~ archived since 2018 ~

Fighting feminism: let’s get practical

ErasmusMRA

December 9, 2012

3 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/activism/fighting-feminism-lets-get-practical/

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Fighting feminism: let’s get practical
Author	ErasmusMRA
Upvotes	3
Comments	38
Date	December 9, 2012 12:47 AM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/14ivhf/fighting_feminism_lets_get_practical/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/fighting-feminism-lets-get-practical.1007113 https://theredarchive.com/post/1007113

Comments

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points21 points 13 years ago* (42 children) | Copy Link

Wait, is this satire or a joke or something?

How do you know when a feminist is lying?

Her lips move.

Wow, way to keep it classy. How about, instead of spewing such bullshit and instead of saying such demeaning ad hominem insults and instead of claiming that the suffering of one invalidates that of the other, how about we concentrate on the issues themselves?

Feminists fight for equal rights. Men's rights activists fight for equal rights. In the end, both parties strive for equality and ameliorating gender-specific conditions. There are neo-feminists and men's rights activists alike. The actions of one outspoken minority should not thwart the actions for equality of the other.

Me, I'm an advocate for the rights of both genders. I'm completely supportive and educated about the issues of both parties. The two ideologies can coexist.

The war for men's rights isn't against feminism or female rights. It's against inequality. Yes, it can be against neo-feminists or extremists who seek to be superior over men or who seek to hurt men, but it is not against feminism as a whole.

Edit: If you disagree with my thoughts, please comment and argue with me rather than blindly downvoting. I would love to have a discussion about this and challenge my own viewpoints.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

There is so many things wrong with AVoiceForMen's website. It's fucking sickening to read through it. Most of it doesn't support equality. They like to think that all feminists are stupid, crazy, oppressing bitches.

That whole paragraph starting with "Lets go on the offensive" is offensive and very narrow minded. Not to mention there is quite a lot of hypocrisy and irony on the page alone.

To summarize my key points, I believe MRAs should:

Spend less time fighting feminism as an ideology, and less time debating with feminists.

This alone will never happen. This year alone, it's heavily increased.

Spend more time fighting the manifestations of feminism – collaborating with other MRAs on practical single-issue campaigns.

We already do this.

Name, shame and ridicule feminists.
Name, shame and ridicule feminists’ male collaborators.

Oh yes, let's support this. This will definitely make us look better! First it's harmless naming and shaming, then harmless mocking. We've all seen how that escalates.

Mike Buchanan, the editor sounds like a real prick of a person with a strong bias.

[–]FishFriend 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I really want to be able to present MRM as a positive, supportive group and it's hard to do that with sites like AVFM trumpeting this frustrating and ineffectual message.

Most of us do. It is hard when we got dozens of websites like AVFM which advocate hate and discrimination. We also have a good number of impressionable youth on this subreddit who take AVFM to heart. Then we have all the people who actively support, live and breath AVFM like it's the holy bible. This alone does nothing to help us, in fact only makes us look bad in public eyes.

These same people need to stop calling themselves MRA's and call themselves Anti-Feminists instead.

This whole thread is a mess of upvotes and downvotes. I guess I'm not surprised about this. It also looks like the article was edited and a good number of comments have been removed. No surprise there either.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Alright, here's the deal. Mainstream feminism's line is that they're fighting for equal treatment of women, and that is obviously a good thing. I'm ignoring fringe elements and sticking only to people and organizations that manage to actually get laws passed and policy changed. Some crazy's tumblr blog does not matter, even if the news is reporting on it as though it were mainstream feminism, because the news lies all the time. We'll even be generous enough to ignore packs of feminists who get together to rip down perfectly legal men's rights posters or get together in numbers of a hundred or more to physically block entrance to men's rights events. For now, we're concerned about what's demonstrably mainstream in that laws are actually changing because of it.

So the question we need to be examining is how much feminism is telling the truth. What actual policies have they passed which have required equal obligations of women, as opposed to which have granted them more entitlements? I should note that the latter isn't always bad, because you can genuinely be entitled to something, like (by definition) human dignity.

