Here is an illustration of something I see too often in online (and unfortunately, real life) discussions:

A: "I am a feminist that thinks [insert viewpoint which is in any case too general to admit of any nuanced discussion: e.g. women are still being systematically oppressed in every society, that this is due to pervasive Patriarchy, that therefore everybody should join up as a feminist - otherwise, you would be misogynistic/be the victim of internalized misogyny]"

B: "I am an MRA - [insert viewpoint and copypaste above: e.g. feminism is sexism; feminists care only about women's issues and sideline men's issues, feminism is about superiority...]"

A: "feminism is about [e.g. equality, egalitarianism etc; if you dont consider yourself feminist you are against equality and are discriminatory; in fact, MRAs are all sexist chauvinist pigs]"

B: "But [e.g.: that's not what feminism is about, their actions are so on and so forth, while MRAs have shown themselves more attuned to the rights of men - MRAs are all about equality too, moreso than feminists!]"

This goes on and on and on and on...

The point is, too much hinges on the group/perspective/label which people preface themselves as belonging/subscribing to. It is indeed impossible to encompass the entire spectrum of a perspective with a simple label, but people label themselves anyway, and end up arguing about the label rather than the substantive viewpoint. The issue with the above illustration is that in the first exchange between A and B they at least make some reference to substantive points, but notice how in the next exchange the terms of the disagreement focuses not on the merits/demerits of the substantive points brought up, but on the merits/demerits of the particular group/label one subscribes to.

If you have followed so far, I would want to expand the terms of this much further, and draw analogies to finer distinctions between label and substance (no doubt, the distinction is sometimes a matter of degree - as more accurate labels are used, the argument benefits from becoming more related to the substance under discussion). The above exchange between A and B largely only happens on a very very broad scale - but when it matters, and even within the same groups, people still hide behind labels of various kinds. If not "feminist", then "LibFem"; if not "MRA" then perhaps "MGTOW" (just an example; not entirely certain whether one is the subset of the other - i'm sure at least they overlap, if not completely being subsets of each other). It takes some real ability, I imagine, to grapple with the root issues of the debate (and that's why so few people can really convince others, or be convinced), which means so much of online chatter is just hot air blowing every which way. No one will be convinced, no one is being convinced, there's just balkanisation and outrage.

Would you agree that a healthier discussion could proceed if, instead of identifying your race/political affiliation/social group, you instead identified your empirical concern? For example, that "circumcision of boys is happening - this is a very real concern and just as FGM should not be tolerated, circumcision should not be tolerated to the same degree...", or that "the feminine qualities of women should be recognised as having contributed and as contributing to the success of societies and therefore should be championed instead of neglected..." or that "many men are being disaffected by societal issues, and this might possibly have to do with the increasingly restrictive legal position they have been relegated to, with no corresponding degree of restrictions placed on women..."

The ellipses (...) at the end of each example above is not superfluous. It is included because the terms of the argument would have to be explicated in much more detail than what I can provide - but that's the whole point, so that people don't into the mudslinging affair most online discussions on reddit and elsewhere devolve into.

One final point; I mentioned earlier about distinctions between label and substantive point blurring as arguments about merits/demerits become finer, and this is what I mean:

  • on the one hand, we can accept "feminist" or "MRA" as being too wide a label to properly admit of any debate on individual points of their disagreement (unless for example the whole point of the debate is that the particular group such as AWARE, with a more homogenous perspective (singapore women's group - just an example) is not justified in some way - and even then i think you need not label AWARE "feminist" but could just refer to it as AWARE).
  • on the other hand, we know circumcision as the label of a practice is sufficiently definite that we can say at least that we are talking about the same thing when we call it "circumcision" - the cutting of some part of the foreskin... eventually leading to some loss of feeling and loss of ability to feel pleasure from intercourse later in life... etc etc
  • However, what happens when we talk about social science concepts like "hypergamy" or the orthodox economic (also social science-based) idea of "utility", or of the philosophical/legal concept of "justice"? These concepts maybe mean enough that you know what you are talking about, but are not sufficiently certain that you can neglect definitively defining the terms of the debate. There's a reason why Rawls' Theory of Justice is so exceedingly voluminous. Maybe people could start with defining to greater accuracy what they mean when they talk about this concept.

I would like to conclude with an event which eventually inspired me to make this post, involving a recent talk I had with friends about the nature of my relationship with my boyfriend. They were as usual talking about their most recent boyfriends, discussing the about their dynamic and prospects... and of course I get nervous because i know what's coming. (paraphrasing:) "still with [my boyfriend's name]? He's terribly traditional." They know I'm the submissive one in the relationship, and I've told them many times I preferred to stay with the same first love and with the same first relationship I had since I was 17. I know my SO demands submissiveness, but I willingly give it, and demand fidelity in return.

Then somehow the tone shifts and the terms of reference changes from a discussion about relationship dynamic to how I was enabling a "terribly backward" worldview at odds with the "feminist themes" of the modern world. I failed to grasp how "feminism" so vaguely defined looked down upon my choice of relationship dynamic. Perhaps there would be some obscure tenet out there in some subset of Feminism, broadly defined, which was at odds with my submissive role in the relationship - but perhaps the terms of reference (what we were actually talking about) should have been more explicit? If the above analysis bores you, maybe you could try posting what you think about my relationship, without having to preface it with any label...