In a way, MRAs are more feminist than feminists. "A woman's place is at home" and "women are weaker" is the opposite of what what MRAs think.

Looking at the modern positions and debates of MRAs and feminism I actually notice a consistent trend- MRAs seem to support a notion that women are equal and should be treated equally, while feminist arguments often rely on the very gender stereotypes that they claim to oppose.

A big component of feminism is opposition to gender roles and stereotypes, and an accusation against MRAs is the alleged support for such gender roles. However, if you look at actual action and words, reality seems to reflect the opposite- the proposals by feminists seem to perpetuate gender roles, while MRAs push for equality under law.

MRAs support equal treatment, and equality under the law. We believe that a man and woman are equal under individual circumstances, and should be treated equally.

Feminists on the other hand often support separate treatment, where women are treated as inherently weaker, less capable, or less responsible. Let's look at a few examples:

PENSION AGES

When the UK voted to equalize pension ages, feminists protested:

link 1

link 2

The protests are organized by a group called WASPI, which identifies as a feminist group.

Look at some of their arguments...that women are "tired" at age 60. That women are "unprepared" and that it isn't fair. But why? Why would women be any more tired than men? Why shouldn't women work as long as men? Doesn't their argument kind of imply that a woman's place is more at home, and men are more suited to work? This is the opposite of the MRA view, that men and women are equal and should work equally.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

It is now the legal standard in the UK to exempt women from prison for many crimes. We see this happen in real world stories such as the drunk driver who was told she would have been sent to prison had she been a man

This follows years of feminist lobbying:

link 1

link 2

Link 3

link 4

Again, the arguments given more or less boil down to the implication that women aren't responsible for their actions like men are, and how it's harder for women to cope with difficult situations...doesn't this argument seem to imply that women are less capable, or less mature, if they cannot be held accountable to their actions? This would seem to be in line with the gender stereotype that women are not as mature or accountable as men, and is the opposite of what MRAs think; MRAs think people should be treated and considered equally regardless of gender.

This pattern seems to carry on throughout debates between MRAs and feminists. Feminists protested gender neutral conscription in Norway? They are making the argument that conscription is more of a "man's duty"- ok, so what does that mean, and how does it contract with your self described feminist beliefs?

Same might be said for domestic violence laws- feminists call for gender specific laws like the Duluth Model, and even teach that women can't be perpetrators of domestic abuse, and men can't be victims- what is the implication of that? It's a direct continuation and utilization of gender roles/stereotypes to say that it's automatically impossible for one gender to be the perpetrator of domestic violence...why not? The argument is wrongly implying that women are "too weak" to do so. MRAs, on the other hand, recognize that this isn't true.