A big question from a former feminist...

mikesteane · 2016-07-06T07:51:52+00:00

You seem to be sincere in your questions, but I believe much of your viewpoint is in error. It is often the case that something that appears to be favouring one group of two actually favours the other. For example, the earnings gap (there is an earnings gap, there is no pay gap) favours women. Men are doing most of the earning, even though women are doing most of the spending. Here is where I disagree with your underlying assumptions.

(Edit: facts below refer to Britain)

Women used to be property, literally.

This is an old canard. Wives were not property they were a responsibility with the husband held legally liable for her upkeep. Can you find an single example of a wife being sold to another husband, which would be possible if she were, as you put it, his property.

They didn’t even have the right to vote until the 20th century.

They didn't get equal suffrage with men until 1928, ten years after universal adult male suffrage, but they voted as women voting as early as 1843. They did not, however, get the the obligation to do national service, which was obligatory for all men at the time.

Additionally, the right to vote in local elections, where women had a significant interest dates back to Anglo Saxon times. In terms of national government, the main issue throughout most of history was the raising of armies which directly affected men, but only indirectly affected women. And the same for taxes in most cases.

women are still massively underrepresented

They under-represent themselves. Discrimination is not a factor. But men systematically represent women, whereas female delegates only represent their own types. How many male representatives can you name who represent men as opposed to women and how many female delegates do something other than privilege the female interest over the male interest. Male delegates can be relied on to look after female interests. For example Britain's prostitution laws defend the right of a woman to make her living as a prostitute, but at the same time outlaw any male who profits from it.

The data is irrefutable that institutionalized male privilege exists.

No, it isn't.

I certainly won’t deny that some feminists hate men.

Nearly all, if not all, the female leaders of the feminist movement have published outrageous anti-male statements and regularly spit vitriol at men in general. It's not just a few outliers.

CountVonVague · 2016-07-06T09:02:33+00:00

Thank you for the long post. I don't even consider myself an MRA, just a concerned humanitarian. I knew this was gonna be a rant but honestly i consider it just as thorough explanation as needs be. I'm just "that guy" who makes long posts.

I agree wholeheartedly with the legislative aims of the movement

Alone that's a big statement. :)

When I read about the recent debates in the House and Senate over including women in the draft, the most outspoken critics of doing so were men.

I'd need to hear their exact statements but i'd bet that many of them were speaking about how dangerous it would be for women in certain combat situations, how enemy forces would treat captured female soldiers and the public response to that. We get up in arms over mean comments on the internet, how would said soldier being captured and tortured/raped/abused/filmed/etc be received by the national public? One internet feed of a 24/hr (graphic actions) and America would be ready to nuke somebody.

If men are being discriminated against, and men obviously have the bulk of political power, and, up until the last few decades, ALL the political power, why did they make rules to disadvantage themselves?

Most men don't care about one another by virtue of their sex. We just don't. We're not like women like that, we don't have an in-group preference or at least ours is socially ground out of us early on. The way that women will tend to get nervous when confronted with men she doesn't trust, or the way women tend to empathize with one another over shared female experiences, doesn't have an analogous idea in men's psyche unless you wanted to ingrain in them the idea that sexual tension is a sign of personal danger (which leads to chauvinism). When discriminated against we'll look to any other cause other than our sex, because doing so would naturally feel like putting ourselves in juxtaposition to women, and that's considered misogynist/chauvinist/sexist/degenerate/evil/etc.

Still, for comprising more than 50% of the population, women are still massively underrepresented in nearly every leadership position of nearly everything, which means women are largely not making the decisions in these matters that are adversely affecting men.

And women are the majority of electors who put those men in power, while fewer women seek political office. And if elected to political office would these women presumably publicly place their sex as a deciding factor of their political career? When men do that how are we treated? Would you expect women to really make their politics different then their male counterparts?

But why even bother arguing with feminists or countering feminism in any way, if many of the aims of the MRM could be accomplished with only the assistance of other men?

there's some issues simply regarding being heard or having our legislative goals taken seriously. If you've done little research yourself i highly advise taking a look at Karen's body of advocacy work (it's a doozy, you'll need days). Again, men don't care about one another by virtue of our sex. In fact most social messages we get tend to be along the lines of "take down the bad GUY, protect the good GIRL" and rarely does that script get flipped. Talking about the MRM's goals with politicians isn't going to help much since MRA's have been utterly demonized by all forms for media for decades. And if it all goes back to "men are keeping you down, thus men are your adversary" we end up back in the same mindset of "men vs men". Women need to be involved here, there's no other option, women need to be the ones to bring this social issue to the forefront of public consciousness because frankly nobody gives a shit about men.

When you help "all men" your supposed to be helping "all people", not just one sex. not doing so just doesn't click.

It just doesn’t seem to me that MRAs need to address women at all in order to accomplish many of their legislative or judicial aims. (For the social issues, yes, this needs to be a whole-society conversation.)

For "men" to pass legislation they'd need a public discourse, it doesn't just happen, but the subject matter has been poisoned by feminists and is now political suicide to even bring up. It's impossible NOT to address women when they comprise over 50% of the voters who would need to pass said legislation proposed by their elected representatives. I'm sorry, i know you've come in good faith but saying that "MRAs don't need to address women at all" strikes me as beyond fucking retarded. There's LITERALLY no way around that being a required hurdle.

However, from the little research I’ve been able to do on actual MR activist, it seems to me that MRAs would RATHER shout down feminists than actually solve the problems of injustice against men.

If i said "they started it" that'd be a big summation. When being attacked and derided it makes more sense to go on the offensive than run away and hope somebody else more important and powerful listens. When much of feminism, whether you like it or not, was founded in anti-male sentiments it's hard not to seek to address those sentiments with something resembling emotional fists.

I can say without reservation that every feminist I know would support the legislative aims of the MRM.

Then you know how inevitable it is that all this has to come into the open and be discussed, publicized, scrutinized, and analyzed to the highest degree imaginable before ultimately being passed as law. Do you know what it's going to take to make circumcision illegal, the social hurdles for that alone?

Boys aren’t allowed to cry or show emotion, and then women crap on adult men for not being more sensitive, when they were taught all their lives to shut those feelings down.

Nobody likes it when guys share their pain, because frankly the easiest way is anger and that scares people away who aren't comfortable or can relate. Women get scared and Men get uncomfortable because it makes them think about pains they'd rather forget. Anger is just as valid an emotion as Joy and Sadness and Fear. It's less that we're "not allowed" since there's no problem breaking rules, but we ourselves often don't Want to. Making ourselves emotionally vulnerable isn't a go-to method of success or makes us feel better about ourselves. Sadly it's too easy for many men to end up feeling like most women literally think we're scum.

orangorilla · 2016-07-06T07:09:57+00:00

Okay, that's a long post. But you seem to come here in good faith, so I'd like to open up a dialogue.

