Enough of this "I'm a feminist and an MRA!" nonsense. It's a hijack attempt and a pretty transparent one at that.

oneiorosgrip · 2013-08-31T15:37:52+00:00

I think some try to span the two movements because they're more absorbed into the feel-good propaganda the feminists grassroots witlessly distributes than they are of the actual nature of feminist history and the actions and effects of modern feminist groups.

(There will be a lot of links in this post. Some are to outside sources, some to things I've said before, but don't have room to copy/paste here.)

Suffragettes didn't call themselves feminists. Much of their activism wasn't anything like what is being done today by the groups that claim them as the "first wave" of an ongoing movement. However, there were some similarities. There was overlap between the suffragette movement and the temperance movement, for example. Temperance was all about controlling others' behavior to suit the sensibilities of people who disapproved alcohol, and the success of the temperance movement in getting a constitutional amendment passed banning alcohol in the U.S. gave organized crime a sturdy foothold in American society - one that remains to this day.

There was also violence among suffragettes...

...possibly to the extent of murder.

Then there was the White Feather campaign, which shamed men and boys into military service during WWII

In addition, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and other suffragettes opposed the 15th amendment recognizing the right of black men to vote on the reasonable and mature basis "If we can't have it, you can't have it either!"

Rosie the Riveter, feminist icon, had absolutely nothing to do with feminism.
The first women in the U.S. to work did so before there was a push to get women to work. They didn't work because they wanted "the right" to work. They worked because shit needed to get done, or because their families needed money. Feminists didn't do jack for any of them. The combination of early 20th century advances in home appliance technology, the Fair Labor Standards act of 1938, followed by the start of WWII, is what really opened the workplace to women. The invention and improvement of appliances meant that maintaining the home not the struggle it had once been. The Fair Labor Standards act changed the way work was expected - the work week was limited at first to 44 hours, then 40. Further, that's the law that barred employers from using children in the workplace. Boys could no longer be employed. When WWII began, the U.S. began sending thousands of men overseas. It wasn't feminism that led women to take their place in factories and other work environments. It was necessity. The first time equal pay was addressed was in 1942, when the labor board ruled that women must be paid the same as the men they had replaced at work. The war ended before the ruling could be enforced.

The Equal Pay act of 1963 was not something feminists achieved, but a combined effort by political activists from multiple facets of the spectrum. Bills were introduced in the 50s by both parties, but did not pass. President Kennedy established the first national Commission on the Status of Women in 1961. The commission, populated by both men and women, made recommendations to the president regarding legislative initiatives. The report containing those recommendations, titled the Peterson report, was the inspiration for the Equal Pay act of 1963.

Modern feminists claim involvement with the Equal Pay act, but if you compare the list of NOW's founding members to the list of appointees to the commission, you'll find there's only one name in common. Prior to the commission's report, women's activists outside the labor movement were largely at odds with female activists within the labor movement, butting heads over such concerns as employers imposing overtime on women, and other working conditions concerns. NOW was founded in 1966 - after the equal pay act passed - by individuals dissatisfied with existing progress of women in politics, not out of the existing movement to further the recognition of women's human rights.

Writing characteristic and shaping of the feminist movement demonized men. The Women's Room is recognized as "a collective biography of a generation of American women" and "one of the most influential novels of the modern feminist movement." Author Marilyn French cited Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex, which treated marriage and motherhood as systems of oppression of women in which the wife is nothing more than a passive servant. French stated that men need to dominate women and insinuated that stupid men are more likely to be successful than sensible men.

The SCUM manifesto, by Valerie Solanas, labeled men biological accidents, claiming that the Y gene is an incomplete X, making men incomplete women. On that basis, the author went on to condemn pretty much every aspect of human existence, attributing all things from general human behavior (mating, trade, social interaction) to naturally occurring misfortunes like diseases to the male response to this supposed inferiority. Solanas advocated subjugating those men who would be willing to join her ranks, and systematically murdering the rest. Ti-Grace Atkinson, elected president of the New York chapter of National Organization for Women in 1967, publicly supported Solanas after Solanas shot Andy Warhol for failing to produce for her a play based on her writing. Roxanne Dunbar, founder of Cell 16, called the manifesto "the essence of feminism."

That era of women's activism, characterized by feminists as "second wave feminism," is the guiding force behind modern feminism's denial of men's issues, including domestic violence and rape.

