Out of curiosity, why is it okay for MRAs to generalize feminists, but not the other way around? I want to learn!

Celda · 2012-01-31T18:59:32+00:00

Ok.

On MRAs

Population:

There are probably less than 100,000 active MRA's globally. I'll define active as 1) aware of discrimination, 2) discussing it online, 3) lobbying or campaigning for social change via protest groups 4) researching and publishing pro-male or feminist-critique literature in academia. Of 3 and 4, which are the most important groups for change, there are probably less than 3-5,000, and of those a small minority are the one's able to accomplish most of the more vocal tenets. This is not to say the rest aren't trying, but they don't have the necessary connections, experience, occupations, or lobbying platforms that a small few do [think people like Warren Farrel, Paul Elam, the founders of New Male Studies Journal, Several Aussie Father's groups like Fathers4Equality, etc]

The vast majority of MRAs do not participate in protests, although they might donate financially to organizations, or are attempting to be active/are active in academia. Most of the men who would consider themselves to be MRAs because they've witnessed discrimination, or because they've experienced discrimination, aren't considering themselves MRAs because they don't know about it.

On core principles:

As an extremely small movement [your average Occupy movement of a top 20 US city is more active, and has more people than the entirety of the Men's Rights Movement,] we have an pretty inclusive policy at the moment. Experience discrimination? C'mon down and join us. We have no spokesman, no chairperson, no voice for our qualms. We, like most early movements, lack leadership and guidance. There is no critical mass in the immediate future.

Our principles stand on seeking equality. Equality of child custody [and thus child support payments,] equality of alimony [or destruction of,] equality in crime sentencing, equality in DV funding, equality in Cancer funding, equality in the workplace... the list goes on. Mainly we want acknowledgment of the demonisation of men and boys, and the recognition that males suffer, have always suffered, and the dismissal of the false mythos that men have always oppressed women [even when they protected them.]

The problem is that as a new movement, with diffuse principles, with small membership, the only contingency is that you identify yourself as one. You'll see why this is different from feminism in a moment.

TL;DR about MRA's: MRAs are extremely different in their principles, we don't agree on our own principles, and we've only just started being activist in the last 20 years or so, and mostly in the last 10 on the internet.

On Feminists

Population:

There are far more that 100,000 feminists involved in academia and government globally. NOW has over 500,000 and growing. Here is a small list globally, but do keep in mind there is a slight difference between a woman's group, and a feminist organization, even if that difference is difficult to discern for your average man or woman. There are self professed and active feminists in every western nation's government, at all levels ranging from the Judiciary to Parliaments/Congresses, to every level of state bureaucracy. They are not endemic, nor are they representative of the entirety of government, but they are there, and they actively lobby for legislation [and they achieve this goal.] Some even have active [and represented] feminist political parties.

In Academia almost every western university will have a Feminist arm. It may be the Women's Studies program, it may be called Gender studies [which is hilarious because there is no study of the male,] it might simply be called Feminist Studies. In some Universities, depending on its culture and political leanings, the entire liberal arts branch of the university system may have feminist leanings. Feminists are involved in every Domestic Violence program, in every campus rape program, in every family court system at some level, either by starting it, heading it, or comprising most of the members [or all 3.]

On core principles:

Feminism, unlike the Men's Rights movement, has core principles and tenets that make up the foundation of its ideology. The MRM only has "we want equality," Feminism has a full blown ideology and rationalization for this ideology. It has an academic field that actively studies and pursues these tenets. It has researchers, authors, journal publications, books, magazines, or sections in non-feminist publications.

For the purposes of brevity, I'll simplify it [and yes I must generalize here,] but feminism's core principles are that there is a difference in the way men and women are treated in society, there has always been a difference. Feminist theory posits it is a direct result of the Patriarchy social system, and that it oppresses women in favor of men. The authors and distributors of these theories have had a direct impact on legislation of governments all over the world. They affect court decisions, laws, business practices, and academic institutions.

I've said many times that these are feminists. If you took a course in college [or several,] or you self identify as feminist because of blogs you read, or merely because you are a woman, you are not a feminist. Being pro-choice, doesn't make you a feminist. Feminists are the one's that make the policies of inequality, that write the literature of demonisation, that see oppression everywhere. There are millions and millions in the places that matter.