I honestly can't tackle all your questions in one post, it would become too long too quickly, so let me start with one at the time, and we can progress through it as a conversation.

If men are being discriminated against, and men obviously have the bulk of political power, and, up until the last few decades, ALL the political power, why did they make rules to disadvantage themselves?

There are a variety of reasons for this. Let's take circumcision. Religion and tradition are strong factors here. A rabbi will be adamant because that is a way to honor god or something. A doctor will be adamant because they've done it so many times, imagine learning that cutting hair is a bad thing, not just objectively harmful, but also morally wrong. Every barber and hair stylist would have two choices, either disregarding this as "crazy" or conform to this new knowledge and acknowledge they've been doing something objectively wrong thousands of times. The same with parents, taking their kids to have their hair cut several times a year, then suddenly having to come to terms with the fact that they're horrible parents. Another hypothesis that exists is the "adamant father syndrome," people who suffer trauma might not remember it, but will have a subconscious need to repeat the trauma, and since getting cut again isn't an option, having your son cut is one way to have it done. "I'm normal, so he needs to be normal too." Or "I want my son to be like me" even though the thing you are is, mutilated against your will.

I'd welcome it if you wanted to discuss some other scope of the system/traditions disadvantaging men. Or you could shoot with the next question on your mind.

FollettoBurbero · 2016-07-06T09:53:23+00:00

Could you please define male privilege to me?Also I wanted to add a bit to your point about men in positions of power working against themselves.The explanation is really simple:human beings can be selfish.You can put a 100% male or female government in power, or even equally distributed and they are not going be necessarily working for their sex.They might be working to enrich themselves or/and gain more power, but more often than not they will try to pursue their interests based on the tide and public opinion.Power corrupts and absolute power(heads of the country) corrupts absolutely, trust me if men in the West were really intentioned to keep women down things would be more like the Middle East.The west is actually pretty equal, not accounting some heavy disadvantages for men.I would suggest reading the myth of male power of Warren Farrel and if you would like to check out some resources feel free to head r/mensrightslinks, we welcome scholars and discussions.

TeslaCoconut · 2016-07-06T14:55:59+00:00

As you can see by the responses and peaceful discussion, there is just endless stuff to cover and misinformation and myths that have been ingrained in the minds of many people, especially feminists. It's no surprise given that you minored in Women's Studies and attended many feminists events. Essentially, the problem is there are many minor, and of course major, misconceptions that are ingrained. I feel like the minor issues are also a big contributor because they are not often immediately intuitive or the big elephant in the room, so they color your own perception of the world, even meanwhile your scientific mind analyzes the major ones. This is precisely why these discussions tend to be so long and thorough. To cover everything takes a lot. Many issues in the world are like this, and people are extremely biased. Often the truth is somewhere in the middle, as you can imagine. The difference is, feminists don't generally consider that middle ground, and they've moved the discussion spectrum so much that what is perceived to be middle ground, is actually still feminist high ground.

Tedesche · 2016-07-06T16:30:49+00:00

A lot of the antagonism and criticism of feminism in the MRM is due to the ways in which many feminists have actively tried (and succeeded, quite frankly) to dominate the gender debate and exclude male perspectives and stifle or limit attention to male issues. Sadly, this is a trend in feminism that has been increasing, not abating. You'll find plenty of MRAs who will tell you they have little problem with the feminism of the 50's and 60's, but that the advent of radical feminism in the 70's was the beginning of what has become an increasingly anti-male brand of feminism. Radical feminists per se are still fringe, but a lot of their ideas, rhetoric, and attitudes have gone mainstream, and third-wave feminism is really quite misandrist at this point.

Again, feminists really control the gender debate and are well-connected politically, so they are effectual too. When you've got a socio-political machine that operates so effectively and is so clearly anti-male, it's pretty much impossible to advocate for men without attacking those trying to demonize them. I mean, if there was an influential social movement that was pushing the narrative that women need to be taught not to make false sexual abuse accusations or rely on men to pay for them, and attributed these behaviors to "toxic femininity," would you really be able to ignore that if you were trying to advocate for women?

Sadly, the gender debate is really more of a war, and we're all ultimately responsible for that, but feminism is far from exempt from blame in exacerbating it. I think it's hard for a lot of feminists—including ones that are truly sympathetic to men and the MRM—to see feminism's negative impacts on society, and the extent to which it really pushes a one-sided, misandrist understanding of gender relations, because feminism has undeniably done so much good for women. This is why we see a lot of feminists who claim their only problem with the MRM is the extent to which it attacks feminism and provides a haven for actual misogyny. Well, feminism attacks the MRM and provides a haven for misandry, so what exactly is being criticized in non-hypocritical fashion here?

As for why the MRM doesn't focus more on appealing to our predominantly male politicians—uhm...who said it doesn't? If you check the stickied posts on this sub, you'll find plenty of petitions and other "action opportunities" for actual activism (another thing a lot of feminists claim the MRM doesn't engage in). There are male advocacy organizations that attempt to work with lawmakers to get legislation changed—but you know who's almost always supporting their political opponents? Feminist organizations, like NOW. NOW and many other feminist groups have consistently opposed things like shared parenting law reforms.

So, this notion that the MRM has valid concerns, but is wasting it's time and energy attacking feminists is a view that fails to take into account the extent to which feminists are frequently actively opposed to those concerns being addressed, and are unfortunately also actively pushing a gender narrative that is sexist towards men. The stark distinctions in perception of feminism and the MRM are what seem to create the huge divide and antagonism between reasonable feminists and MRAs, who are functionally all egalitarians and want the same things to change. This is really just a function of in-group/out-group psychological bias, and is entirely to be expected I might add. I think it's important for members of any group to give special consideration to the ways in which their group may be behaving badly, and I think a lot of MRAs and feminists fail to do so respectively, but to address your post—I think you're failing to do so here. Feminism has done a great many good things for the world and it continues to do so, but it has also done some really despicable things and continues to do so. A lot of the criticism feminists give the MRM is deserved, but so is a lot of the criticism MRAs give feminism. Feminism is not a blameless, lily-white movement of moral purity; it is just as susceptible to corruption and bias as any other political bloc, and it's actions have clearly demonstrated this.