The rhetoric of the 60s, 70s, and 80s led to (successful) legislative efforts to compromise men's due process rights, as demonstrated by abuse of the Violence Against Women Act, behavior which is incentivized by the practical application of laws intended to protect abused women. Recent attempts by legislators to offer some remedy to this imbalance by making the language of VAWA gender neutral were summarily shot down following lobbying efforts against the move by NOW.

In their efforts to gain control over the dialogue on human violence for their own gain, feminist groups have created a house of cards, misleading politicians, the press, and the public.

This specific effort includes deliberately misleading descriptions of dysfunction as it relates to the sexes. For instance, "Toxic masculinity" is a term that is now used in the feminist community to associate characteristics viewed as negative or possessed to a negative extreme with the human condition of being male.

It was coined in the write-up of this study, published in 2005, by researchers attempting to explain the difficulty of providing mental health treatment to male prison inmates. The term evolved from combining another term, "hegemonic masculinity" (the dominant notion of masculinity in a particular historical context) with the notion that the rough edge of that concept would include distorted or extreme versions of those traits.

However, the traits described in the article as "toxic" aren't strictly masculine traits, but traits of abusive, domineering, or dysfunction-suffering people of both sexes. The researchers, studying a gendered population, may have had circumstantial bias as an excuse for their lapse in judgment, but feminist groups claiming to understand and advocate for both sexes really don't. In order to use the term, they have to ignore that reality.

Since the publishing of that study, the term has been used indiscriminately by feminists, tossed around in debate without regard to its false nature. Subversive as it was within the research community, the further you get from them, the more loosely defined the use becomes, so that in discussion, I've seen and heard it used to label normal behavior, such as ordinary competition and having strict standards for oneself, but only in application to men. None of the researchers involved in disseminating terms like this to the feminist public has made any overt, visible effort to correct the misuse within the community. This appears to be a by-design result; an intent to imply by association that masculinity is toxic. This insertion of bigotry into their methods is one reason behind the bias in research and reporting.

(continued)

CootCut · 2013-08-31T18:40:45+00:00

I will ease my negative stance against those feminist things when I see them cluck, cackling and squawking in anger with their fellow biddies in front of the many government offices across the USA demanding the current RESPONSIBILITY currently only alloted to males; signing up for the military draft.

Failure to do so can have some severe repercussions for males.

The little girls should be demanding equal responsibility to accompany their incessant screeching for equal rights, priveleges and other good things.

Noticeably absent in the dame's demands are mentions of anything related to responsibility.

I can not take the self-centered, emotion-laden, often illogical and irrational biddies seriously when they behave in their self-centered Precious Princess manner.

BrambleEdge · 2013-09-01T00:15:03+00:00

Completely agree! Let's face it, you can't support a sexist, chauvinist movement and ideology and then claim to support equality for the victims of said movement and ideology. That's not how it works, if you want to participate in creating an egalitarian society, you need to leave all that bigotry behind. If not, you remain a bigot.

Mitschu · 2013-09-01T05:46:02+00:00

Alright y'all, I got this.

Black people, no, all minorities are inferior compared to the glorious white race.

All other countries that aren't America are pathetic and infantile, and deserved to be wiped out by our Mighty Patriot Warmachines.

Hrm. Women are utterly and imminently useless compared to men. There is not a single thing that a woman has ever accomplished that a man didn't do before her - while blindfolded and also wearing high heels, just to prove his masculinity is unwaveringly not in doubt. Men are simply superior.

While I'm at it, let's see... we should burn queers and transgenders. Murder them for their sins against God.

But despite their many shortcomings and failings as humans, I believe that women should have equal rights comparable to men.

That's my feminism, and how I identify myself and others as feminists. Anyone who disagrees is not a real feminist.

...

Now, folks, let's see how many people pay attention in their Gender Studies classes, okay?

The proper response to somebody actually holding the above, or similarly bigoted, views is to:

A) Give them a leadership position in the movement. (See also: Gloria Steinem.)

B) Guarantee them government backing and assistance for furthering their views. (See also: The entirety of NOW.)

C) Celebrate them as important icons of the feminist movement. (See also: Valerie Solanas.)

D) Nothing, because feminism is not a monolith and the umbrella of feminism encompasses many diverse and unique viewpoints. (See also: NAFALT.)

E) Ostracize them from the movement and make sure that society understands that this person is not associated with or allowed to speak for feminism, in any manner whatsoever. (See also, ironically enough: the excommunicated feminists, such as Warren Farrell, who were evicted for whistleblowing.)