Feminism has given us:

-VAWA, which devotes mountains of resources to opening up still more domestic violence resources primarily or exclusively for women, while men, who make up half of DV victims, get nothing.

-DV laws that require the police to arrest the man regardless of circumstances and make it easy for a woman to have a man thrown out of the house he legally owns.

-Family courts that are biased dramatically in favor of women in divorce, handing them the children and ongoing income paid by the former husband even when they are clearly unstable.

-Innumerable charities dedicated towards helping women exclusively in third world countries when the condition of men is just as bad (but almost never reported upon).

-University rape laws that require the accused to prove their innocence rather than the accusers proving his guilt.

And that's off the top of my head. Now, that doesn't mean A Voice For Men doesn't carry a tone of revenge-fueled rage that I find uncomfortable (not the least because the seeds of feminism's current insanity were sown by exactly this kind of language being embraced in the 70s), but while the delivery might come off as unstable the actual message is actually pretty sound.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Thanks for your logical and rational arguments, even if they are counter to mine. I completely agree that we need to stick only to policy and government law, rather than tumblr blogs and fringe elements.

Okay, to begin, was it feminists or female rights movements who caused family courts to be dramatically biased in the favor of women? I would like citation and proof about this. I would claim that it's actually the lack of MRA that caused this, not the excess of FRA. Of course, this is an issue that I am extremely supportive of but I doubt that it was FRA that caused it.

As for the VAWA, I completely agree that men, who are 40% of the DV should get help and be supported. However, I would argue that just because laws are passed protecting a disadvantaged group, that doesn't mean that they are seeking to put down another disadvantaged group. This seems to be a problem caused by a lack of mens rights activists, rather than by feminism. I have never heard a (rational) FRA say "Male domestic abuse victims should get nothing and we should make it a law that this is so". Instead, they try and help one group that is at a disadvantage. And females are at a disadvantage here. Women are more likely than men to get abused and are more likely to get abused at a higher level. The fact that 1 in 4 women will experience domestic violence in their lifetime is sickening. Of course, this doesn't invalidate men's suffering but just because one injustice is targeted, doesn't mean that another injustice is invalidated or not supported.

Innumerable charities dedicated towards helping exclusively women in third world countries? In third world countries, the rights of women can be exponentially worse than the rights of men and yes, they should be ameliorated. Women are sold off like chattel in India. I'm not writing off the humanitarian issues of men but I am saying that the advocacy for equal female rights in countries where females cannot vote or go to school is a good thing. Of course, there are male injustices that need to be combated in those countries as well. However, just because a group exclusively helps combat an injustice, that does not mean that another injustice is invalidated or that the group doesn't support that injustice. Advocacy and support are different things. An advocacy group doesn't have the obligation to advocate for every specific cause, it is allowed to be niche. Is the Steven Louis Foundation evil or bad because it only helps AIDs victims? Should it have an obligation to raise awareness and fundraise for cancer as well, or is it just fulfilling a nice and a passion of its members?

Also, it is not a law that requires police to arrest the man regardless of circumstance. Not at all.

Each agency and jurisdiction within the United States has its own Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) when it comes to responding and handling domestic calls. Generally, it has been accepted that if the understood victim has visible (and recent) marks of abuse, the suspect is arrested and charged with the appropriate crime. However, that is a guideline and not a rule. Like any other call, domestic abuse lies in a gray area. Law enforcement officers have several things to consider when making a warrantless arrest: Are there signs of physical abuse? Were there witnesses? Is it recent? Was the victim assaulted by the alleged suspect? Who is the primary aggressor? Could the victim be lying? Could the suspect be lying?

There are Standard Operating Procedures to be considered. While false allegations of domestic abuse perpetuated by females is an issue, yes, this is not an issue that is caused by feminism but by lack of mens rights activism. No rational feminist alive supports those who falsely call rape or domestic abuse.

