Certain issues are decidedly out of our hands as individuals. For example, I can't individually affect the court and law systems, only the masses can. I can't individually get genital mutilation banned, only the masses can.

Others are issues that you, individually, can chip away at. Social ideas, such as "men shouldn't cry" or "it's funny to kick men in the balls", or even "men shouldn't be nurses", only exist if you let them. You are not forced to interact with them, and you can help get rid of them anyway. This also includes art, portraying men either as "muscular objects of desire" or "buffoons who need a woman around".

While it's completely clear that the social issues are bad, the solutions don't lie in changing the laws or the workplace. They lie in yourselves, proving society wrong.

Now, we all saw Anita Sarkeesians "Tropes vs Women in Video Games". She presents absolutely no "solution" to the problem. As it's an artform, she herself could have spent the $160,000 making her own game studio, focussing on games about Women. This sort of thing is a "purely social" problem, where no law could possibly intervene.

So the question is: Should MHRM exclude problems for which we are the solution so that our issues all have clear solutions in law? Or, worded a different way, should the MHRM focus on the law, the workplace, and the education- the three unavoidable systems of life?

Use the upvote/downvote arrows to vote. It's a self-post so I get no karma. Reply to discuss, as usual. I tried to write this in an un-biased fashion, presenting both sides. If something seems inflammatory or biased, please let me know.