If you answered anything other than E, congratulations! You're a feminist!

DannyboyCdnMRA · 2013-08-31T15:32:46+00:00

If they ain't calling the ugly sisters of feminism out and are not lifting a finger to remedy the issues faced by males then they are the same ole misandric crap in a pretty new package.

typhonblue · 2013-08-31T16:50:52+00:00

This thread is being bombed with downvotes.

AgentOrangeMRA · 2013-08-31T14:38:04+00:00

This needed to be said.

anonlymouse · 2013-08-31T15:00:06+00:00

The bottom line here, is if you're a feminist who also happens to be an MRA, you don't need to flaunt that fact, it'll be obvious from your actions. A perfect example is Michelle Elliott, she identifies as a feminist, does not identify as a MRA, but is clearly concerned about men's rights.

Actions speak louder than words.

nwilli100 · 2013-08-31T16:54:48+00:00

If we don't give anyone who wants to be part of the MRA movement the benefit of the doubt and a chance to air their views then are we really any better than /r/feminism with their absurd censorship? And what's the downside? We get trolled a bit more? Oh no how will we ever cope?

Disillusi0n · 2013-08-31T17:17:31+00:00

This is one of the biggest problems with /r/MensRights.

"I'm a feminist MRA"

"I'm a communist MRA"

I'm not really interested in the details of how people think they can combine two mutually exclusive alignments. Maybe they honestly believe they can out of naivete or more likely they're trying to do to Men's Rights what they've been doing to the Skeptics.

fukuaneveryoneuknow · 2013-08-31T18:34:26+00:00

Damn right.

If you call yourself feminist, you are no friend to men, and certainly don't give a damn about their rights.

2095conash · 2013-09-01T00:11:16+00:00

First, while I agree that MOST will probably behave as you dictate, not all will. I actually have seem a tumblr blog that is basically just an MRA but identifies as a feminist as well and he basically uses the feminist tag to say, "You can't hate on me or say I'm against women's rights, I'm a feminist! Now about all that hating on men you're doing..." While I do think this is uncommon of some who identifies as a feminist at all (as I'm pretty sure most who believe in men's rights truly prefer to use more 'neutral' terms like egalitarian or such, also not saying most people who identify as feminists are man-haters but few who identify as feminists will stand up against feminism for men). I have also actually seen people believe in a more 'dictionary' patriarchy than the more 'feminist' patriarchy, basically the belief the power is held mainly by men rather than the belief that men hold the power AND use it to oppress women, I don't like discussions of patriarchy because it's highly subjective since there's a 'social' definition of which was defined by feminism that basically by a penis I beat women I see in the street, which came to be because of the technical definition that first existed that was more observational about who held power rather than suggesting anyone USED it inappropriately. As well then you also get some beliefs about patriarchy and the individual power a homeless may have that congresswomen don't and just..... Patriarchy is defined very differently by a whole assortment of different groups, effectively reducing the use of the word patriarchy to expressing thoughts ranging from "All presidents thus far have been men" to "There is a war on women, sons strangle mothers, and brothers rape sisters", and it's such an emotionally charged term, I just have hearing it mentioned due to how..... undefined it has become.

Sorry just sorta rambling and stating thoughts as I read through your opening post as you make quite a lot of presumptions about the average feminist. I'm not saying they're wrong, but I do not believe that a large portion of feminists (ones whom are in/just got out of school, talking about high-school here since gender studies classes.....) are necessarily as..... 'charged' as a radical feminist who'll try to slit your throat for not bowing before her breasts.

If anyone is curious the blog I am referring to is just-smith

Riesea · 2013-09-02T23:12:59+00:00

It's just trying to look nice so they can complain about rejection.

How they really feel, well just remember Toronto.

2013-09-18T06:08:35+00:00

YES! Thank you for posting this on r/MensRights, the idiots here near to realize that any negotiation with feminists is impossible, as they have their own agenda. Feminism is a government industry with its own agenda. This is the main reason why I'm out of r/MensRights and now support r/Rights4Men. r/MensRights also massively ignores how the Gay Right's Movement and the Feminists are a duality of one another and support the exploitation of the heterosexual male.

Ma99ie · 2013-08-31T22:26:34+00:00

Enough of this "I'm a feminist and an MRA!" nonsense. It's a hijack attempt and a pretty transparent one at that.

Bingo!

