So a frequent matter of debate and derision is the MRM's 'stance' towards feminism- why are we 'anti-feminist'? What does it mean to say we are 'anti-feminist'?

To me, this is a misunderstanding of what the MRM thinks. IMO, we are not against the idea of feminism in principle; valid women's issues of course deserve a women's movement. The idea of equality for women is an idea we of course support.

Our issue is when groups or figures who identify as feminist impede on male issues, and our efforts to address them. A men's movement to address men's issues should be determined by the men who actually experience those issues. This is very hypocritical as feminists will often say it's 'mansplaining' for men to tell women about women's own lived experiences...so that should go both ways. It isn't up to women's movement to define what men's issues are, or how they should be addressed.

Feminists claim that feminism is enough for men to, and all that is needed to achieve gender equality. I'd like to present the case of the men's officer at the University of West England to illustrate why to I disagree with this claim.

Last year, a male student tried to run for the position of male officer, but was harassed and intimidated until he stepped down. Look at the some of the reactions he received:

NUS officer Ilyas Nagdee accused the university of “weaponising tragic student suicides” at Bristol University “ in order to pursue this vile undemocratic shambles of a men's officer”, labelling the election: “The worst thing I've seen in student politics.”

Why is a men's officer a "vile undemocratic shamble"? What about it is "weaponizing suicides?"

Student Rebecca Sheeres added: “Can someone explain to me why a men’s officer is necessary please?"Especially when UWE students actually voted against such position. Men are not a minority at university and surely appointing a wellbeing officer would cover men’s mental health.”

This is very much like mansplaining in reverse- womansplaining, if you will. It's easy for her to dismiss the need of a men's officer.

NUS women's officer Sarah Lasoye said: "The role of a men’s officer is entirely obsolete and the attempt to implement one stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of liberation and almost always an unearned sense of entitlement."

This is absolutely nonsense and outright womansplaining. If Sarah were to educate herself and consider a less narrow perspective, she would see that it is not obsolete. And saying it's "misunderstanding of liberation" means nothing- in what way? Not everyone agrees with the feminist theory of liberation as a complete theory of liberation, again, there is an entire male perspective which she is not considering. I would argue any misunderstanding lies on her part about what male issues are to begin with.

There is also nothing 'entitled' about men wanting their own officer to represent their own issues.

Such hostility to the mere creation of a men's officer in fact proves the very need for such a position. It's very unlikely that this student union would be at all receptive or even aware of male specific issues, let alone committed to acting on them. The attack on the role of men's officer is a smaller snapshot that represents the attack on the MRM as a whole, and demonstrates the core reason why the MRM is needed and feminism is not enough- the very people who attack our existence are the same people who claim to represent our best interests. This is extremely unlikely.