Don't MRAs and feminists both want gender equality? Where's the big disagreement?

FailasaurusRex · 2011-07-03T20:21:19+00:00

While the people here who claim that every single feminist ever is a misandrist are wrong, a great deal of feminism does not support equality.

I'm not talking about the minority of supremacists in both movements, it's the feminists who think they want equality, but don't, that are the problem.

They're the ones who think that a man abusing a woman is so much worse than a woman abusing a man that the legal result should be inequal. The ones who think that you have to "break a few eggs" by destroying innocent men over false rape claims, because it can hurt women's feelings if you don't. The ones who complain about the gender gap in business executives, but couldn't care less about the gap in coal miners, convicted criminals, or homeless people. The ones who promote sexist hiring and pay policies, because they don't understand actual statistics. The ones who promote even more disproportionate funding for female-specific health problems, because they are so deep into their ideology that promoting women and promoting equality are basically synonymous to them.

And there's the other main conflict, where feminism claims to fight for both sexes, and therefore argues that the Men's Rights Movement shouldn't exist. Even among the feminist groups that are more-or-less egalitarian in their beliefs, though, there's hardly ever any fighting for men.

pcarvious · 2011-07-03T21:48:16+00:00

Feminism currently has two very different theories that dominate its actions. The first is patriarchy theory, and the second is that traditional gender roles can be changed for the sake of equality. Patriarchy theory states that men systematically, historically, and inevitably suppress women for their own ends. They use any means necessary to insure this. This had lead to a lot of misconceptions being thrown around in media because if that singular theory is proven false then a large chunk of feminist theory falls with it. The second portion, wants to even the field by changing the roles of men and women so it's okay for either to enter into any field. This aspect of theory though is incomplete and not being applied equally in society today.

Rather than redressing all gender inequalities and changing all roles, only select roles of high social value have been approached. The majority of these roles were male dominated. However, historically female dominated areas remain female dominated. There is no two way flow. To go a bit further, changing gender roles and patriarchy theory cannot exist at the same time in the same space. Patriarchy is the justification for the changes, but once they've taken place patriarchy theory should no longer be applicable to that area. By not fixing the problems for both genders and selectively approaching the issues Feminism has allowed itself to continue to exist even when it has no defined goals.

More specifically, it disadvantages women for feminism to change all gender roles. One of the major arguments on this board is that feminism is about improving the social standing of women. Call it Matriarchy theory if you want, it hasn't been named. There is no push for women to be allowed to enter into the waste collection, construction, or other high hazard areas of the work force. Front line combat units are usually all male, etc. In the family courts if men are seen as equal caregivers then it breaks down motifs used to insure that women, the majority of the time, get custody.

Lastly, in areas of domestic violence there would be a massive upheaval. It would change a lot of laws and create massive systemic changes that would hurt women if it was acknowledged that women are at least as violent as men. Patriarchy theory requires there be a victim and an oppressor. If both men and women can be the oppressor and the victim, then patriarchy theory can't function as a reason for actions anymore. Without patriarchy theory, feminism no longer exists.

foerthan · 2011-07-03T21:40:19+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Shattershift · 2011-07-03T23:30:00+00:00

Commonly, feminists may feel that men are still largely supporting a "Patriarchy", whereas MRA's feel that men's problems tend to be ignored with sayings of "toughen up, be a man", etc.

gorgias1 · 2011-07-03T19:25:04+00:00

A combination of finger pointing and inability to empathize with the other group may be the culprit. When making subjective evaluations of the relative harms and benefits a certain policy might yield, I think a lot of people have a tendency to emphasize the magnitude of the potential harms they might actually have to face relative to the harms that some faceless individual will suffer. Also, the two groups might have subtly diverging presuppositions on the way the world (or society) is or should be, which can easily lead to a disagreement where one side simply seems insane and illogical to the other.

Also at times, thinly veiled (sub)conscious hatred.

KMFCM · 2011-07-04T17:49:20+00:00

no, feminists want female SUPREMACY. They just use the word "equality".

it's called lying

Gareth321 · 2011-07-03T20:17:33+00:00

Feminist theory requires accepting certain forms of sexism. For instance, the notion of a patriarchy. This entails the belief that men are generally oppressors, and women generally oppressed. This leads to all sorts of sexist assertions.

The net result is that both feminist theory, and popular, mainstream feminism, don't want or champion equality. Men's rights does.

Demonspawn · 2011-07-03T20:45:51+00:00

Because equality is not possible:

Equality under the law. Women should have the legal right to own property, vote, etc.

Social equality. Women should be allowed to go to school, work any job they like, etc.

Equality of status. Women should have the same value as men. We should listen to their opinions, etc.

Equality of outcome. There should be just as many women scientists and CEOs as men.

Interpersonal equality. If you don't hold doors open for men, then you shouldn't hold them open for woman. If you don't insult your male friends or make fun of them, then you shouldn't do it to women.

