I see the MRM as a reactionary response to feminism.

While 'feminism' did start as a Womens Rights movement, where they literally were campaigning for Rights which they did not have at the time, such as the right to vote, drive, serve in the military, own land, etc, they were not known as feminists, but as suffragettes and activists.

Modern 'feminism', where they really embraced the name, was less about literal human rights under the law, but more about advocacy. Feminists encouraged and advocated for women to work, for women to rely less on men, to seek independence. They encouraged more women to run for office, for equal opportunity in the workplace, and stricter sexual harrassment laws in the workplace.

Second wave feminists were less about 'Rights' under the law, and more about addressing societal gender issues, as well as advocating for women in the workplace in the same way a employee's union advocates for better treatment of employees.

While this is all fine and good, many believed third wave feminism took it too far, and were no longer about equality, but female superiority. And I believe this to be true, because they are an advocacy group, and the role of an advocacy group is to ensure the best treatment of its members as possible. In order to have equality, there cannot be only one side fighting. If both men and women have advocacy groups, then we can come to compromise.

This is a large reason for the uprising of the MRM in recent years. In a way it is a response to feminism. Men realized that women had people fighting for them and protecting them, but they did not.

Feminism has fought for equal payment by employers, but ignored that men were working more dangerous jobs. They had fought for good treatment of divorced mothers, but no-one had fought for fair treatment of divorced fathers, for equal custody and fair alimony. They fought for women hurt by domestic violence, but there was no-one on the other side of the coin advocating for male victims.

The Mens Rights Movement was the other side of the coin. You cannot expect society to be equal when organisations advocate for only one half of it. It is imperative that both genders had advocacy groups standing up for them, so that we do not get a skewed version of equality. It is the same reason one-party political systems are so unfair.

And therein lies my issue with the name. Feminism has long since dropped the label of being activists for 'Rights' which they are denied, but are now simply people who encourage and advocate for the best possible treatment of women. Men need the same thing, but the name 'Mens Rights' is a poorly chosen one, because it implies that men do not have rights at the moment. We are not fighting for basic human and civil 'rights', but for equal opportunity and treatment. We are advocating for proper treatment of Men, but not necessarily for core Rights.

And that is why may people new to the MRM are turned off by it, and claim it is ridiculous, because men already have rights. I believe people would say the same thing about feminism if it was called 'Womens Rights Activism'. Everyone in western societies have rights.

Here is an example: Feminists can encourage and promote Hillary Clinton running for president, because they are a womens advocacy group. A "Womens Rights" group doing the same thing is somewhat ridiculous, because it implies that women do not currently have the 'right' to be President, which is untrue.

I would prefer a different name. Some have proposed something along the lines of 'masculism', but i don't like that either because it is overly associated with manliness.

I want to hear your thoughts, do you agree or disagree with my reasoning.