Ultimately, I argue that A Voice For Men is off-track. Fighting feminsim will not help ameliorate men's rights. Fighting female radicals, yes, who seek superiority will. But we should not confuse feminism and a lack of men's rights activism as roots for men's inequality. Just because one group seeks to help an injustice or help a group at a disadvantage, that doesn't mean that another injustice/group is invalidated and that their situations become worse.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

However, I would argue that just because laws are passed protecting a disadvantaged group, that doesn't mean that they are seeking to put down another disadvantaged group.

How could you possibly have come to this conclusion? This isn't like diseases or dictators where curing one doesn't (usually) do anything to help with the others. There are shelters out there that are totally capable of housing domestic violence victims, which were created to house domestic violence victims, and which refuse to house domestic violence victims based on their gibbly bits. That's like an example you'd give to a child to explain what discrimination is.

In third world countries, the rights of women can be exponentially worse than the rights of men

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about exclusive women-only havens being set up in Uganda and Sudan when men are suffering literally the exact same injustices up to and including rape. Again, the exact same stuff is happening to everyone and there is an explicit policy of helping women and leaving men to the dogs.

There are Standard Operating Procedures to be considered.

And if that SOP was "always arrest the black person" nobody would hesitate half a second to call it discrimination. If a man makes a DV call and the police show up to find him bloody and battered and the woman screaming in rage, they will forcibly remove the man from his own home. This despite the fact that the woman is clearly and decisively the perpetrator. Once again this is like an example you'd give to a child to explain why discrimination is wrong.

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Okay, I am again going to ignore the fact that abuse victims can be reminded of their abusers based on way the Hell more than just the sex of the person in quest and give you a simplified example of why VAWA is misandrist even if gibbly bits are somehow magically the only vector for triggering trauma (something I can tell you from personal experience is not remotely true, but whatever). We have enough resources to make ten domestic shelters. There are two options.

Egalitarian option: Men are 40% of DV victims, so we'll make four male-only shelters and six women-only shelters.

VAWA: We'll make ten women-only shelters and men can eat a dick.

You keep trying to argue that the second one isn't discrimination but the math isn't there. A mainstream feminist organization was asked where resources for DV should be allocated and their response was that nearly everything should go exclusively to women. That's discrimination, not because women having shelters somehow makes men worse off but because there are limited resources and when you spend them exclusively on one group the other group gets nothing.

You keep talking about vaguely defined third-world countries where things are worse than women. I put down specific country names a while ago because those places, Congo, Sudan, etc. etc., have very similar incidences of male rape victims as females. The exact same stuff totally is happening to everyone, and charities are decisively not available to men. It's particularly telling that you're talking about "workforce barriers" when the affected areas are inhabited by basically 100% dirt farmers since they're warzones caught in the crossfire between warlords and almost universally have little if any access to roads or vehicles to travel on them. Women aren't suffering from workforce or education barriers in these places because there is no workforce or education there, something which affects men exactly as badly as women. Again, this is not mentioning the rape or, for that matter, the fact that homosexual intercourse is illegal even if it's involuntary which often ends with these men totally rejected by their society while women who are victims of identical circumstances are often treated far more sympathetically.

The actual policy in my state and many others actually is to arrest the man regardless of any other circumstances. Regardless, these policies are rooted in the Duluth Model of domestic violence, a model which has significant support politically, which was created by a feminist (Ellen Pence), and which is based entirely in feminist theories of patriarchy as cause of abuse (despite actual psychiatrists pointing out that things like a bad environment growing up, alcoholism, and other things that actually exist are more plausible causes), so yes, feminism is directly responsible for that.

[–]theskepticalidealist -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerickBurton 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]DerickBurton 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jyasu -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerickBurton 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Feminists don't have an obligation to advocate for men's rights as well. Where is the female rights advocacy on this subreddit? MRA don't have an obligation either. Supporting a cause and fighting/advocating for a cause are two different things are not mutually exclusive.

