plenty of bullshit, lots of loud assholes, and there's always someone who hates or loves them without knowing anything about them.

You know, feminists, but with dicks. That's a good sum up.

Eh, it feels like they expand on their own stereotypes. They almost always ignore that the male suicide and incarceration rates and all that is rooted in the toxic side of cultural masculinity, and isn't caused by the evil feminists.

[Liriena]

I'm curious about how many of those MRAs are regular contributors to the MGTOW and incel subreddits or talk unironically about "the red pill".

And what if they did? What's it to you?

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.

[Liriena]

To be fair, they are not assertions so much as they are speculations.

They're "speculations" in the sense that they're intended to be taken as broad smears. And they're not original smears, either. Shall we proceed to speculate what proportion of feminists are 700 pounds with 10 or more cats waiting to devour them after they fall down the stairs? Perhaps we should speculate on how often you rape small children? Senator, have you stopped beating your wife? These sorts of "speculations" are simply weasel-worded attacks.

Claiming that MRAs are sexual losers is a standard tactic. About 40-50 years ago, it was a form of attack very commonly employed against feminists. It still lingers in anti-feminist circles today. You want to talk about how feminists are hairy, fat, and just plain ugly women who can't get laid and are taking it out on men? Great! There's an AM radio talk show for you to call into somewhere! It's an ad hominem attack, and it works wonderfully as a method of trying to push your point as long as your audience isn't thinking clearly. Same bullshit, different outlet.

It's common enough that on a widely circulated list of 16 shaming tactics employed by feminists against MRAs, this sort of bullshit is a central common theme in no less than 4 of them. See Code Tan, Code Pink, Code Lavender, and Code Purple on that list.

It's bullshit. It's an implied ad hominem. And the truth is, the fact that it's an implied ad hominem speaks volumes about the degree of sexist shaming aimed at male sexuality. Men are shamed for being too promiscuous - "fuckboi" being the slur du jour - or for not having sex enough. Whatever men are doing, if a woman is unhappy, it's wrong as far as feminists are concerned. Equality is not putting upon men the narrow Victorian tread of having sex with exactly the right number of people, no more and no less, while liberating women from those narrow expectations.

And do you know what? At the end of the day, the pickup artists - those assholes that feminists persistently insist on pretending are MRAs - are getting laid. They're getting laid because they're making it a priority above and beyond things like ethical behavior or meaningful relationships, but they're getting laid nonetheless, and they're laughing all the way to the bed as feminists madly conflate men going their own way, pick-up artists, and MRAs.

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

[Liriena]

As I said, they're male feminists masquerading as decent people.

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

[Costa Fierro]

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?

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

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

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.

[Yortium Allanstan]

A group that doxxes women who accused someone of rape and had their case dismissed by campus authority being included as an advocacy group on talks about how sexual assault affects people evokes my natural disgust reaction. Hence, yuck.

You can never trust any description of men's rights groups from hostile sources. They are frequently false, misleading, and typically both.

In this case, the description of "doxxing" points towards a page that does not exist on the website of a state chapter of the national organization, and are centered around one particular UNC student, Landen Gambill, who publicized her own identity in a bid to pursue vengeance against her alleged rapist (or harassed ex-boyfriend, depending on who you believe) following his exoneration.

"Doxx" implies that her identity was private, rather than being splashed all over the news already. This non-doxxing event by a state chapter is then used to discredit the national organization. Hatchet job.

EVERY ARTICLE THAT IS CRITICAL OF MRAS IS A HATCHET JOB!!!!!!!!

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

And what if they did? What's it to you?

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.

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.

[Costa Fierro]

I'd say far more MRAs are merely asserted by others to be involuntarily celibate than claim to be.

Strictly speaking, the only people within the manosphere who call themselves "involuntarily celibate" are incels. The remainder either embrace celibacy, which is referred to as "going monk" or do every bit in their power to use what they refer to as "female nature" against women.

The reason why MRA's are considered to be "hapless virgins" and are shamed for their virginity (or insinuated virginity) is because young men generally are shamed for being virgins above a certain age, and the older a man gets, the more shameful it is for him to be a virgin (religious men being exempt). Because a lot of men take their lack of success with women personally, shaming and mocking them provokes reactions, thus feeding the feminist narrative that the MRA movement is filled with violent, abusive misogynists.

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.

It's way more than that. Men are dropping out of relationships because they don't feel that the benefits, largely the sex, do not outweigh the risks. And it's not limited to child support. It involves women being able to make false domestic abuse and rape claims and the police almost universally siding with the women. It involves avoiding divorce in marriages and palimony in long term cohabitation. Virginity is related to that, although there are a lot of people within the MGTOW community at least that would rather have one night stands with women rather than engage in any form of relationship with them.

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.