You are not a Republican or a Democrat if you watch certain news programs, or only agree on some of the issues. While they may divide on specific legislation or courses of action for an issue, they have key tenets and core principles that bind them, and that they all agree on. You are not a feminist if you don't agree with the oppression of women everywhere by all men. The key tenets of feminism AFFECT FAMILIES, MEN WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN. The key tenets of feminism actively fight to deny 50/50 custody legislation [NOW in the US and groups in Australia have done this.] They actively fight to demonise men with the use of false statistics or denial of statistics in rape and domestic violence campaigns [Active in every western country, specific US examples are the Duluth Model and the 1 in 4/1 in 5 rape statistic.] They actively fight to promote a wage gap that does not exist. They actively fight to keep the image that women are oppressed by males.

You are not a feminist if you don't know about the origins or the current actions of your movement, and in fact I'd call you ignorant and foolish if you didn't want learn about this.

TL;DR about Feminists: Feminists have millions of members in the places that count: governments, NGO's, and academia. They have large amounts of funding, from members, non-members, and governments. They have a specific platform and specific core principles that they abide by.

TL:DR about my wall of text: When we "generalize" about feminists, we are not generalizing, we are speaking specifically about the feminists that affect legislation, public policy, court decisions, and write anti male academic literature. If you are an average forum goer, who has learned from feminism because you took a couple of courses, or read some blogs, and self-identify, I don't consider you a feminist. I just consider you ignorant. This might piss you off, and it should. Never join a movement that you don't understand, whose leaders do things you wouldn't approve of, and about whose history you are ignorant.

girlwriteswhat · 2012-01-31T18:08:54+00:00

Part of it I think is the ideological basis of feminism.

Some prerequisites for "membership" seem to be a belief in systemic misogyny/discrimination against women, patriarchy theory, socially normalized gendered violence against women, male privilege and rape culture. You pretty much need to believe in a majority of those to self-identify as feminist.

Because of that belief, feminists can be generalized in the same way you can generalize that Christians believe Christ was the son of God, he died on the cross for our sins, was resurrected, etc, etc.

It is from those theories (which are TOTAL bunk in most respects, and provably so) that you get all the different arms of feminism from the radical man-hating lesbian separatists, the SCUM followers, the sex-positives, and even coffee shop feminists.

Just like Christian dogma gives rise to "Christmas Christians", Jehovah's Witness, nice, churchy people, Mother Teresa, and the Westboro Baptist Church.

Even feminists who are more moderate in their views of WHAT society looks and looked like seem to be misguided as to the WHY behind it. Because of this, their worldview, advocacy and activism will always be rooted in bias.

I don't know that there's a central dogma behind the MRM. If there is a "dogma" that can be attributed to it, I would guess it might be evolutionary psychology, because those theories are a little less nebulous and a little more scientifically verifiable than any kind of sociologica or political worldview.

And frankly, the more I think about feminism in the context of evolutionary psychology, the more I see how the basic theories all seem to play out in how feminists (male and female) and social conservatives see the world and gender (there are some very striking similarities in their inability to reason past their knee-jerk beliefs, regardless of the surface differences).

The MRM is more fact-based in its view of the problem than feminism has EVER been, even among those who don't subscribe to evolutionary or biological bases for the way society organizes itself and the solutions that are necessary.

I don't think the MRM would be upset at being generalized as a fact-based movement for equal rights, opportunities and protections. Generalizing them all as misogynists or traditionalists or assholes who want women back in the kitchen or men desperate to hold onto their privilege is a little different.

The_Patriarchy · 2012-01-31T20:22:17+00:00

It's probably not okay to generalize. I've seen MRAs say some ridiculous things about feminists before which fly in the face of reason. Shit that's on par with the most ridiculous characterizations of the MRM spewed by some feminists. That being said, there's a bit more leeway because, despite seeming like two sides of the same coin, feminism and the MRM are two very different beasts.

What does it take to actually be an MRA? Advocacy for the rights of men. That's it. A person advocating equal rights for men has as much a claim to the title "MRA" as a person advocating special rights for men. Feminism, on the other hand, is a particular ideology. One must accept the central tenets of feminism before one can be a feminist. Simply arguing for women's rights does not make one a feminist. One has to believe that women, as a class, are disadvantaged relative to men in our society (i.e. "Patriarchy"), and that equality can only come about by rectifying that disadvantage (i.e. advantaging women and/or disadvantaging men). So while there may be a variety of feminisms, they will all share these central beliefs...they just might disagree on the specifics (e.g. how women are disadvantaged, how to advantage them, etc.). Basically, "MRA" is a description of one's actions, while "feminist" is a description of one's beliefs. As such, certain generalizations about MRAs (especially the beliefs of MRAs) are less likely to be accurate, than similar generalizations about feminists.