Gender role equality. Nobody should be a top or a bottom in a relationship. Women should not demure. Men should not be brutes.

The problem with "equality" is that it makes the assumption that men and women are equal. The problem is, given the 6 types you raise, we run into problems given any definition:

There is not nor will there ever be equality under the law. The simple fact is we do not treat women as disposable as we treat men. Men who commit crimes are punished because they are "bad" while women who commit crimes are treated because they are "troubled". Given the propensity to care for women's issues more than men's issues, women's issues reign for the social payout. And, as I've said before: Until we no longer have social inequality favoring women, arguing for legal equality (+suffrage) for women is actually to argue for legal superiority for women... it is inevitable that the system will shift that way. Until we can resolve #5 and #6 this will remain true.
I honestly wish social equality were a possibility. The problem is, it's not. Women, as a group, simply don't behave the same as men do (and the system is built around how men behave). Women baby-track out while men don't. In fact, the USA is on the verge of a doctor shortage crisis (the UK is already there) because the majority of medical students are female and women just don't stick around 10+ years after graduation. Should we ban women from these professions? Of course not, but we shouldn't be encouraging the "diversity" we are now. We need to go back to the system were women were discouraged but not banned, so that the behavior is that only women who really want to enter these fields and stick with them will take up the role.
Equality of status is tied to equality of achievement in our society and it's propensity to "pander to authority" (yes, logic fallacy, I know, but everyone does it ;). Here's the funny thing tho: back in the pre-feminism days, the rare female middle-manager was respected (vs. the male middle-manager) because she worked hard to get there, sometimes even harder than the men who were there. Today, she got there via diversity quotas and preferential treatment and step-ladders attempting to grant "equality" to women, so she has to prove herself over and above a man who has "earned" his way there. Feminism has actually hurt Equality of Status a great deal.
Equality of outcome is a farce, a lie, and requires the handicappers guild to make it happen. It will never happen with any two groups, and even less so with men vs. women. Men are more diverse than women (larger standard deviations in expressed phenotypes). So, while it's not true to say that men are the best, it is true to say that the best are much more likely men. Even in a "perfectly equal" society, CEO level jobs will still be male-dominated (and the same is true of hobos).
Interpersonal equality will never happen as long as women are our source of babies. I can write a novel on this point, but I've found either you're going to get it or yer not, so I'm just going to leave it at that.
Gender role equality will never be resolved as long as we need men to protect our borders (and we will need "men" rather than "people" as long as women are our source of babies). Again with the novel...

So, given the 6 possible types of equality and it's not possible for men and women to achieve equality in any of them, can we finally get past the whole "The goal is equality" idea and move to "The goal is to find a social model which is sustainable and won't self-collapse" movement? And, yes, a society which won't collapse has a lot to do with how it treats it's men.

P.S. I'm not picking on you, I just saw your 6 types of equality and thought it would be interesting to go down the list. For the idea of men's rights to be successful, we need to move past the whole "equality" idea because equality is not possible. Attempting to achieve it is what is killing our society.

ETA: Also feminism is not a movement for equality

2011-07-03T19:36:01+00:00

The big disagreement is basically 'what constitutes equality?'.

Men currently face legal, governmental and social discrimination. Women used to face legal and governmental discrimination and still face social discrimination.

Despite this feminist ideology is still stuck in the 19th century concept that women are second class citizens when objectively they are in a better position than men.

This is why Feminists can't work with or understand the Men's Rights Movement. The just cannot grasp that in modern western society men are second class citizens.

The closest they can come to a male rights viewpoint is the idea that 'the patriarchy hurts men sometimes even though women are the main victims'.

argv_minus_one · 2011-07-03T23:56:44+00:00

Feminists don't want gender equality. They want female domination.

royboh · 2011-07-03T19:32:07+00:00

Feminists don't protest that they don't have to register for selective service.

ManThoughts · 2011-07-03T20:28:24+00:00

Feminism is not about equality, it's about female privilege. Selective service, reproductive rights, criminal justice, domestic violence, sexual violence, divorce, child custody, employment law, and social welfare are all areas where women enjoy profoundly unfair advantages over men. Feminism fights to preserve and enhance female privilege in all these areas.

jmnzz · 2011-07-03T19:18:53+00:00

"Don't MRAs and feminists both want gender equality?"

No.

My reason for believing this is simple.

bludstone · 2011-07-03T23:05:49+00:00

People, in general, dont really want equality.

When I say the government should treat everyone as equals and individuals, the response I get from challenged folks or minorities is frequently "You are arguing from a position of privilege."

People want the government to treat them like children, and take care of them because things are hard.

Aavagadrro · 2011-07-03T23:37:42+00:00

Thankfully not all women are like this, but far too many are. My issue is not with the women who earn their own way in life and put in the effort to make life better for themselves and their families, it is with the others. I want them to be equal, but they really dont want to be.