As for working together, take a look at the men's liberation movement as an example of the place feminists make for men's issues, even among male feminists. It is tiny and largely ignored by the majority of feminists. Male feminists are regularly referred to as "feminist allies" rather than real feminists, so I'm a bit incredulous that most feminists are even willing to truly cooperate. As such, the MRM takes an oppositional stance, with the framework that, okay, if it's to be a war, and women have feminists, men need an army too. I honestly don't see much cooperation between MRAs and feminists in the near future. Rather, my hope is that the MRM will succeed in being loud enough to get men's issues addressed and force society to rethink feminism in the context of MRA criticism. When the playing field is level enough, I think people in the middle will get tired of the fighting, both feminism and the MRM will get left in the dust, and true egalitarian movement will form. That's unfortunately not a pretty picture, but it's honestly the only way I see things moving forward. The power imbalance between feminists and MRAs is far too discrepant right now for feminists to have any incentive to truly devote any time to men's issues, and they only way they're going to offer any real olive branches is by socio-political pressure. In other words, they need to be forced to do so. Again, that shouldn't be surprising if you have even a passing understanding of sociology.

HotDealsInTexas · 2016-07-06T22:18:51+00:00

However, when I look at the distribution of political power in the U.S., 71% of elected officials are male. When I read about the recent debates in the House and Senate over including women in the draft, the most outspoken critics of doing so were men. Male doctors and rabbis are still the majority, enforcing circumcision. Male judges make the decisions in child custody cases. It seems to me that the vast majority of those in power, reinforcing these injustices against men, are other men.

So: as others have noted, women are a slight majority of voters, and in practice both male and female elected officials tend to prioritize women over men.

To me, this is a major difference between feminism and MRM. If we take things back to the 70s for a minute, consider women who wanted to pass the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (which allows pregnant women to continue to work and go to school as long as they’re physically capable, unlike before, when pregnant teenagers, college students and workers were barred from attending class or work as soon as they started showing). The women who wanted this legislation had to convince the almost exclusively-male Congress that this was a problem, in order to get this legislation passed. It just doesn’t seem to me that MRAs need to address women at all in order to accomplish many of their legislative or judicial aims. (For the social issues, yes, this needs to be a whole-society conversation.)

Consider the fact that there are plenty of women in areas such as education and journalism, and specifically there is a massive Feminist influence in those areas. Voters and officials alike grow up in a world where most of their teachers are female, and are taught things like "respect women," "Never hit a girl," "Men need to be taught not to rape," etc, and get very similar messages from the media. Also consider that the vast majority of the male elected officials are married to woman. How many of those politicians wives affect their husbands' legislative decisions? How many male voters are influenced by the opinions of the women in their lives? Yes, this influence goes both ways, but as you said women have a LOT of social power.

And remember that if a politician is openly pro-male, he will get blasted from both sides of the aisle: the conservatives will hate him for opposing gender roles by not prioritizing protection of women, and letting men not be stoic, and the left will hate him for opposing Feminist ideology. Politicians do what will get them elected, and in practice that means pandering to women and women's issues.

Another problem is that men who talk about their issues just get dismissed as "whiny" by both women and men. The MRM is also constantly accused of misogyny. Having female support is VITAL because, sadly, we live in a culture which pays less attention to "as a young man, I don't want to be drafted and sent of to die against my will" than "as a mother, I don't want my son to be drafted and sent off to die."

However, from the little research I’ve been able to do on actual MR activist, it seems to me that MRAs would RATHER shout down feminists than actually solve the problems of injustice against men.

As I said: Feminism has a lot of influence in education and the media, and large sections of it are opposed to the existence of groups addressing men's issues which don't follow Feminist ideology. And Feminist ideology does get itself codified into law: the best examples are probably the Duluth Model and California's law requiring colleges to follow "affirmative consent" policies. Quite simply we HAVE to shout down Feminism to be heard at all. The tradcons are harmful too, but a lot of them are old and will die in a couple decades. On the other hand, teenagers and 20-somethings are being indoctrinated with misandrist beliefs.

I can say without reservation that every feminist I know would support the legislative aims of the MRM. The feminists I know have sons, and they want their kids to grow up whole and free. That’s not every feminist in the world, and I definitely have open-minded, compassionate friends, but it’s at least some. What are the barriers to acknowledging all the data on both sides, and working together?

Okay... your Feminist friends might say this, but do they really believe it? Have you asked them whether they actually support Legal Paternal Surrender, or a ban in infant male circumcision, or gender-neutral conscription laws and/or complete abolition of conscription, or how they truly feel about due process for men accused of rape? The results may surprise you.

Anyway, I wanted to say thank you for being open minded and willing to discuss things in good faith. It's sincerely refreshing, since this sub gets a lot of concern trolls.

Foregen_Is_Life · 2016-07-06T08:47:05+00:00

Hi OP, this was a great post :) I've definitely noticed this curiosity as well. A lot of the ways in which our society actively discriminates against men are the result of laws or policies established by men and enforced by men. I believe the reason for this is that a lot of (usually older) men have an extremely ingrained notion of chivalry - the idea that it is their job to protect women and girls and provide for them. This white knight mentality obviously conflicts with the efforts of those promoting gender equality and equal treatment of men and women.

There is a definite generational gap when it comes to chivalry, though. The older men currently in power (e.g. congressmen) may view women as sweet, soft creatures which need to be protected. Younger men, though, seem to have rejected chivalry - likely due to their irritation with "third wave feminism." I think in a couple of decades, when the college-aged men of today take up positions of power, it will be much easier to push legislation which improves equality for men.

MagicGainbow · 2016-07-06T06:09:34+00:00

However, when I look at the distribution of political power in the U.S., 71% of elected officials are male.

And women are the majority of voters, as far as I can see women do not have the same level of interest in pursuing political careers (I recall a politician from about a year back expressing confusion as to way all the programs and initiatives designed to get women into politics weren't working), it's a long grueling slog with no guarantees except late nights an lots of stress never mind how it effects your personal life.

They didn’t even have the right to vote until the 20th century.

Neither did men, men were only even given the vote due to the draft.

Male judges make the decisions in child custody cases. It seems to me that the vast majority of those in power, reinforcing these injustices against men, are other men.

Paternal sexism.

So I guess what I’m asking is, why does it seem like the tone of the MR movement is so anti-female, or at a minimum, deliberately juxtaposed with feminism?

Because a great deal of these modern laws were pushed by feminists, look at NOW.

disayle32 · 2016-07-06T07:43:54+00:00

It's true that men outnumber women in the highest echelons of power. However, those powerful men often cater to the wishes of women and feminists. Here's a really great example: http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/17737

In a nutshell, the Great Recession did far more damage to male-dominated fields like manufacturing and construction than it did to female-dominated fields. President Obama's original economic package was meant to stimulate those fields, but a cabal of feminist organizations, womens' groups, etc. subjected him to a fusillade of lobbying. The result? A disproportionate amount of the stimulus was funneled towards female-dominated fields--despite the fact that those fields were not hit nearly as hard by the Great Recession.

viper_myman · 2016-07-06T11:18:39+00:00

My short answer is that social and cultural pressures on male politicians prevent them from acting in the best interest of men, at the risk of appearing self-serving. Men aren't portrayed as disadvantaged in the media, the news or in academia. The media and academia are the ones imposing these pressures on male politicians.

zulu127 · 2016-07-06T12:01:03+00:00

What are the barriers to acknowledging all the data on both sides, and working together?