There's a weird history between the MRM and feminism that most people don't seem to grasp, and it underlies a lot of the hostility from MRAs towards feminists. In its infancy, the MRM was populated BY feminists (like Warren Farrel). They tried to operate within feminism and were summarily dismissed. They were told they were co-opting the hard work of feminists, etc. So they set out on their own and weren't very successful at first...until the internet came around. Now that the MRM is gaining steam, feminists have been trying to take it back. By pointing these issues out, and highlighting the damage caused by feminism-inspired laws/double-standards/etc., the MRM has become a threat to two central tenets of feminism, and they want to place it all in the ideologically-safe context of "these things are bad, but women have it worse" and "patriarchy hurts men too".

2012-01-31T19:49:54+00:00

First get feminists to have something remotely resembling consensus about what feminism is - then come back to this argument.

... and no... "Feminism is about equality" is pure horseshit.

CedMon · 2012-01-31T17:09:58+00:00

Different people have different standards? I personally don't like the generalization of groups either and I tend to downvote comments that do.

SpeakToTheSky · 2012-01-31T19:15:58+00:00

When I refer to Feminists, I refer to persons who identify as Feminists.

I'm not sure what other basis to identify them on, because Feminism is a word that currently has about 1.5 bazillion definitions that depend on the mood of the Feminist one asks at that particular time of day. It is impossible to constructively discuss an ideology that shapeshifts as wildly and unpredictably as Feminism.

Therefore, since Feminists have completely failed to present a coherent and succinct definition, I have to define a Feminist as a person who identifies as a Feminist.

Beyond that, I think "patriarchy theory" is something that generally connects Feminists. But even then, I'd get a hundred feminists shouting "not all feminists are like that."

TracyMorganFreeman · 2012-01-31T19:51:17+00:00

Feminists tend to believe in feminist ideology while mra's dont tend to be rapists/abusers/whatever typical false accusation of violence against women the generalizing feminist happens to be making.

ExpendableOne · 2012-01-31T21:15:14+00:00

Men's rights activism does not require anyone to label, or define, themselves as a "man's rights activist". The men's right activism doesn't really have any predefine sets of ideologies or doctrines, it is just a term used to represent advocacy towards male issues(just like "women's rights activism" would be). Feminism is more than just a cause or a term used to represent specific social issues, it is an identity; an identity that brings with it a tremendous amount of history, ideology and expectations(which are misandric and destructive at that, especially when you consider that a large part of feminism's success comes from this sense of anti-male solidarity). Even those who claim that their own personal brand of feminism does not adhere to those ideologies(something which is generally done in ignorance; calling yourself a nazi, while personally redefining the term as egalitarianism, isn't really using the term properly or doing themselves any favor) are still just demonstrating an unwarranted, and inherently sexist, sense of solidarity towards the word and it's meaning(not to mention perpetuate the false notion that feminism is an accurate way to present equality). The terms "men's rights activist" or "women's rights activist" are neutral, and compatible with any other possible personal, religious, political or social belief; "feminism" is not.

Shattershift · 2012-02-01T01:09:27+00:00

I guess I only really disagree with that second part being true. If something reflects the majority mindset, you're not too far off base with just making the assumption.

The thing is, MRA's are generalized as angry and belligerent, a phenomenon none of us care for. However, given the large role of anger in regards to MR issues, that sort of thing ends up being pretty reliable. The movement is regrettably prone to abrasive and/or insular behaviour.

It's perfectly understandable that this happens and why, but it still does a decent portion of harm to the whole matter. I imagine the MRM could do a lot of good for itself in steadfastly maintaining a calm and moderate demeanor.

liah · 2012-01-31T17:19:42+00:00

MRAs do not have a set doctrine based around a specific deconstructionist theory that bases all cases of gender inequity around a system of female supremacy. Patriarchy, on the other hand--and a plethora of other theories--are integral to feminist dialogue. The only thing that links MRAs is seemingly:

"Shit's fucked up for dudes in some areas."

