[Editor: Calling for "gender equality" actually does work out pretty well for everyone involved in the Nordic countries. However, it's a disaster here in the US. Why is that? I'll offer my own opinion in the next post, but Henry Laasanen's stance poses a question we should all think about, especially in regards to our own failures over the years in the US following sexual liberation.]

By Henry Laasanen

I am from Finland and we don’t use “men’s rights” terminology here. We use “equality for men” (EfM) type of speak. The masculist organization in Finland is called “Equality for men”.

Strategically it’s better to emphasize equality than rights, because equality is widely accepted goal and because the word “rights” could mean anything from equality to radical chauvinism.

I see all the time, how feminists use the MRA and MRM terminology to paint evil stereotypes of masculists.
For many people MRA terminology bring to mind angry and shouting conservative male, who demand more rights for men than for women.

EfM type on terminology sounds much more reasonable, justifiable and liberal.

MRA terminology gives the feminist too easy time to mix conservative Christians and Men’s equality activists to the same bunch.

It’s easy to ridicule someone, who demands rights for his group, but it’s not easy to ridicule someone, who demands equality. Very rare people are against equality.

In the last years have read many English articles, where evil stereotypes of MRA are very much alive without any connection to the reality of masculism. When I read the comment sections, majority of commentators don’t know anything about masculism – they just know the feminist made evil stereotype of conservative chauvinist who want take the right away from women.

I can say that “Equality for Men” terminology has worked very well here in Finland. We are immune to the kind of negative stereotyping that English speaking manosphere suffers all the time.

Maybe you have some advanced masculist media strategy, and you use MRA terminology to give easy target to generate publicity. Maybe any publicity is good publicity?

Anyway, I’m surprised by the lack of discussion of proper masculist terminology with different pros and cons.