How is the advocacy of "men's rights" any more necessary or different from the advocacy of "white rights"?

SwanOfAvon22 · 2012-12-06T23:52:02+00:00

I don't think that a minority of people here oppose feminism; I think a majority do. And if you understood what our grievances are with feminism, and the political and social influence it has been able to exercise, you would understand why "men's rights" is necessary.

That having been said, I wouldn't self-identify as a MRA. I think egalitarian or secular humanist are great labels to have. There are just issues and injustices that are unique to men, and that go largely unaddressed, that this "movement" does a good job exposing and talking about. Women still face tons of issues too, and I would love it if they could be discussed without feminism's influence but...not possible at the moment.

Please read the sidebar links for a better/more comprehensive answer

ErasmusMRA · 2012-12-06T22:21:04+00:00

If you consider "white power" groups dangerous or racist (and maybe you don't), why isn't "male power" similarly situated or antagonistic?

Why is "white rights" and "white power" wrong but "black rights" and "black power" right?

Do you think white people don't face discrimination? My state has legalized discrimination against white men when it comes to hiring for government jobs. Universities in united states heavily discriminate against white applicants due to affirmative action. Do you think we should just "man up and take it"?

CricketPinata · 2012-12-06T22:22:04+00:00

I think you could ask the same thing about Feminism. Why Female rights, instead of just human rights, or equal rights?

The reality is that there are advocacy issues in regards to how Men are treated by the legal system, and many male issues that are not being directly dealt with by many other rights groups.

So where as Feminism campaigns for Women's rights, and watches out for when society mistreats, degrades, devalues, or stereotypes women, Men's Rights does the same thing in regards to men. It's supposed to be a balancing action, to cover all the bases.

Also, being a MRA doesn't preclude you from being a Human Right's advocate, or a Feminist. I consider myself to be fighting for Equal rights, when I see society mistreating Women, i'm ready to join the fight, when I see society mistreating Men, i'm there.

Also, "White Power" is totally disconnected from the concept of Men's Rights or Feminism. Mainstream groups of both do not aim for FEMALE or MALE SUPREMACY, they are there to stick up for Male's and Female's when they are mistreated by society. This isn't about dominance or control.

I know of no organizations that are focused on White's rights that aren't also linked to questionable racist groups, or who don't have a past of arguing for White Supremacy.

I don't see anyone here arguing for "Male Power" (If they have, the are usually ignored, or just trolls, i've never seen that as part of a mainstream MRA agenda), The entire focus of the group is "Men's Rights". This isn't about male domination, it's mostly wanting the legal system to treat Men and Women equally, and for Men to not be stereotyped as by default child abusers or sexual predators, etc.

I think that's something that everyone should be behind, treat everyone equally under the law, and don't stereotype anyone.

jolly_mcfats · 2012-12-06T23:25:31+00:00

just to chime in on what already seems an ongoing discussion... Specialization in activism is useful because it allows increased focus on a specific topic. Men's rights as a specialization in particular is useful because the immense conditioning that goes into males being disposable makes seeing problems addressing men difficult. Much like "privilege" is supposed to be invisible, restrictions that men experience are invisible unless called out.

Any topic that is considered at length will subdivide into a subset of topics. This is why considering "human rights" will lead you to consider "men's rights" "women's rights" "racism" "classism" etc...

SCCROW · 2012-12-06T23:41:25+00:00

I agree, that the concept seems a little "off".

I am also aware, that many laws are disgustingly biased in women's favor.

However; it takes a hatred of men - installed in women - to exercise such laws on a regular basis.

African Americans were given "rights" many years ago.

After than, they were still lynched and publicly beaten. Giving them rights did not do them a whole lot of good.

It wasn't until the hatred of African Americans died down that their place in society ascended.

I believe that men as a group are in the same predicament as African Americans were many years ago.

Giving them "rights" will do no good.

It is the hatred of men that needs to be eliminated.

That hatred stems from the slew of false statistics that feminism, the media and our politicians spread.

2012-12-07T00:23:34+00:00

If you consider "white power" groups dangerous or racist (and maybe you don't), why isn't "male power" similarly situated or antagonistic?

White power groups have a strange tendency to kill minorities and commit other acts of general nastiness. MRAs do not.