You're conflating ideologues with activists.

liah · 2012-01-31T17:42:27+00:00

Most of us don't. The problem happens when the feminists that we do hate get to slide by under the guise of "equal rights" when they obviously aren't, because other feminists just say "Oh we aren't all like that." Yet, those same feminists will not vilify the blatant man haters. People like those exposed in the agent orange files (that basically say men should be eradicated) should be scorned by other feminists, yet they get to sit under the radar. We also don't go by words. Saying you're for equal rights does not hold weight with us. We want people ot prove that they aren't just saying they're for equal rights, yet focus almost solely on those of women. Many feminists (that I have come into contact with anyway) will say they are for Men's Rights, but then basically justfiy somewhat ignoring them because "women have it worse!" or using biased/outdated statistics (As in "facts" from womenareoppressed.org). Either that, or they just withdraw back to the "Oh, that's the fault of the patriarchy." type of response. I find it silly to generalize ALL feminists into one category, but those that want to be for Men's Rights need to prove it.

Also, "feminism" shouldn't be the term used for "equal rights". If a feminist is really for equal rights, they are a humanist, and the same applies to a MRA. If people really do want to be equal, they should have no problem leaving the term feminist (or masculist, etc), for something that is gender neutral, like egalitarian or humanist.

maximumheh · 2012-01-31T17:34:30+00:00

Why is it okay for you to generalize about MRAs feeling that it's okay for MRAs to generalize about feminists?

(jokes aside, it is pretty annoying to see "FEMINISTS ARE:" and "FEMINISTS DO:" posts)

ghebert001 · 2012-01-31T18:57:30+00:00

I think generalizations have a place in discussion as long you don't try to pass it off as a fact. Some of things people say about men or women can't be proven because there aren't any studies or statistics...people share their own experiences and they aren't wrong in saying men or women do certain things. It may not match your own personal experience, but again, it doesn't mean that the person whose personal experience is different than your own is wrong.

What's wrong is saying all men or all women do/say certain things. When feminists say "All men are potential rapists" vs MRAs saying "Most women are manipulative" there's a difference. Using 'most' implies that some are and some aren't.

I think generalizations that have some truth to them are important and shouldn't be dismissed...they should be discussed.

C0CKPUNCHER · 2012-01-31T18:51:46+00:00

Feminism has actual leaders and actual results, to call yourself a feminist is to support these by definition, much like being a tory supporter means answering for Cameron's actions. Mens rights has no power or actions to be responsible for. It's the difference between being a peta supporter and an animal rights supporter. Notice nobody here generalizes about womens rights supporters.

JeremiahMRA · 2012-01-31T18:10:01+00:00

Generalizations are fine as long as they're accurate. No one claims they apply to all members of a group.

oomod · 2012-01-31T20:02:12+00:00

http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueFeminism/comments/h9gig/feminism_nebulousness_and_the_charter/

Scott2508 · 2012-01-31T18:08:18+00:00

there is a general difference, I generalise when talking about feminism , I admit as do the vast majority of men here that there are good women who for some god forsaken reason call themselves feminist a courtesy that most who talk about MRA's dont afford us.

sixofthebest · 2012-02-01T05:44:50+00:00

I don't generalize feminists, I generalize the movement.

2012-02-01T14:02:20+00:00

Oh no a concern troll

2012-01-31T18:22:19+00:00

Some generalisations are fair, and some are unfair, and it's partly subjective.

Now, since you haven't given actual examples, it's difficult to talk about why a particular generalisation about feminists might be fair and why a particular generalisation about MRAs might be unfair. Or not: I'm not going to claim that everything that's ever been said on the MRA side of things is infallible by any means.

liah · 2012-01-31T17:43:47+00:00

Grow up. You cannot have a discussion without generalizing as individuals are always different.

But that is a very deep thing I said up there, it's a philosophical concept and is the basis of logic.

Your question shows you lack an understanding of logic or your a troll.

I vote troll.

NiceGuysSTFU · 2012-01-31T18:20:06+00:00

Because mens are specialier than womens.

Title	Out of curiosity, why is it okay for MRAs to generalize feminists, but not the other way around? I want to learn!
Author	liah
Upvotes	12
Comments	72
Date	January 31, 2012 5:04 PM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/p4qhp/out_of_curiosity_why_is_it_okay_for_mras_to/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/out-of-curiosity-why-is-it-okay-for-mras-to.1028453 https://theredarchive.com/post/1028453

Comments