What do you mean by overlap? The Red Pill and MGTOW are related. MGTOW feeds off the Red Pill, but does not necessarily support it. It's a commonly held view that in order to become MGTOW, you have to "swallow the red pill" and then decide that relationships and women simply are not worth the risks to personal happiness and satisfaction and that ultimately it's a rejection of society's expectations of men and their roles in relationships. By rejecting marriage and relationships, that is a manifestation of MGTOW in of itself.

[Galloism]

MRAs exist to combat sexist stereotypes against men, and they're about equivalent to feminists in my eyes.

That is to say, there's plenty of relevant points, plenty of bullshit, lots of loud assholes, and there's always someone who hates or loves them without knowing anything about them.

You know, feminists, but with dicks. That's a good sum up.

Eh, it feels like they expand on their own stereotypes. They almost always ignore that the male suicide and incarceration rates and all that is rooted in the toxic side of cultural masculinity, and isn't caused by the evil feminists.

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.

[Bakery Hill]

As I said, they're male feminists masquerading as decent people.

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.

[Kvatchdom]

Eh, it feels like they expand on their own stereotypes. They almost always ignore that the male suicide and incarceration rates and all that is rooted in the toxic side of cultural masculinity, and isn't caused by the evil feminists.

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 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 and higher female domestic violence victims and the such.

[Imperializt Russia]

Eh, it feels like they expand on their own stereotypes. They almost always ignore that the male suicide and incarceration rates and all that is rooted in the toxic side of cultural masculinity, and isn't caused by the evil feminists.

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. 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.

[Imperializt Russia]

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.

^^^^^

[Calladan]

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. 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.

[Ors Might]

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.

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?

[Dorkland]

I'm no fan of Devos or Trump but I think it's only fair to hear all sides before confronting an issue and I hope she will be open-minded to hearing both.

[Tahar Joblis]

They're "speculations" in the sense that they're intended to be taken as broad smears. And they're not original smears, either. Shall we proceed to speculate what proportion of feminists are 700 pounds with 10 or more cats waiting to devour them after they fall down the stairs? Perhaps we should speculate on how often you rape small children? Senator, have you stopped beating your wife? These sorts of "speculations" are simply weasel-worded attacks.

Claiming that MRAs are sexual losers is a standard tactic. About 40-50 years ago, it was a form of attack very commonly employed against feminists. It still lingers in anti-feminist circles today. You want to talk about how feminists are hairy, fat, and just plain ugly women who can't get laid and are taking it out on men? Great! There's an AM radio talk show for you to call into somewhere! It's an ad hominem attack, and it works wonderfully as a method of trying to push your point as long as your audience isn't thinking clearly. Same bullshit, different outlet.

It's common enough that on a widely circulated list of 16 shaming tactics employed by feminists against MRAs, this sort of bullshit is a central common theme in no less than 4 of them. See Code Tan, Code Pink, Code Lavender, and Code Purple on that list.

It's bullshit. It's an implied ad hominem. And the truth is, the fact that it's an implied ad hominem speaks volumes about the degree of sexist shaming aimed at male sexuality. Men are shamed for being too promiscuous - "fuckboi" being the slur du jour - or for not having sex enough. Whatever men are doing, if a woman is unhappy, it's wrong as far as feminists are concerned. Equality is not putting upon men the narrow Victorian tread of having sex with exactly the right number of people, no more and no less, while liberating women from those narrow expectations.

And do you know what? At the end of the day, the pickup artists - those assholes that feminists persistently insist on pretending are MRAs - are getting laid. They're getting laid because they're making it a priority above and beyond things like ethical behavior or meaningful relationships, but they're getting laid nonetheless, and they're laughing all the way to the bed as feminists madly conflate men going their own way, pick-up artists, and MRAs.

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.

Of course, feminists are encouraged to conflate the personal and the political, 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.

You can never trust any description of men's rights groups from hostile sources. They are frequently false, misleading, and typically both.

In this case, the description of "doxxing" points towards a page that does not exist on the website of a state chapter of the national organization, and are centered around one particular UNC student, Landen Gambill, who publicized her own identity in a bid to pursue vengeance against her alleged rapist (or harassed ex-boyfriend, depending on who you believe) following his exoneration.

"Doxx" implies that her identity was private, rather than being splashed all over the news already. This non-doxxing event by a state chapter is then used to discredit the national organization. Hatchet job.

EVERY ARTICLE THAT IS CRITICAL OF MRAS IS A HATCHET JOB!!!!!!!!

Not every single one, no, but this one is, and I've explained in detail why. Which is then summarized in the post you were responding to.

Like I said, the national NCFM organization is being criticized on the basis of a page on a state chapter's website ... which page does not appear to exist as described ... for that website publicizing the identity of someone who publicized their own identity. All the other organizations are being criticized entirely on the basis of expressing dissenting opinions from feminist dogma.

[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.

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.