Here's one from a person with a Masters degree in Women's Studies.

obstinatebeagle · 2016-07-06T12:13:38+00:00

Wouldn’t it be more effective for MRAs to address their advocacy and activism directly toward other men, since it’s other men who have the power to change the things they want to change?

I think you've actually answered the question yourself without realizing it:

I also can totally see that women have quite a bit of social privilege that is almost never acknowledged.

The people (men in this case) with "power" as you put it are not free to say whatever they want to say or to do whatever they want to do. They must follow the "allowed" narrative, and that allowed narrative is overwhelmingly feminist and left leaning. When they don't - say Trump for example - they get branded as a misogynist and hounded to resign or to be fired. Remember donglegate? Two guys at a conference made a joke between themselves and were overheard by a feminist zealot and they swiftly both got fired - over a joke. So the men in "power" who want to hold onto their power tow the line so as not to upset the feminist activists and end up losing that power.

Try being a male professor in a university speaking for men's rights. What do you think will happen? Universities are completely dominated by feminist dogma now. You'll get fired faster than you can blink and no other university in the country will touch you. Google "warren farrell university of toronto protest" to get an idea of what happens.

Men in "power" do as they are told so as to not risk being hounded by the press and govt, or being boycotted by their customers (who in turn are hounded by the same lobbyists to do the boycotting). Basically - don't rock the feminist boat or you will be the one thrown overboard in the backlash.

So to change all that, to get MRAs to have some effect over the men in power, somehow the men in power have stop being strangled so tightly by the feminist narrative. That is why MRAs need to fight the feminist stranglehold first.

JestyerAverageJoe · 2016-07-06T12:17:55+00:00

Thanks for coming here with an open mind. I am doing my best to approach this dialog openly, but you have to understand that I've seen this before, and at least half the time it's just concern trolling. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

If men are being discriminated against, and men obviously have the bulk of political power, and, up until the last few decades, ALL the political power, why did they make rules to disadvantage themselves?

You say you're a scientist. You say if (a) men are being discriminated against and (b) men have all of the power, then why (c) do men disadvantage themselves? As you can easily deduce, it must be the case that either (a) or (b) is false. You provided evidence demonstrating (a). So, it must be the case that "men" do not actually have all of the power. The men in power have the power. That they are men is beside the point. That they are powerful is the point.

There is something critical for you to understand: Men do not see each other as "brothers" in a "brotherhood." Particularly not men in power. (Yes, I just said the patriarchy is a fiction.) I see feminists constantly make the statement that "they are not represented" by their representatives because their representatives are male. To those feminists and you I ask the following:

How are you not being represented? What specific interests? What can you name beyond their sex?
What makes you think they represent men? Why would their genitals make them necessarily share my beliefs? Why does their being male mean they agree with me politically?

Women used to be property, literally. It’s not as if they chose that. They had no public voice. They didn’t even have the right to vote until the 20th century.

This is false. Voting was restricted to people who owned land. The women who owned land were allowed to vote. The men who did not own land were not allowed to vote.

Once again, what divides is power, not sex.

Along these lines, you might be interested to note that due to the male-only draft, the penalties on dodging the draft, and state laws stripping felons of voting rights, we are at a point in time in which women have universal suffrage and men do not.

So I guess what I’m asking is, why does it seem like the tone of the MR movement is so anti-female, or at a minimum, deliberately juxtaposed with feminism? Wouldn’t it be more effective for MRAs to address their advocacy and activism directly toward other men, since it’s other men who have the power to change the things they want to change?

Why do feminists shut down advocates for the rights of men? Here is just one example of a peaceful MRA meeting being attacked by vicious feminists.
Why, if feminists care about men and want to include men, is it "He for She?"
What do you make of feminists like Jessica Valenti who encourage laughing at "male tears?"
If feminists care about not using gendered language, why do they invent gendered slurs like "mansplaining" and "manspreading?"
Why do feminists reinvent words like "sexism" to insist that "women cannot be sexist" and so "men cannot experience sexism?"
I can't keep track, because I've been told by feminists that feminism is "for men," that feminism is "for women," that men can be feminists, that men can only be allies, that men can't be feminist at all, that feminism is addressing men's problems, and that feminism isn't the place for men's problems. Which is it today? Which do you tell me? Is feminism "for equality" or is it "for women" and why can't feminists make up their minds?
Why do feminists continue to insist that a "rape culture" exists when even RAINN says that the very idea of "rape culture" is invalid?
If we lived in a patriarchal rape culture, would Brock Turner have received as much backlash as he did? Would rape even be considered a crime in a patriarchal rape culture?
Where are the feminists campaigning against female sex offenders who rape their male students and are let off with a slap on the wrist?
You care about data. Why do feminists continue to insist that 1 in 5 women are raped at college, a rape rate of 20% that, if it were real, which it is not, would be higher than that of the Congo?
You care about data. Why do feminists continue to insist that the "wage gap" is a reality when it is a result of differing life choices and does not account for any mitigating factors such as job type and overtime hours, and disappears when these factors are taken into consideration?
You care about data. Women are responsible for 85% of household spending. Why are no feminists working to change this?
You care about data. Women are responsible for 70% of non-reciprocal partner violence. Why aren't feminists working on this? Why do feminists oppose men's domestic violence shelters?
Why are no feminists working to deconstruct hostile attitudes towards men in media, e.g. the omnipresent "stupid dad" stereotype?
Why are there no feminists encouraging men to enter traditionally female-dominated fields such as nursing and childcare?
Why are there no feminists encouraging women to enter all of the ugly, dirty, and dangerous fields that men work in, such as coal mining, deep sea fishing, and power line repair? Why is it OK for that to be "men's work" but the STEM jobs need to be colonized?
Why are feminists today insisting that for political equality to be reached, men should simply stop running for office?
Why do feminists regard all-female spaces as "empowering" and necessary but all-male spaces as "sexist" and necessary to destroy or colonize? Why are men forbidden from being alone with other men?
If feminism is the movement for equality, since 85% of Americans agree on gender equality, why do 82% of Americans agree on not being feminist?
If there were a patriarchy, why would it mostly serve to hurt men, as you noticed?
If there were a patriarchy, why would men ever have given women the right to vote?
Every feminist I meet who claims to care about men's issues also has told me that she is working on women's issues. Why haven't I met a single feminist who is focusing on men's issues, if they exist?
Why won't feminists confront misandry?