Issues ameliorated with feminism:

Equal pay for women in the West and developing countries

Voting rights in the West and developing countries

Combat stigma against female sexuality in the West

Reproductive rights in the West and developing countries

Maternity leave right in the West

Gender-specific abortion in developing countries

Education rights in developing countries

Child trafficking in developing countries

Child bride and forced marriages in developing countries

Female genital mutilation in developing countries

Compare two hundred years ago with today, compare the inequalities of women and men, and you will see how utterly obtuse it is to say that feminists do not fight for equal rights.

Of course, this does not mean that men's rights should be ignored as a societal whole or anything of the sort. It's just that both ideologies are noble causes that seek to improve the world.

[–]theskepticalidealist 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There are two basic kinds of feminism today as I see it. You have the casual basic one "equal rights" feminist typically they just believe "feminism" to just mean equality and usually dont know anything about it. Then there is the rest that bases their feminism on "patriarchy theory" and "male privilege". They are not interested in equal rights, they are interested in putting women first in all things, even if its to the detriment of men. The few that actually accept men do have a gender specific issue and even accept it is a problem just say that "patriarchy affects men too!" and whats the best way to combat patriarchy? Focus entirely on women, of course! Thats why feminists are not interested in men or interested in helping men. When they use the word equality they use their own definition, for them the road to equality means focusing only on womans issues even if its to the detriment of men. Thats why they have to ignore and suppress the truth about violence and sexual abuse from women, for one example, or it will refelct poorly on women and make them seem less like victims and they cant have that. And for the hard sell... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o-OcTSeVcs

[–]Jyasu -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sixofthebest -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]ErasmusMRA[S] -6 points-5 points-4 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminists fight for equal rights where women have it worse. A lot of this is very poorly executed, because the bulk of it has to do with social attitudes these days and they still think the solutions can come from policymakers.

MRAs fight for equal rights where men have it worse.

I don't really care who has it worse 'overall' because a pissing contest to decide which movement matters least is only going to be detrimental to true equality. But for the sake of argument let's assume men have it worse - does that really mean women's rights don't matter? If so, let's fast forward to a time when the MRM has partially succeeded and areas where men were discriminated against have mostly been solved - issues remain but womens rights issues are now more numerous and more severe. Should the MRM dissolve until men are the 'oppressed' ones again?

Or would it be better to accept that both genders are discriminated against in some ways, and so long as it's genuine instances of discrimination that are being fought then that fight is still for equality?

[–]jundis 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ErasmusMRA[S] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Feminists don't have to advocate for men's rights. Where is the women's rights advocacy in this subreddit? MRA doesn't have an obligation for that either. Your statement is fallacious and logically flawed.

Should organizations against AIDs also have an equal obligation to fight cancer? Is the Steven Louis Foundation evil now too? Should people fighting for black rights also have an equal obligation to fight just as vocally as passionately for Chinese rights? No. They would be hypocritical to not support these movements but realize that support and advocacy are different. Feminists are advocates for female rights but that does not mean that they don't support male rights. Same goes for MRA.

Just because some people have a passion to combat an injustice, doesn't mean that another injustice is invalidated if they don't want to personally advocate for it.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

If they're not advocating for men's rights as well (and there's no reason they should be) they are instead arguing for women's rights.

That's only arguing for equality if you accept the notion that women are disadvantaged in every possible way (some do believe this but of course it is entirely wrong).

Likewise it'd be foolish to think MRAs are arguing for women's rights.

Should organizations against AIDs also have an equal obligation to fight cancer?

No. But no one would argue that AIDS activists are arguing equally for cancer victims as well as AIDS victims.

Right?

Is the Steven Louis Foundation evil now too?

Biased advocate =/= evil.

Should people fighting for black rights also have an equal obligation to fight just as vocally as passionately for Chinese rights?

Would you say that black rights advocates are fighting for equality by addressing issues affecting all racial groups or are they fighting to remove issues that primarily affect their group?