2012-12-07T01:29:41+00:00

EDIT: More broadly "why is men's rights necessary (as opposed to equal rights)?"

Why Feminism?

memymineown · 2012-12-06T22:40:42+00:00

Look at the sidebar. Can you think of any way white people are discriminated against(in America) which comes even close to some of the ways men are discriminated against?

I think feminism did some wonderful things for society. I support half of the population having equality over no one.

Men's Rights is necessary(as feminism was and still is in some parts of the world) because a certain subgroup of people is still discriminated against.

MikeHolmesIV · 2012-12-06T23:07:29+00:00

I don't consider myself to be a Mens Rights Activist, just as I don't consider myself to be a Feminist (I consider myself an egalitarian, I read this and a couple of feminist subreddits for perspective), but I hope I can answer this.

First off, I'd like to point out that your title is flawed, it implies that men are already far far elevated over women. I think a better description would be something like:

How is the advocacy of "men's rights" any more necessary or different from the advocacy of "hispanic rights"?

There is plenty of discrimination against both Black people and Hispanic people, maybe one side has it a bit better than the other, but it's not nearly as big of a disparity as there is between Black people and White people.

If you consider "white power" groups dangerous or racist (and maybe you don't), why isn't "male power" similarly situated or antagonistic?

Notice that it's not called "male power". Power implies a desire for elevation over other groups. Yeah, there are men out there who want to elevate men above women. There are even a few who post here, though they are usually called out and downvoted (as they should be).

Why "men's rights" as opposed to "equal rights," for instance?

The reason it is Men's Rights, is the same reason Latinos are concerned with Latino rights, and Black people are concerned with Latino rights, and so on. People tend to care the most about what affects them directly.

I understand that some (I won't say many, necessarily) of the people here really oppose modern feminism. But if their approach is wrong-headed, why respond with the same approach from the other direction? Do two wrongs make a right in this case?

Some people here are hypocrites, but let's focus on the majority here. I think that there are several issues people have with feminism, which do not apply to Men's Rights.

Mainstream feminist organizations often push legislation that actively elevates women over men, and fought legislation that would rectify inequalities. This is the case in healthcare, family court, etc. I don't have time to find the links on the legislation NOW has been pushing, but maybe someone else can.
Feminists sometimes try to marginalize men's issues. Because people who are active in women's issues outnumber people who are active in men's issues, it is reasonable to be concerned that mens issues would take the back-burner if MRAs were to be egalitarians instead.
Feminists sometimes try to appropriate men's issues as their own, marginalizing men in the process. For example: primarily men die in war. Given that, who do you think the primary victims of war are, men or women? Hillary Clinton's answer may surprise you!
Feminists often support unequal application of the law. For example, they will argue against the death penalty (so far, so good, in my opinion!) against women (wait, what? why should that qualifier even be added?)
Many feminists use social inequality as an excuse to create institutionalized inequality. For example, boardroom quotas, consideration being given towards applying title IX to engineering programs, etc. The whole "equal outcomes, not equal opportunities" thing becomes a severe safety issue in some professions, such as firefighting and in the military, where physical fitness standards are being dropped so as to be more inclusive.
Many feminists are against due process when it comes to crimes against women. Google the "Dear Colleague Letter", or ask other people here to provide more examples.
Many mainstream feminists do not distance themselves from the radical feminists. From what I hear, many women's studies courses downright embrace the radicals. This is contrasted to the MRA's, who tend to speak out against the radical misogynists.

Now, I have a concern here. Let's pretend that Men's Rights follows the same course that feminism did:

At first MRAs will be ignored, mocked, ridiculed, attacked, etc. Then they'll make some great victories! Maybe the draft will be abolished! Maybe shared custody will become the default! Maybe society will stop enforcing gender roles upon men (this is also a feminist issue, I'll grant that)! Maybe more government funding will go towards men's shelters! Maybe stay-at-home dads will be more widely accepted (this would help working women too!)!

But then, down the road, the MRAs have accomplished most of their big objectives. Will they focus on the remaining issues, and narrow their scope? Will they let themselves shrink? Probably not. They'd suffer bloat. They'd start pushing bullshit. Colleges enrollment is 60% female? Not anymore! The government is going to yank funding from any school that has more than a 5% split!

Basically, I think that feminism is somewhat in a bad place right now, and the main separation of Men's Rights and Feminism is only one of scale, and evolution.

