This is something I've been trying to find a way to ask for a while and I haven't been satisfied with my explanations, but I finally decided to just go ahead and try my best.
.

Personally, I am opposed to the packaging and labeling of people as groups, I see everyone as individuals who are not culpable for what someone of the same gender or race did, especially not decades before that person was even born. Judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin or their gender. I believe in equal opportunity for all, not artificially-engineered "equal" outcomes. To me, these are core conservative values of individual liberty, equality, and fairness. They are very, very different from the left-wing/liberal meaning of those terms, which involve group identities, oppressor and victim classes, inherent privileges and "diversity".
.

I am a men's rights supporter precisely because I believe in those conservative values and I recognize that men have been demonized and given a raw deal by the feminist-control culture and media. Those values mean I also support others, such as whites, who are attacked in the same way. White privilege, male privilege... both are incorrect and insulting terms used by the same people for the same purpose. Sometimes other races are caught up as well. Asians are one of the largest victims of university racial quotas and Affirmative Action, and I support their right to equal opportunity.

.

I guess what I'm asking is this: Do you support the core principles of individual liberty and equal opportunity, and thus end up supporting men's rights too, or do you only care about promoting men's interests, giving men a leg-up, getting men declared a victim class too, and trying to create an equal outcome for men? To me, that is exactly the trap that the feminists fell into, pushing for "women's rights (and no responsibility or shared burdens like equal sentencing or selective service)".

.

Some might say this is just egalitarianism, and that's partly true, but even egalitarians have a difference in the way they pursue their goals, with some opting for equal opportunity and others wanting equal outcomes. I see this as one of the core differences between the left and right, even when their stated goals may be the same, how they get there and what measures are used to judge success and failure may be entirely opposite.

.

Let me posit a men's right's issue to illustrate... getting more men into university. A leftist MRA might advocate for Affirmative Action for men, bonus points for men on their entrance exams, additional help only for men with their school work, men's-only support groups, etc. No matter how unfair the process might become, if the net result is 50% male enrollment, they'd see it as victory.

.

A conservative MRA should be opposed to most or all of that, instead pushing to end Affirmative Action and bonus points for women and minorities, not add men as a victim class. They would look for and root out bias from female and feminist teachers, both before university (so boys aren't applying with lower GPAs than girls due to anti-male biased K-12 grade teachers) and within university. "Diversity" (defined as anything not a white, straight, male) as an inherently "good thing" should be abolished as that is discriminatory against white males. Diversity of thought is what matters, not skin color and sex, and universities hate diversity of thought. Equal opportunity is the goal, and once it has been established and maintained, then let the chips fall where they may... that might mean more women or men enrolled, it might mean the sexes gravitate toward different majors and interest, etc, and that's all fine, not something to be "fixed". A free society is not going to have perfectly balanced outcomes.

.

I know that the MRM has more than a few liberal/left-wing members, and that's fine, but I wanted to write this to examine what we are actually fighting for, what does success and failure look like, what are the goals? Are we all on the same page? Is this split in ideology the reason why there may be more talk than action, because we can find common ground at the "men need help" level, but disagree when it comes down to "so here's what we do about it"?