The data is irrefutable that institutionalized male privilege exists.

You say you believe in facts but you make this statement without any evidence.

I also can totally see that women have quite a bit of social privilege that is almost never acknowledged.

Why don't feminists encourage women to check their privilege then? Isn't it hypocritical of them not to?

The women who wanted this legislation had to convince the almost exclusively-male Congress that this was a problem, in order to get this legislation passed.

Isn't it fair to say that what you've just describes is a male congress representing the interests of its female constituents?

However, from the little research I’ve been able to do on actual MR activist, it seems to me that MRAs would RATHER shout down feminists than actually solve the problems of injustice against men.

I believe you're misreading this. What you are seeing is a lack of political power, in contrast to the real political power wielded by feminists. Men do not have power. People in power have power.

I can say without reservation that every feminist I know would support the legislative aims of the MRM.

Why did NOW oppose Florida's recent legislation that would have made family courts fairer to men during custody battles? While we're on the topic, why did NOW give Emma Sulkowicz a medal for ruining an innocent man's life?

I would like to close with a simple question to you: Why in all instances in which women constitute a majority -- be it a majority of kindergarten teachers or the majority of college students -- do feminists call this a "victory" and call it "equality" instead of insisting that men be given an advantage?

babno · 2016-07-06T14:39:10+00:00

Re why males in power choose to benefit women. As a scientist you should be able to appreciate evolutionary responses, and through much of human history women were much more valuable to the survival of the both the species and the kingdom. If there's a war then you send the men to die and next generation your back to normal, if you send the women then the loss of reproduction means you might never recover. While the need to shield women from death isn't so common any longer, the urge to protect is still extremely influential, and overcoming that while a monumental (and potentially impossible) task, would be the largest possible step towards equality.

We can as you suggest target a male judge, and change one persons opinions and result in a few dozen fathers getting equitable time. Or we can go after the idea of females as precious more valuable people. That's why there's so many "female molested her kids" type posts. While it seems like just hatred and demonizing, you have to recognize that men are already assumed to be pedos, so it's actually humanizing and normalizing women, taking them down from the alter of perceived perfection, so that people can see they don't deserve more protection than men just by nature of being a woman.

bufedad · 2016-07-06T16:13:56+00:00

If men are being discriminated against, and men obviously have the bulk of political power, and, up until the last few decades, ALL the political power, why did they make rules to disadvantage themselves?

The biggest mistake is confusing the "ruling" class with men in general.

There are more female voters than there are male voters. Which means that for each male politician, they were elected mostly by women. If they want to stay in office, they have to placate the female voters.

That being said, men have always protected women. I would say it's an evolutionary impulse. For evolution, men are disposable, and women are important. That's my personal thoughts on the matter though.

Look back through history, and you'll see that men had rights, but they also had responsibilities. Women did not have those rights, but they also didn't have the responsibilities that would put their lives in danger.

Men have always protected women, but women have never had to think of anyone but themselves and their children.

Now, we have a social situation where women demand more and more protections for themselves, it's ingrained in men that they should protect women, and those "protections" are hurting men. This results in everyone taking care of women at the expense of men.

NewMunster · 2016-07-06T12:17:51+00:00

If men are being discriminated against, and men obviously have the bulk of political power, and, up until the last few decades, ALL the political power, why did they make rules to disadvantage themselves?

Same reason women became advantaged when the rules were changed: because the politicians wanted to be seen doing something about a social movement and to be seen to be "listening to the people" or "caring". Uncaring politicians don't last.

However, this obviously had unforeseen consequences which are now just being talked about, because men are wising up to the fact that they are being screwed over by a biased legal system.

Wouldn’t it be more effective for MRAs to address their advocacy and activism directly toward other men, since it’s other men who have the power to change the things they want to change?

Because feminism is so much more prevalent in society in terms of gender relations and social ideas. Feminism, as a social and political movement, has been around a lot longer than men's rights and it wasn't until men realized that this new society was beginning to put them at a disadvantage that they actually started speaking up. Unfortunately, when they did, feminism was so well entrenched in society that those that did were shamed for their views and treated like they wanted to harm all women and return to the era when women were treated, like you said, as property.

The reason why it objectively appears anti-female is that the movement has become a refuge for men who are misogynists or who have been mistreated by women and want to find something to justify their bitterness or their resentment towards them.

Of course, feminists took these people and turned them into the poster-child of the movement, hence why men's rights has been driven into the "underbelly" of the internet. This has resulted in what exposure it has being purely negative and a lot of people not knowing one existed. Case in point, I replied to one woman on /r/AskMen who said that men should form their own social movement. When I said that men had their own movement and organizations, she just said "but it's full of assholes who think they're 'nice guys'". With perspectives like these, you can probably see and understand why the men'r rights movement still has to fight for recognition within mainstream society.

But why even bother arguing with feminists or countering feminism in any way, if many of the aims of the MRM could be accomplished with only the assistance of other men?

Because feminism, and feminists, dictate gender relations. You can't have any discussion on men's rights without feminists adding their two cent's worth in and basically decrying the movement as nothing more than a bunch of sexually frustrated virgins. The image of the men's rights movement has been dictated by feminists as well, meaning it would be extremely difficult to get through to politicians because the movement is currently viewed negatively in society. And as cynical as politics is, negativity is never a good thing, especially for reputations and reelections. To put it simply, no self-respecting politician would consider men's rights because it'd be too damn dangerous for them to do so.

It just doesn’t seem to me that MRAs need to address women at all in order to accomplish many of their legislative or judicial aims.

But it's women who are the ones that have more control over politicians than men do, in specific cases like this. Men dominating the political scene doesn't make a difference in the public perception of the movement. And public perception is key to politics. Siding with the men's rights movement would be political suicide for anyone at the federal level.

However, from the little research I’ve been able to do on actual MR activist, it seems to me that MRAs would RATHER shout down feminists than actually solve the problems of injustice against men.

As I said, a lot of them still reserve a large amount of hatred and resentment towards women and the movement is merely giving them a soapbox and a microphone from which they can air their views. Such views tend to drown out the more reasonable people who want to do something about this but can't, because again, public perception is everything.

It's also the most MRA's really can do at this stage. As long as feminists have the ear of politicians, the men's rights movement will continue to be regarded as a haven for misogyny and sexism.

What are the barriers to acknowledging all the data on both sides, and working together?

Public perception and simple awareness are the current ones, at least in my opinion. Again, it's hard to be taken seriously when the overwhelming consensus on what an MRA is, is someone who hates women. It doesn't help that there are women haters in the movement, and much like feminism, not enough of us are trying to call them out on their bullshit, but that's how things are.