NeuroticIntrovert · 2012-12-06T23:17:00+00:00

Disclaimer so I only have to say it once: This post only represents my views and those of whoever upvotes this, and does not necessarily reflect those of the entire movement or subreddit.

I have a belief that's spun off of 'Ozy's law.' My spin-off belief is this: for every advantage/privilege a group has, there is a corresponding disadvantage/disprivilege. It's not necessarily bigger, or smaller, or as widespread, or as harmful, but it exists.

For example, a commonly cited male advantage is that men, on average, make more money than women - and they do. One of the corresponding disadvantages is that men are more likely to be killed by their job than women.

I find that men's advantages and disadvantages, when bundled together, are comparable to women's bundle of ups and downs. At the very least, in my life as a man, the disadvantages my gender gives me have hurt me more than the advantages have helped me.

Men's rights is different from the advocacy of white rights because the 'man bundle' is closer to balanced out than the 'white bundle.' But remember that there are disadvantages in the 'white bundle.' I don't think a "white power" group is any better of an idea than a "male power" or "female power" or "black power" group. If someone's about rights, they're saying they want to be treated fairly; if they're about power, they're saying they want power.

So I'm not in favor of "white power" groups or the KKK. In principle, however, if a group of people got together and wanted to address issues uniquely affecting whites, I think that can be legitimate, if done right. I'd spend my energies elsewhere, though, but that's a personal matter.

For any social justice movement, I have only one rule that must be followed for me to consider it legitimate, and for me to not oppose it. That rule I apply to feminism, to the MRM, and to myself.

Do no harm: liberate whomever you wish, so long as you don't add to the oppression of others.

There are parts of feminism that fail that test; I have had enough bad, personal experiences with those parts of feminism (and my efforts to fight them), that I am no longer comfortable in feminist spaces. So I went looking for something else, and found the MRM. There are parts of the MRM that fail that test, and I use whatever reason, eloquence, and MRM-cred I have to get them to change or separate.

I think that so many people here oppose modern feminism, or some parts or forms of feminism (I'm in this category), because they've been hurt by it. Yes, feminism in general has done a lot to liberate women; they've eliminated some of the advantages in the man-bundle, and they've eliminated some of the disadvantages in the woman-bundle. And that's good!

The thing is, those bad parts of feminism have added some new things to men's disadvantages, and doubled up with mainstream society on things that were already there. In the meanwhile, feminism as a whole really hasn't done much on men's issues. So, some men get hurt by society; they become gender-literate and go looking for someplace that won't tell them to Be A Real Man. Since feminism is so big, that's what they tend to find; if they get the inclusive feminism that works on everyone's issues, they're set. If they get something else, they might start looking again and find the MRM.

The wide variety of feminisms, and their view on the place of men/men's issues in feminism, is confusing and potentially harmful to these men. Let me make an analogy:

If you pet a dog every day, it will be happy when it sees you.
If you kick a dog every day, it will be afraid when it sees you.
If you pet the dog on even numbered days, and kick the dog on odd-numbered days, it will be so stressed and anxious when it sees you, it won't know how to react, and it will gradually go mad.

If all the misandrist feminists stopped calling themselves feminists, I'd know how to react to the word 'feminist.' As it is, I have to stop and clarify what exactly one means when that word is used.

Pecanpig · 2012-12-07T00:53:08+00:00

Equal rights would be optimistic, but would probably get fucked up by feminists. Having a separate and distinct group which is NOT interested in female specific rights is necessary.

actanonverba8 · 2012-12-07T08:35:15+00:00

What's wrong with advocating for white rights?

rightsbot · 2012-12-06T22:10:19+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

ghebert001 · 2012-12-06T22:16:32+00:00

We're not using the same approach as feminism...under no circumstances does the men's rights movement want to keep women in pre-determined roles that serve to benefit only men or to censor any discussion or efforts to fight against injustices faced by women.

Title	How is the advocacy of "men's rights" any more necessary or different from the advocacy of "white rights"?
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	0
Comments	80
Date	December 6, 2012 10:08 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/14eoil/how_is_the_advocacy_of_mens_rights_any_more/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/how-is-the-advocacy-of-mens-rights-any-more.1007337 https://theredarchive.com/post/1007337

Comments