They would lose custody and have to pay substantially more in child support. They also would not be entitled to alimony payments because they would not be considered weak and helpless as they are now.

They would be eligible for the draft, but they dont want to be. Many also dont want to serve in austere combat environments.

If they are white they couldnt get any sort of financial aid for higher education other than student loans. That sounds racist as well as sexist but I could never get anything, but my wife got grants that paid for everything before we were married.

They could be thrown out of their homes by police when they batter their husband or boyfriend, or incarcerated. Some are, but it never happened to her in my case, I was always the one who had to leave when she would go batshit insane.

They want to keep all the weak and helpless shit, not gain any responsibility, and reap the benefits of owning that responsibility for doing nothing.

Liverotto · 2011-07-03T21:09:29+00:00

In the hypocrisy.

Faryshta · 2011-07-04T02:16:49+00:00

r/feminisms and r/feminism are the biggest feminists sub reddits. They just claim they want equality but they doesn't. Try to put anything there and see how it gets censored to hell.

Burnt_toaster · 2011-07-04T06:19:46+00:00

This website you guys keep linking to as 'support' for your bullshit arguments is insane: http://www.avoiceformen.com/2011/06/28/jessica-valenti-placed-on-offenders-registry/

Her crime is apparently being a woman and having opinions. Oh no.

kloo2yoo · 2011-07-03T20:18:05+00:00

This stupid question comes up again - it should be in the faq.

Arguments are bullshit, results are all that matter

"For every 100 females ages 15 to 19 that commit suicide 549 males in the same range kill themselves" And more:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:XM-fEm1c2VsJ:www.postsecondary.org/archives/previous/ForEvery100Girls.pdf+for+every+100+women&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESimc06PXO2zknrNQ0NUq5-wT9vUGJpjEnOlvDRuo4nQWvbkxZU4oNajdR-qVeReoAbJogubcMYgT2ljLtXrYnXIWgx0WiSDxEQBV2A1TTqarK4hs9Gv-BQCxcDef9SP7ioS9JIv&sig=AHIEtbRE8oC1atidXaseIUnitHR2crJH6g&pli=1

Feckless · 2011-07-03T23:26:57+00:00

In the end an androcentric and gynocentric point of view might not match very well. A new egalitarian movement is needed, I don't see another way.

DougDante · 2011-07-04T06:21:55+00:00

Most people need to lighten up.

2011-07-04T12:47:05+00:00

I think MRA's think more about men, while feminists think more about women. That's the M in MRA and femi in feminist. It's still possible to be both, but not required.

TheRealPariah · 2011-07-05T08:53:12+00:00

Feminists do not want gender equality. They want their cake and to eat it too. That is the problem. They want voting rights, but god forbid if they have to sign up for the draft.

bananaphone5305 · 2011-07-05T12:19:26+00:00

The big disagreement is that some feminists will cry "equality for all", while their actions prove otherwise. They do want equality, fairness and all that good stuff...so long as it benefits them in some way. If equality and fairness is to be had at some sort of inconvenience to them (male reproductive rights, repeal of alimony laws, etc.) then they will label anyone who opposes their views as misogynists.

Eogan · 2011-07-03T19:30:07+00:00

There are different definitions of equality, mra's work of equality in the liberal sense, feminist equality is an Orwellian definition of equality.

Burnt_toaster · 2011-07-03T23:58:17+00:00

So you guys don't see any irony whatsoever in telling feminists that feminism is not about equality. How do you expect to be taken seriously as an advocate of equality of any sort when your argument starts off with a blatant strawman attack.

rantgrrl · 2011-07-03T19:18:04+00:00

[permanently deleted]

mrbigfresh · 2011-07-04T00:46:48+00:00

2 exetremes rarely agree. Thats why rational people aren't radicals.

Human's have gotten too good at denying their biology. Most people agree with darwinian theory, and yet they believe that we can fit humans into boxes as we please.

Men and women are inherently different, why is this still a discussion, all we see all day on reddit is ragecomics discussions etc. about the simple fact that men and women are different.

When can people just suck it up and say "I see how we have different competences lets all just get along, since our goal is the same. babies food and general survival"

This question baffles me.

ThePigman · 2011-07-04T01:14:57+00:00

I assume this is a trick question, but here is the main difference between MRAs and feminists - we actually want gender equality, they only claim to do so.

chrisisme · 2011-07-03T19:18:47+00:00

"Don't MRAs and feminists both want gender equality?"

No, feminists don't.

"Where's the big disagreement?"

See above.

Title	Don't MRAs and feminists both want gender equality? Where's the big disagreement?
Author	MasCapital
Upvotes	22
Comments	220
Date	July 3, 2011 7:05 PM UTC (15 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/ifsxc/dont_mras_and_feminists_both_want_gender_equality/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/dont-mras-and-feminists-both-want-gender-equality.1037815 https://theredarchive.com/post/1037815

Comments