HilscherFarms · 2013-08-31T17:10:12+00:00

By definition, a feminist believes that women are held in subjugation by men and seeks to increase the power of women relative to men. OP is right with the bolded part. What this means in practical terms is that women will always and perpetually be, in their view, entitled to more power to 'balance things out.'

Lately I've seen this push to try to change the message of the MRM to be less anti-feminist. If that's the case then the MRM is abandoning men -- if you're not opposing the perpetual increase in women's power, then you're supporting the perpetual loss of male power in relation to it.

Captaincastle · 2013-08-31T16:19:29+00:00

There's a lot of no true Scotsman flying around this thread. I see your point OP, but I think you're taking it a tad far.

PeterPorky · 2013-08-31T15:50:11+00:00

[permanently deleted]

soulcakeduck · 2013-08-31T20:56:23+00:00

From MR sidebar:

Suggested Reading List:

The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell

The War Against Boys - Christina Hoff Sommers

Who Stole Feminism - Christina Hoff Sommers

The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature - Steven Pinker

3 of these are written by feminists. I suppose some might call Farrell a feminist too. He used to be but I don't think he calls himself one anymore.

If it is so impossible for feminists to be MRAs, should the sidebar purge all those feminist pro-MRA sources?

Perpetual_dissident · 2013-08-31T18:24:08+00:00

agreed. it's bs.

Captaincastle · 2013-08-31T16:15:08+00:00

I think those threads are really annoying, but I don't see the problem in calling yourself both, as long as you genuinely care about equality, and not just hedging your bets.

2013-08-31T18:02:22+00:00

Most people don't know what 'egalitarian' means.

This is like saying bisexuals aren't allowed to be attracted to mtf transsexuals.

rightsbot · 2013-08-31T14:38:16+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

Genericdruid · 2013-08-31T15:11:55+00:00

Divisions are the flaw. "I'm a MRA" "I'm a feminist!" "I'm both!" its just bullshit over minor social issues to divide the working classes and have all the conflict turned in on ourselves instead of out against the actual oppressors.

kriboshoe · 2013-08-31T15:55:55+00:00

"Because in order to identify as a feminist you have to believe in the concept of "patriarchy" - the idea that all men oppress all women all the time."

So you, personally are allowed to define feminism?

I would say that in order to be a feminist you have to believe that a. there are some areas in society where inequality exists for women, and b. this inequality should not exist.

I would say that in order to be an MRA you would believe the same thing, but for men.

These are not in any way mutually exclusive.

I am an MRA and I am a feminist because I believe in equality for everyone everywhere and I will not stop being either. If more feminists were MRAs and more MRAs were feminists wouldn't we all be much more effective at working for equality for everyone?

blueyb · 2013-08-31T16:53:30+00:00

You know what I'm tired of?

People labeling everything they disagree with as "concern troll" and "hijack attempt".

Maybe he's "womansplaining", OP? Or perhaps anyone claiming to be a feminist and an MRA should "check their privilege". Maybe you should just label all people who claim to be both feminist and MRA as "shitlord" and be done with it.

I despise the way most feminist areas on the web shame any kind of dissent, and I will fight twice as fervently when I see the same within an MRA community.

WhatIsTheWorldComing · 2013-08-31T21:56:21+00:00

in order to identify as a feminist you have to believe in the concept of "patriarchy" - the idea that all men oppress all women all the time.

Sigh. Warren Farrell identifies as a feminist but does not believe in the concept of "patriarchy".

I am a "feminist MRA" troll and I am attempting to destroy your subreddit.

Nevertheless, what I said remains true. Sorry.

ArstanWhitebeard · 2013-08-31T19:40:14+00:00

Its seems to me that all of you who are saying things like "feminism is this" or "feminism is that" are completely incapable of looking at the world from outside of your idealogical enclosures, much less imagining that other people see and define things differently. How you define a word or thing is never the only way of doing so. Totalitarian teachers with red pens in hand not with standing, language is local, personal, and ever changing. Maybe the men's rights cause would get along better if it welcomed and encouraged the desire to actually communicate, which when done in good faith means trying to understand what another person is saying (rather than telling them what they are saying by virtue of ones infallable political vocabulary).

Even if one were to appeal to an authority on the word feminism (no being an MRA does not make you an authority), there are too many conflicting so called authorities in competition for an absolute answer. If there were a singular, centralized, and recognized feminist authority, even then there would surely be dissenters with their own opinions. In fact, most "feminist,", and the multitudes of those influenced by and supportive of what they see as feminsim, are probably less interested in, or influenced by, the self styled elites of feminism than are the majority of MRAs. This leads to a major disconnect and counter productive enmity (further fueled by the personal politics of self aggrandizement).

