I've always been interested in this movement and have taken an opportunity to study it for a term project. I'm a pretty liberal person but, as a man, there are definitely ways I am sympathetic to the movement. I think that male mortality rates, the decline in male educational outcomes , and certain portrayals/expectations of how men should act are all important social issues that are often not taken as seriously as they should be. While men certainly have historically caused harm, I do think there is a tendency to assume that men don't face their own particular set of struggles which is harmful.

My project itself is centered around speeches by Warren Farrell and Paul Elam; two notable public figures representing the movement. I don't pretend to be an expert on the movement (which is why I'm here) but I've occasionally looked into other public figures or resources on my own time. I've gone over the top posts of this subreddit, as well as the FAQ, to try and get a rough idea of the main ideas here and how they are presented.

From the rough analysis of these two videos, the two men seem like their rhetorical approach is quite different. Farrell seems quite moderate but does make some sweeping statements about what men and women are or aren't capable of. He also seems to focus on what women can do for men and boys. That said, most of his speech discusses "dad-deprivation" through divorce. Given the relative disparity in child custody this is understandable. Elam seems a lot less moderate and anti-feminist to the point of being anti-women. His rhetoric seems more concerned with division and "gender war" than working with others for progress. As for many of the top posts on this sub, it seems like the general attitude is "here's what women have that we don't" or "look at how toxic feminists are" rather than "here's what we can/are doing doing constructively create progress". I can understand the need to vent, but is this truly effective for creating meaningful change.

The subject of the paper will be rhetoric and how the ideas of the movement are being presented to the wider public. Here are some initial questions I have:

  1. The chosen name of the group interests me. 'Rights' seems to be somewhat strange inclusion when much of the discussion seems to be about health, social programs (or lack thereof), and how society views men. Why is there little discussion or emphasis legal rights that are being infringed upon? I know that the early history of the movement was heavily influenced by the Fathers' Rights Movement. Is the inclusion of 'Rights' a holdover from that or are there other legal rights that you see as being infringed upon? My sense is that a major source of negative response from the public is a result of the implicit assertion that men's rights are being stripped away. Why not re-brand the movement to something more health/well-being focused that's less likely to be received negatively by a mainstream audience?
  2. A lot of the rhetoric and discussion the movement puts forward seems to deal with what women have and men don't. It seems that this approach to framing men's issues wouldn't yield a lot of support from most Western mainstream populations. Why do members adopt what could be seen as a divisive rhetoric, instead of acknowledging that there are struggles that men and women each face and addressing the need to work together for the betterment of both groups?
  3. Connected to the above question, why does there seem to be a lot less inward focus on change? Particularly for issues like mental health, addiction, and social pressures, it seems like there could be a lot gained from men focusing on the ways that men impact each other in these ways. Our murder and assault rates are often the result of other men, our mental health issues are in part the results of the lack of positive male role-models and an inability to communicate healthily with other men, even our under-education is, to an extent, linked to a lack of male teachers in the school system. Where is the benefit to focusing on women and what they should be doing or giving up when there are potentially many positive ways that men can help other men?
  4. Your FAQ says that there isn't really a "coherent" Men's Rights Movement. If there are so many ways in which men are being discriminated against, why is there no attempt to create a large-scale coherent movement like the Civil Rights or Women's Rights Movement? Do you feel you can create change on a large scale without this kind of coherence?

TLDR: My grossly general question is why does a movement that claims to want to create positive change so often seem to use rhetoric that will be viewed as divisive or antagonistic by the mainstream Western society?

These questions are obviously based on certain assumptions, the main one being that this movement desires to create real change and, in order to do so, must find support in the government and mainstream public. Another assumption is that what I see here is representative of the movement as a whole. This seems like a safer assumption, though, given that this is a place where a large number of people are congregating in explicit connection to the movement. These questions are also clearly focused on a Western context, but this seems to be the primary focus of the movement as well.

I am trying to honestly engage with this community and will try to respond to comments in a way that fosters discourse.

Thanks for the participation.