This is quite long - you may skip down to [2] to get the central point if you don't have time to read the whole thing.

[1] *****************

I'm a close follower of the men's rights movement and male advocacy issues. Again and again, I am confounded by the sheer and disproportionate aggression that the movement's detractors confront it with: there seems to be more intense hatred of male rights' advocates than even deep racist/fascist movements, and certainly of chauvinists, militarists and traditionalists, who get an easy ride by comparison - even though in many ways, MRAs are at the progressive end of politics, calling for a re-evaluation of societies' roles for their male demographic.

MRAs seem to think the primary source of this hatred is female feminists, or "radical feminists". But what I have come to experience is this vitriol isn't coming primarily from female feminists at all, but from male critics who are usually uninterested or only orbital to feminism.

I see popular vloggers on Youtube like Jonathan Mann and Steve Shives appealing to male heroics to attack MRAs, calling them everything under the sun, with political correctness going out the window. Steve Shives falls short of calling for all out violence against MRAs generally, saying he doesn't tire of "punching them about", and calling them "pussies" and "fucking whining, slime-oozing scumbags" in his videos.

You can see in his angry expressions the joy he experiences saying these things. This is because he is getting a chance to express male strength, and feels like he is assuming the role of a dominant male (always in the artificial environment of the internet - it's very possible he does not experience this often in his daily life). Jonathan Mann is less extreme, but he also takes great joy in calling himself a "real man" against male advocates for very similar reasons. Men revel in the opportunity to express dominance over other men, while simultaneously assuming the role of protector of women and others, or simply of "the common good" - and when they look at the outright expression of vulnerability that is the men's rights movement, they cannot help but relish an opportunity to attack such vulnerability - an opportunity for them to express contrarian invulnerability.

I could list so many examples of this kind of male protector behaviour, all the way up to Obama heroically blocking MeninistTwitter (a particularly humorous case, considering that MininistTwitter has nothing to do with MRAs).

I don't think this will ever change. Therefore I wondered whether the way forward may be to re-frame messaging in a way that sits more at home with natural male morality, or the way that males generally desire to express their morality: as protectors or advocates of other people, or "their" people - the "I only wish to serve my people" trope of male morality.

[2] ******************

What do I mean by this?

I think it's a question of male advocacy issues being re-framed so they do not put MEN at the centre of such advocacy. Rather, it should frame men as the selfless advocates of others. This may sound controversial, but hear me out. Some examples of what I mean:

  • Male disadvantage in education. Boys are clearly disadvantaged in education in the rich world. But it is very hard to convince men to listen and care unless you give them a chance to be someone's "protector". In this sense, the message could be, "Robert is helping his little brother Kevin get through school and get the future he wants, by campaigning for better boys' schooling". This would be rather than, "Robert couldn't complete his education and has no job. Robert is a victim", which does not really appeal to the real-life Robert.

  • Male health. A possible messaging frame: "Robert wants his grampa to live as long as his grandma so they can both be happy together. That's why he is campaigning for greater funding and research into grandpa's health". Rather than, "Robert's health issues are widely ignored by society. Robert is a victim".

  • War conscription/casualties. "Robert doesn't want little Kevin to die before he gets to live a full life". Rather than, "Robert was conscripted into war unfairly".

  • Child custody. "Little Kevin needs his dad. That's why Robert is campaigning to protects Kevin's right to have a father". Rather than "Robert lost his kids, it's a tragedy".

  • Bogus rape trials on uni campuses. "Kevin did nothing wrong when he was thrown out of university for having drunken consensual sex with his girlfriend. That's why his brother Robert wants equal treatment for everyone on university campuses". Rather than, "Robert's life was destroyed by a false rape accusation".

I could go on but I'm sure you get the point. I wondered what people's opinions were. I think a push to re-frame the marketing of male advocacy in this vein could work quite well.

Thoughts?