But I also believe that perhaps it's not for the best that men and women work together. I find it difficult to grasp how women are treated because I am a male and I don't doubt that women don't understand how males are treated. And, generally, neither of us ever will. This means that we look at opposing issues with regards to gender relations with our own perspectives and life experiences and both of these are vastly different. And because of the differences in these, neither of us, as men and women, are going to ever truly understand each other and the issues we face in society and so we need to work with people who do. Cooperation is the ideal, but in reality (or in my cynical opinion), it's not possible. We're simply too different in our outlooks on life and ultimately that shapes our perspective on the world and what constitutes equality and justice.

Spoonwood · 2016-07-06T15:11:52+00:00

However, when I look at the distribution of political power in the U.S., 71% of elected officials are male.

Political power is more than just holding office. We live in a democracy. The fundamental political power in a democracy consists of the right to vote. There exist more women who can vote than men, and more women who do vote than men.

Mothers also make the decision as to whether or not to have their child's genitals cut more often than fathers.

If men are being discriminated against, and men obviously have the bulk of political power...

No, that's not obvious. Women can and do vote more often than men. Women also don't end up in prison as often as men, and thus have greater influence on their communities. Women in schools also have greater influence on their communities than men politically speaking.

and, up until the last few decades, ALL the political power...

No, that's not true. There have existed regnant queens.

Additionally, it doesn't work out that all or even the majority of men have had political power. It's only a minority of them. It simply isn't correct to say something like "men have the power" as if you referred to men in general, when the most that can accurately get said consists of saying that some men have had substantially more power than other people.

why did they make rules to disadvantage themselves?

The monarchs who sent men off to fight in wars didn't fight in wars themselves, or at least not in the same direct way. The men who put other men into prison were not getting locked up in prisons themselves. So, no, it wasn't men making rules to disadvantage themselves.

It seems to me that, while men obviously experience hardship as a result of strict gender roles and harmful societal expectations, they must still experience a net benefit in terms of privilege and power… if they didn’t, why would men have created these structures to begin with, and continue to enforce them?

Men as a group didn't create them. Individual men, perhaps, or coalitions of some men, perhaps; individual women perhaps or coalitions of some women and some women perhaps. A net benefit though refers to something about a group as a whole.

But why even bother arguing with feminists or countering feminism in any way, if many of the aims of the MRM could be accomplished with only the assistance of other men?

It doesn't work out that way, because some feminist groups such as the National Organization for Women do have substantial political clout.

You also talk about influencing male politicians in office. Well, those male politicians know that the majority of their electorate is women and probably will be women far into the future. So, why would they listen to someone pushing for men's issues to get addressed more, when those who in the majority elect them are women, and women don't think that politicians need to address men's issues more?

Spoonwood · 2016-07-06T15:20:44+00:00

You also speak of "irrefutable data" that institutional male privilege exists.

Fine, please state what special rights that men have under the law exactly. In other words, state what that institutional privilege refers to. I note that you didn't do that above, because the representational percentage of men in office is not a right. Nor is men holding office more often than women a right in the law.

Also, please show that such exists, by not just stating words that say what the law is, but referring to it with a credible source such as a government based website.

Additionally, I think that a thorough reading of the law will reveal that the idea of institutional male privilege comes as quite refutable. In other words, there do not exist any special rights that men have by virtue of being men under the law. Even the right to vote in say 1800 in the state of Virginia was not actually such, since there existed men who couldn't vote then say by not satisfying the voting requirements of Virginia or losing their right to vote by rightly or wrongly getting convicted of a felony.

Edit: Also, I don't agree that you asked a "big question". You asked a leading question with all sorts of questionable assumptions within it. Leading questions, such as yours, I find small.

v573v · 2016-07-06T15:40:23+00:00

. It seems to me that the vast majority of those in power, reinforcing these injustices against men, are other men.

On whose behalf? Who profits from all of this? Men? Men typically die a long time before they see the fruits of their labour.

It couldn't possibly be that men work and act for the benefit of other people like their wives and children could it? It couldn't mean that men are taught to serve other people's interests before their own? It's not uncommon for men to shield others from harm at their own peril. It's not uncommon for men to yield their place on a life raft for a non man.

You mandate their behaviour and then lay all of the blame at their feet, so even when they aren't involved, you have no problem using men to serve your own purposes. Good grief!

You'd demand men do all of this for women and children and then demand that they shoulder all of the blame as well? Very nice but a simple thanks would be better.

BetterBadIdeas · 2016-07-06T16:42:36+00:00

Yoyve soneqhat answered your own question. Ther are more men in power. Yet there are injustices you recognize when you aknowledge the legitimacy of the mhrm legistlative aims. The question the is not if but how men are activly acting against their best interest.

Answer? Evolutionary psych has one. Men have evolved to protect women as a valuable resource since man had evolved to socialize. Women are the bottleneck in reproduction, and are therefore more valuable in that sense so we evolved to put women's security ahead of their and our interests. The rest, to me, kinda seems to flow from that.

cymrich · 2016-07-06T20:16:26+00:00

I don't currently have time to read through your entire post but it appears your question is why men have it so bad legally when men are in power... it's complicated of course but the biggest thing to remember there is that women are the majority of population AND voters. so elected officials pandering to their voters would definitely be pandering to women more than men and would tend to act in a way they know women would approve of. not to mention the fact that anything even perceived as misogyny is political suicide.

BookOfGQuan · 2016-07-06T21:36:04+00:00

"If men are being discriminated against, and men obviously have the bulk of political power, and, up until the last few decades, ALL the political power, why did they make rules to disadvantage themselves?"

Men did not have all the political power, that's ludicrous. Women have always had great influence on politics, both as individuals and collectively.
Men are not a hive mind with mutual interests, in fact many individual men benefit from the losses or failings of other men; how on Earth can you not understand this? Male humans are not a "team" united in their goals, this should be completely obvious and yet somehow it is not.

Asatru55 · 2016-07-06T23:23:33+00:00

I am neither a Feminist, nor an MRA. I just read through this sub because i'm interested in different perspectives just like you are probably. I also didn't read most answers of this sub and basically skimmed through your post. But I want to adress one of your points.

You asked why it is that men still hold the majority of power yet a movement like MRA exists and many men are obviously disillusioned with how things are going on. Well I think that is simply because men don't have this universal feeling of belonging to the group 'Men'. Women on the other hand identify themselves as women and will actively stand up for all women. To bring some fresh air into this sub and quote a famous feminist, Simone de beuvoir: She said that the man is basically considered the default human while the woman is considered 'the other'. This obviously has some negative connotations but if you think it further and into todays times this status can serve as a means for identification. Something to rally behind. Men generally don't have that. Men might be working class or bourgeois. Manchester fans or Arsenal but never did they have a cause that rallys them behind the flag of 'Man' as the radical other, the woman, has never posed a threat that had to be fought. Also: Men already in power have no reason to stand up for mens rights because they do not feel oppression. However just because most positions of power are held by men doesn't mean most men hold positions of power. When there are laws being put in place which cut off men from power that may seem to be fair for men who already have power but for men who don't it's totally unfair.

