For purposes of this self post let me use MRA to mean ‘men’s rights activism’ and call men’s rights activism which is not corrupted by intersectionality ‘naive’, so that I can contrast naive MRA vs. intersectionalist MRA.

naive MRA (NMRA) is activism in favor or men qua men, just men, because they are men. intersectionalist MRA (IMRA) is activism in favor of certain men and against others, based on a model of intersectional axis of oppression.

If men are being killed by police, the NMRA activist will be motivated to stop this senseless killing “Hey, stop killing those men” they will say. The IMRA on the other hand will need some additional info, “what color are the men, did you kill them because they are male? If so that’s bad – but if you killed them for some other reason ima just dip”

The IMRA is able to find many reasons to ignore the plight of many different types of men, color, religion, sexual preference, all the typical intersectional categories, while the NMRA is just blind to such things, seeing only men, who deserve rights.

Not to get all meta but his forum for instance in an IMRA forum, heavily influenced by intersectional theory. Are gay men being sacrificed to murderous death cults from the desert? We don’t care. Are black men being killed by cops? Maybe the feminists can help them. What about trans men, maybe ‘don’t ask don’t tell?’ insofar as no one is picking on them for being trans or mentions that they are trans they are welcome, but of course, if they face discrimination for some reason other than being male they can fuck right off.

Now, no two men are exactly alike, even our intersectionalist mods agree. Fathers rights for instance are men’s rights, even tho not all men are fathers. Men get shafted in divorce and in family court, those are men’s issues even tho not all men are married to women. A good rule of thumb is ‘if it effects straight white men, it’s a men’s issue – otherwise GTFO”