Feminists are advocates for female rights but that does not mean that they don't support male rights

Technically yes they could do both. In reality they don't. Or else you'd see them advocating for educational reform the moment women started going to college in greater numbers than men. Instead they sought to continue and expand the programs that led to women performing better than men academically. How is that equality? I don't blame them, they're looking out for themselves. But I'm not going to pretend they're equal advocates that place equality ahead of group interests.

We can make this really simple: there are many issues where men have it worse. Can you name a single one where feminists have taken up the fight to make men as least as well off as women?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Arguing for women's rights does not mean that equality is not upheld. Helping women who are disadvantaged does help equality. Feminism is not saying that only females should be helped to make things more equal, it is saying that females should be helped to make things more equal.

That's only arguing for equality if you accept the notion that women are disadvantaged in every possible way (some do believe this but of course it is entirely wrong).

This is an utter logical fallacy. How is this at all true? Helping a disadvantaged group does help equality. No one is saying that only this demographic should be helped and only through this route equality will be accomplished. There is inequality issue in every way of spectrum. Against social class, race, religion, disability, age, etc.

No. But no one would argue that AIDS activists are arguing equally for cancer victims as well as AIDS victims.

No one is arguing that feminists are also fighting for men's rights. We're arguing that they too fight for equality. Which they do. They're not saying that only through exclusively helping a certain demographic that equality will be reached but by helping those at a disadvantage in certain domains, they are striving for equality.

Likewise it'd be foolish to think MRAs are arguing for women's rights.

Do MRAs not claim to fight for equality in certain domains as well? Equality in resources for male domestic abuse, which is a huge issue? Equality in the eyes of the law when it comes to divorce court or custody agreements? Does it not too help equality? They are just taking a different route to do so and help, just as feminism does.

Technically yes they could do both. In reality they don't. Or else you'd see them advocating for educational reform the moment women started going to college in greater numbers than men. Instead they sought to continue and expand the programs that led to women performing better than men academically. How is that equality? I don't blame them, they're looking out for themselves. But I'm not going to pretend they're equal advocates that place equality ahead of group interests.

This entire paragraph is rooted in logical fallacy. Just because a group dose not advocate, that does not mean that a group does not support. That is not a feminist issue by definition, that is a MRA issue and there are female MRAs. That is not their * jurisdiction* and that doesn't mean that they don't want equality.

I volunteer for the Canadian Mental Health Association - does that mean that I don't want cancer to be cured as well, that I only care about mental illness? No. Of course not.

Equal advocates? Of course feminists are not equally advocating for men's rights. By definition, that is not what feminism is and is not their jurisdiction. You can be an advocate for a cause and combat equality without having to represent all parties and all groups. It's okay to have a niche, it's okay to target a specific demographic and its issues - it's more efficient that way as well.

Ultimately, no one is arguing that feminism is equally advocating for men's rights. That is not the definition of feminism. However, that does not mean that feminism seeks to demonize and go against men's rights in the slightest. The suffering of one does not invalidate the suffering of another. Equality can be sought by targeting specific niches and helping their causes, which is precisely what both MRA and feminists are doing.

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

In my view, fewer than 10% of women hold the ideological positions of gender feminists, and fewer than 10% of them are developing and driving feminist agendas in either a professional capacity, or as activists. Combining the two figures leads us to a stark realization. Fewer than 1% of women are driving feminist agendas.

This bothers me in particular. Well in my view 10% of women are gender feminists, 70% are brainless zombies, and 20% are actually aliens from the other end of the galaxy trying to keep intelligent life from evolving and successful societies from emerging so as to maintain their supremacy in the galaxy. /s

And no, let's not bash and insult feminists. We can be witty and point out their hypocracies but don't be demeaning. Stay rational and reasonable.

edit: I want to add that I do agree with the plea made in the article. Get practical and actively oppose feminist legislation.

[–]Pecanpig -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]Pecanpig -6 points-5 points-4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GudrunGut 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jack_gats 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link