STEM_logic · 2016-07-06T23:48:52+00:00

There are still gender biases affecting both sexes, people (and the evidence I've seen implicates both sexes equally) are still biased towards men in terms of overt political leadership roles (and indeed overt competitive superiority in general). However, how important is this is in the grand scheme of things? Do people generally live to work or do they work to live (considering a married woman effectively legally owns half the household income)? Which role is actually superior (the answer is that there is no scientific objective answer because it's down to an individuals personal subjective values).... The real question is to what degree the minuscule sliver of men in power have a "same gender" bias?

Considering that half their siblings, half their offspring, the love of their life and probably the parent they were closest to are all women, it puts a strong limitation on how far this "male bias" can actually go (I mean, imagine if all that stuff was true for white -vs- black people, how would race relations be?). Considering that women are more than half their voter base, considering that men have always considered women to be a vulnerable, politically victimiseable group (whereas the reverse is not true).... When the most powerful man in the world declares "girls can do everything the boys can do, and do it better, and do it in heels" (and is met with applause rather than condemnation) - btw, you can guess which sex both his children are - it surely makes you pause for thought...

The evidence would seem to suggest that men don't have any particular pro-male bias, whereas women do have a pro-female bias... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Women_are_wonderful%22_effect.

Furthermore, even you accept some version of feminist "patriarchy" theory (whereby the men at the top are the ones with real genuine self-serving gender power), there are evolutionary reasons (with some evidence) that heterosexuals generally consider members of the same sex to be more direct competitors than members of the opposite sex, so even if they favour priveleged class men such as themselves, the people they will have the greatest tolerance of disprivlege towards will also be men. This sort of glass ceiling/glass cellar view (the staple of men's rights activism - since Warren Farrell) obviously destroys feminist intersectional theory.

I will add that if you consider (admittedly sexist, sex -vs- investment exchange rate) evolutionary reasoning, that strong social norms of monogamy are to the greatest benefit of the women at the top and the men at the bottom, and to the least benefit of the men at the top and the women at the bottom - a society (such as western europe - and indeed most advanced civilizations throughout the ages) endorsing such norms hints at the interests of the men at the top not being favoured. It is possible that it was not the women at the top (and the men at the top interested in their wellbeing) who advanced these norms, but the bargaining power of men at the bottom, but considering for example in middle ages europe that 20%+ of both sexes never married, this seems unlikely.

I hope this answers your questions.

mia6ix · 2016-07-07T00:43:54+00:00

I wanted to reply to everyone and say how much I appreciate your time, effort and graciousness in talking with me about this. This is the most productive, informative discussion I've ever had on men's rights issues, outside of academia. Because there's only one of me, and many more of you, I have to admit that I'm experiencing some reply-burnout. If I haven't responded to your post directly, please know that I've read it, and I'm thinking about all of this in earnest. I will try to devote more time to replies and continued conversation this weekend.

The overarching thought I'm having right now is that, perhaps feminists who support the egalitarian activist goals of the MRM could partner with you strictly for political will, to accomplish specific legislative items. I understand that organizations like NOW have actively opposed you in the past, and this blows my mind. I'm not a member of NOW, because they always seemed a little too militant to me, and I guess I was right.

In general, as at least one user in this thread has said, it would be difficult for MRAs and feminists to truly come together, because feminists are not going to want to debate whether or not the patriarchy exists, for instance. I'm not saying I'm not willing to debate that... just that I have a feeling that's a non-starter in feminist circles.

However, I think if enough mainstream feminist women understood the specific challenges that men face, they would be willing to help MR groups accomplish specific goals, as long as neither side tried to force the other to adhere to their philosophical underpinnings. Perhaps that's incredibly idealistic. I'll leave you with that thought for a bit, and you can tell me what you think.

hobbes989 · 2016-07-06T16:15:29+00:00

one note on the draft. I'm all for women having to sign up for selective service, but I don't necessarily think that should include combat postions. I'd tend to refer to actual troops who have experienced combat on that particular note, and most are against it. people who vote against the draft do it for political brownie points bc their constituents think that getting drafted means you get an m16 and fight in a fox hole, when in fact women could simply be drafted into support staff and supply companies.

Mentioned_Videos · 2016-07-06T11:51:56+00:00

Videos in this thread: Watch Playlist ▶

VIDEO	COMMENT
SheForHe: Panel Discussion [Part 1] HD	4 - Wouldn’t it be more effective for MRAs to address their advocacy and activism directly toward other men, since it’s other men who have the power to change the things they want to change? Men are half of society, but more importantly, m...
Why do MRAs attack feminism?	3 - Thank you for the long post. I don't even consider myself an MRA, just a concerned humanitarian. I knew this was gonna be a rant but honestly i consider it just as thorough explanation as needs be. I'm just "that guy" who makes long posts. ...
Modern Educayshun	2 - Can I just add here, the whole concept of privilege is ridiculous. To have the arrogance and the audacity to claim that an entire group has guaranteed privilege purely because of their gender is utterly absurd. Each gender covers so many different fa...
Protester Pulls Fire Alarm At UofT MRA Meeting	1 - Thanks for coming here with an open mind. I am doing my best to approach this dialog openly, but you have to understand that I've seen this before, and at least half the time it's just concern trolling. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doub...
(1) Warren Farrell protest at University of Toronto - Full version (2) Message To Feminists Challenge	1 - I think men don't share their genuine, difficult experiences often, for many reasons, and when they do, they aren't heard as clearly as women are. I'm wondering if you have seen the following video: I think this is party the reason why men cann...

I'm a bot working hard to help Redditors find related videos to watch.

Info | Get it on Chrome / Firefox

prybarn · 2016-07-06T23:13:34+00:00

I don't have time to read all these responses, and I do see that some are pointing out that women are majority of voters, and also that only a very small number of men at the top experience the privilege you speak of, but just in case, I'm going to tie it all together for you.

You basically go with "men have themselves (meaning other men) to blame for their problems", but women have themselves to blame (meaning other women) for the fact that the majority of offices are held by men, and in reality, 71% is not a huge majority, that could at least partially be explained by the differing natures of men and women.

And then you make the same assertion that so many other feminists make: since there are a handful of men at the top doing pretty well, there is male privilege, but then ask why we have to address feminism. Did I mention that it's feminists who are doing what you just did? Saying all men have privilege - our lives are easy mode - because of a few rich and powerful dudes? And you understand that these assertions are made as an excuse to dismiss the need to address any of the issues men's rights cares about, right?