If you look in most dictionaries, feminism will be defined not by patriarchy, but as a desire for women to have the same rights and freedoms as men. Given that one could easily describe the men's rights movement as drive for men to have the same rights and freedoms as women, that means anyone embracing the dictionary definition of feminism isn't an enemy of men's rights, just the complimentary antipode of gender egalitarianism. Or perhaps a feminist you meet might be self describing based on an affinity for or an identification with femininity, which is large enough part of our humanity that I would hardly hold that against them. Or maybe they have their own ideas about what feminism means, at least to them, and maybe you all should be decent enough to ask, or even to listen.

Edited due to technical difficulties.

Feminist_MRA · 2013-09-01T06:17:34+00:00

I came across this thread when it was 16 hours old.

At this time all top comments are condemnatory. The thread has a total score of 48, with 145 upvotes and 97 downvotes, making it clear that most the denizens of this forum are in support of ousting activists like me, with a tiny minority speaking up in our defense.

Ergo, I'm out. I'm sure this comment will be but a fart in the wind, but I invite all MRAs to peruse my account history, and what I've contributed to this forum in the brief time I've been here. Think about whether you really want to throw women like me out of the movement.

Peace.

Frankly_No · 2013-08-31T16:20:12+00:00

Because in order to identify as a feminist you have to believe in the concept of "patriarchy" - the idea that all men oppress all women all the time.

Says who? There's nothing to stop anyone from identifying as a feminist while not believing in patriarchy. Besides, any MRA who doesn't criticize feminism is part of the problem, not just the 'feminist MRAs'. I think gender activists should all just self-identify as egalitarian and/or MRA, but if someone wants to identify as a feminist too, as long as they don't follow and fail to criticize gender feminist beliefs then I don't see the problem.

I think Permutation of Ninjas has a feminist or two on their team, and the blog Just Smith identifies as feminist and MRA, albeit indifferently.

daddock · 2013-08-31T16:23:30+00:00

Not many feminists use that definition of patriarchy anyway. For many, everyone is to blame for perpetuating patriarchy, not just men. While I think using the term patriarchy is a bit unnecessary (it's an outdated word for our current state), if you just think about the word as a synonym for "our current system of gender expectations," then it makes some sense. As for whether or not men are higher in the hierarchy, that is pretty dubious, and kind of a messed up way to look at the world, but you can believe that and still acknowledge that equality means fixing men's issues as well as women's.

resistingsimplicity · 2013-09-01T00:23:01+00:00

Patriarchy is the societal bias favoring men over women as a general practice, it's NOT the idea that "all men oppress all women all the time" and it is NOT the idea that women are oppressed in ALL areas. Women can also contribute to a patriarchy, it's not a one way man-abuses-woman thing.

Your definitions are flawed.

anakinastronaut · 2013-08-31T14:48:17+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Felisha232 · 2013-11-27T01:57:54+00:00

Where did you hear that definition of patriarchy? Or is it just a point of view? Well I don't think all men oppress women, but I know there are those who do and it's due to a patriarchal attitude -- a justified sense that women are meant to be dominated by men. Some of that attitude stems from religion. Yet centuries of actual patriarchal rule cemented that even to this day.

As for the issues you brought up, conservatism hinders men in divorce court. As for sexual harassment, it's women trying to protect themselves from perverts. ...though I'll leave it up to you to explain what you really meant by that.

2013-08-31T17:37:08+00:00

So what you're saying is, they don't bash feminists enough.

2013-09-02T08:50:03+00:00

Dude... what are they going to "highjack"? Seriously though.

awbitethebullet · 2013-09-01T02:06:55+00:00

Here's a little more info about the idea of patriarchy for discussion purposes:

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/11/america-is-still-a-patriarchy/265428/

Title	Enough of this "I'm a feminist and an MRA!" nonsense. It's a hijack attempt and a pretty transparent one at that.
Author	DaNiceguy
Upvotes	68
Comments	240
Date	August 31, 2013 2:37 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1lgnvw/enough_of_this_im_a_feminist_and_an_mra_nonsense/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/enough-of-this-im-a-feminist-and-an-mra-nonsense.1165018 https://theredarchive.com/post/1165018

Comments