And lastly, it's hilarious how every one of these posts (I'm a feminist or exfeminist and I just have a few questions) always turns out the same way: "so really, do you guys hate women?"

why does it seem like the tone of the MR movement is so anti-female, or at a minimum, deliberately juxtaposed with feminism?

Being anti feminist "seems" like being anti-female to you, but no, of course you're different from all those other feminists who cry misogyny at the slightest hint of disagreement.

jaekh12 · 2016-07-08T17:59:26+00:00

Your problem is that your viewing males as one entity when males exist as billions of separate entities. You say mostly males are in power which is true but does that mean that most males are in power?? No of course not I am in the same boat as you which is not the boat that rules and has the monopoly on force and violence. Males do not have the same rights as women in the U.S which you point out. That is a big problem and I would say especially male genital mutilation is a huge problem and a huge inequality. All Male genital mutilation is equivalent to the worst kind of FGM. It removes the most sensitive part of the penis and half the skin. This is equivalent to removing the clitoris and much of the lips yet MGM is not illegal because in the U.S man do not have the same rights as women.

Namedoesntmatter89 · 2016-07-15T07:34:41+00:00

I will try to respond to your questions and thoughts paragraph by paragraph:

First, I applaud you for recognizing the injustices against men as even existing. That is far more than many do.

Second, I am not going to talk about why men are in positions of power more often than women (I think there is enough info about that and it is all pretty logical). We have to ask ourselves what types of men end up in these positions. What are their life experiences? I would say that to become a doctor, lawyer, politician, there has to be a high level of stability and money in your life. Generally, more affluent people tend to have specific value sets. So, really, the question should be why are these often affluent males making these choices? My thought is that maybe they don't have the same concerns as men who feel disempowered or disenfranchised. Men are biologically wired to a certain extent to protect women (and to frequently pester them for sex hah), men often tend to think big picture and like to figure out how things work again on average. It makes sense that men (again on average would try to be super cold and objective and do what is right for society (their tribe), but hey I am just speculating on that one.

Third, I don't know why they would continue to disadvantage men. It's weird to me too. Maybe it is because they truly don't see the issue because they themselves are men and have power (even thoguh they are wealthy men with power), so good luck relating to the trials and tribulations of the less fortunate men. Or maybe its because even if it is men who are represented in politics, they wont get voted in if they dont appeal to women and minorities. I think the latter is probably most likely.

Fourth, I dont label myself as a Men's Right's activist per se, but my own feelings about women and feminism stem from me thinking our women were kind of gross (I'm sorry, but masculine women do not interest me after dating women who want to be in a submissive domestic role), feeling like my opinions were generally unwanted and inherently racist or bigoted while simultaneously intensely valuing free speech, logic, and honesty, and having life experiences that undermine a huge number of the feminist narratives that i hear so often. The feminists I have dealt with do genuinely seem to hate me as soon as I start being honest about my identity. I guess feeling hated myself was a big thing. I was very angry for a while. That's the core of my feelings about feminism. My biggest penalties as a white male are that 1. My feelings literally never matter 2. Opening my mouth can get me fired instantly. I literally raised my hand to a woman to tell her just a second i'm busy during a practicum and was failed for it because she claimed she felt physically threatened by me. 3. I am inherently racist. So men get penalized a lot SOCIALLY, and so because the politicians also are forced to cater to women, complaining to politicians only goes so far cuz women will always complain louder, so yes, there is a feeling that women need to be our allies for our rights or needs to be taken seriously (remember men aren't supposed to complain or cry or be weak or really need help from anyone) Yeah, so honestly I resent the victim mentality feminism creates. a lot. Cuz I will never be a victim (even if I ever become one).

Fifth, I actually answered the part about why men dont just talk to the men in power more in the above paragraph.

Sixth, there is one thing that is fundamentally difficult for me to accept about this whole conversation which is how accepted it is that we need to be equal on all levels. You stated that there is clear evidence that men have more institutional power. You also pointed out that that institutional power does not seem to translate to actual power in society for the men having laws that completely advantage men. Anyways, about the equality part. I fundamentally reject the notion that men and women need to be equal in society in every regard. I think it is absolutely bizarre that men aren't fighting harder against drafting women. Sure its great to give women the right to do that, but how disgusting is it for men to let their women die. Its absurd. 10x more men die at work, but honestly, it is absurd to try to force that number to parity with women when it is men themselves that are choosing the types of work that kills them (shitty though). However, that doesn't mean we dont try to lower rates, it is just dumb to make a comparison when women aren't generally arent working in high numbers on fishing boats, on oil rigs, in construction etc. I could list example after example, but at the end of the day, it comes down to this. I believe that we should be trying to improve society overall, rather than focusing on all these little groups because assigning special rights or letting movements take over that make people feel like they have to choose a "progressive" niche rather than just letting these groups figure out what feels natural to them seems to me to have a lot of downstream negative impacts that a lot of feminists wont ever acknowledge.

Lastly, as a man, Please trigger me. Emotions are good for you. You're supposed to confront them head on. PTSD research told me so.

Vermouth1991 · 2016-10-19T09:59:53+00:00

If men are being discriminated against, and men obviously have the bulk of political power, and, up until the last few decades, ALL the political power, why did they make rules to disadvantage themselves?

Because politicians being of the same gender by no means guarantees that they will look out for MEN as a gender. In that sense socialists are dead right: politics is more about a ruling class being represented by a monarch or a parliament, not something seemingly "solid" but really very ethereal as ~Gender~.

But think about it, when it comes to modern western countries like Canada or the USA, women outnumber men in overall population, and also in the number of voters and the number of voters who actually vote, of course the politicians will pander to them. Early-stage feminists got the vote from an all-male parliament/Congress, after all, doesn't that say something about men's wishes to protect and advance women?

america_rex · 2016-07-06T22:56:34+00:00

I've personally never understood why this sub is always so butthurt about the draft. Like the US is never bringing the draft back, I don't care what anyone says about the amount of soldiers blah blah blah. It's never happening. Imagine if there was a draft right now. Sooo many millenials would not agree to go. Literally half of everyone drafted would be in prison is would be a 100% worse than Vietnam. As a 23 year old my generation is the most stubborn group of people fucking ever. So stop worry about this stupid issue. Register men women giraffes I don't give a fuck because the draft will not ever happen

Title	A big question from a former feminist...
Author	mia6ix
Upvotes	16
Comments	250
Date	July 6, 2016 5:48 AM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4rh247/a_big_question_from_a_former_feminist/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/a-big-question-from-a-former-feminist.946056 https://theredarchive.com/post/946056

Comments