How can we find common ground?

femdelusion · 2013-12-01T16:40:25+00:00

The National Organisation for Women is the largest and most important feminist organisation. Read what they said about the MRM a year ago.

Until politically-influential feminists are ready to admit that feminism should not hold the monopoly on the discourse on gender, and that it offers merely a narrow, gynocentric range of interpretations of social events, I can't see any hope of cooperation with politically-influential feminists. They have nothing to gain, and everything to lose from co-operating with us, and they know it.

Remember what Upton Sinclair said:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

Now think of people whose jobs depend on successfully lobbying governments for female-friendly policies based on the viewpoint that women are 'oppressed', and think about whether they'd be at all receptive to the idea that women are not, in fact, oppressed, and that actually men face increasing systematic disadvantages and discrimination. It's not gonna go well, is it? That's politics, I'm afraid.

theQuandary · 2013-12-01T18:04:09+00:00

I would say that there are two specific issues keeping them apart (note: I am a humanist as are many of the commenters in the MensRights sub-reddit). The first is ideology. All of feminist theory is based in the patriarchy, but there is no evidence for it (and ample evidence against). Until feminists can give up this false belief, there can be no union.

The second point (and perhaps dependent on the first) is that feminists (read: feminists with any real power) stand to lose everything if they yield any of their claims (to contrast, MHRA's I'm familiar with are all everyday people with ordinary jobs doing MHRA on the side as they're able).

To elaborate, the feminist movement brings in millions (if not billions via less direct means) and employs many thousands of people. This flow of money is entirely dependent on there being an issue to fight. When the issue disappears, so does the money with the loss of prestige, and power being close behind (after all, no need throwing donations or government money at problems that no longer exist). For this reason, admitting that any issue does not exist or is different than they make it appear would be a loss of money.

Let's take rape for example. The Koss study (the one quoted by everyone) from 1989 gave a 1 in 5 rate of female rape (the 1 in 4 number is actually a number that Koss herself later said was wrong). In the almost 25 years since that study, millions/billions of dollars have been pumped into solving these problems (and paying the people at the top very well) by reducing incidents of rape and encouraging victims to come forward, report what happened, and seek treatment.

Since that time, the FBI has reported a 58% drop in the amounts of rape reported. Despite this, the 1 in 4 (or even 1 in 3) number is still claimed to be true. If we assume more people are coming forward due to successful efforts, then the overall rate should have dropped MORE than 58%, yet feminists are claiming that there is a "rape epidemic". If there is indeed an epidemic, then all these training and report encouraging efforts have been a waste of money (thus these people should be fired and their funding cut off).

Feminists always claim that they are succeeding, but would succeed more if they had just a bit more cash to work with. The claim is that they are succeeding, but the problem is getting worse. The only reason for this behavior (IMHO) is that rape is DECREASING and they are LYING about this fact while telling congress the opposite to get their ideology more engrained in law and to get more money in their coffers. (note: advocacy research is also very suspect because, once again, no problem; no money. If Marlboro published a study showing that smoking made you live longer, you would reject it because they have money interests. Feminists have the same kind of money interests tied up in their research)

Until these feminists are willing to work themselves out of a job rather than trump up new "causes" to fight, I doubt that MHRA (or humanists) will ever be on the same page as the feminists.

To touch on ideology again for a moment, let's see just how many of these apply to feminism:

The group is focused on a living leader to whom members seem to display excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment. take a women's study course and you'll soon know just how true this is
The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members. feminist evangelism is constant
The group is preoccupied with making money. already covered. But constant fundraising should be noted
Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished. try striking up a debate with a feminist on the patriarchy
Mind-numbing techniques (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, debilitating work routines) are used to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s). thankfully, this is not so common in feminist circles -- though the call to "be constantly on the lookout for misogyny" is quite similar in application
The leadership dictates sometimes in great detail how members should think, act, and feel (for example: members must get permission from leaders to date, change jobs, get married; leaders may prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, how to discipline children, and so forth). once again, read the books required in a women's studies course
The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and members (for example: the leader is considered the Messiah or an avatar; the group and/or the leader has a special mission to save humanity). once again, is self-explanitory
The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which causes conflict with the wider society. says it all
The group's leader is not accountable to any authorities (as are, for example, military commanders and ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream denominations). try reporting a feminist to anybody -- in fact, the feminist lobby is one of the greatest political forces in the world
The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining the group (for example: collecting money for bogus charities). empower women, even at the expense of men
The leadership induces guilt feelings in members in order to control them. "triggering" "victim bashing" "woman hating" etc
Members' subservience to the group causes them to cut ties with family and friends, and to give up personal goals and activities that were of interest before joining the group. destroys trust in male relatives "all men are rapists" and pushes women to take jobs they may not like "for the good of the sisterhood"
Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group. they expect feminism to impact every aspect of a woman's life
Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members. feminist-only groups are everywhere

I would note that these are the classic indicators of a cult. It's interesting that the feminist movement and ideology qualifies so well for so many of these indicators. I hypothesize this is why so many women and men state strongly that they believe in equality of the sexes, but reject feminism.

Eulabeia · 2013-12-01T19:12:30+00:00

Feminists oppose us on a lot of major issues.

They're responsible for the current state of the domestic violence industry that denies men access to shelters and hiding and ignoring male victims in statistics.
They are against the idea of legal paternal surrender. They even mock the idea of "spermjacking".
They are doing as much as they can to eliminate due process rights for men in rape cases and even expand the definition of rape.

These are the biggest ones I can think of right now. Overall though the most major point of contention is that they believe we live in a "patriarchy" that works to disadvantage women, and use that concept to justify whatever they think is necessary to redress this imbalance that they perceive.

browna3 · 2013-12-01T16:49:34+00:00

the problem, at least from my understanding. Is that the most vocal and listened to feminists are the ones that actively hate men and ignore any problems associated with men. I know lost of feminists who do not hate men and want equal rights for everyone. Some would call these people humanists

So, in order to achieve some sort of common ground we would need the influential feminists to admit that there are problems that men face as well. However this isn't likely to happen any time soon.

I think a good start would be to stop crying out sexism and patriarchy at every available opportunity.

Juan_Golt · 2013-12-01T17:06:47+00:00

If you have two people in a room together, you'll get three definitions of equality.

To the MRM equality means equal custody, and the chance for men to be viewed as a victim of domestic violence rather than only a perpetrator. Feminism wants to protect and defend women from violent husbands. Both are ostensibly good goals, but can easily result in opposing policies. MRM will accuse feminism of feeding a bigoted pogrom against men & fathers, and Feminism will accuse the MRM of defending abusers.

Hirudin · 2013-12-01T20:01:48+00:00

Talking about compromise with feminists usually feels like negotiating with a burglar about how much of your stuff they can take.

Tastysalad101 · 2013-12-02T00:52:35+00:00

From my experience with feminists they don't want equality they want superiority.

2013-12-01T17:45:32+00:00

We can find no common ground.

The problem is that we actually share many issues and the fight for equality.

But feminists and MRAs have a very different view of where these issues come from and how they should be solved.

It's as easy as that.

Alzael · 2013-12-02T03:01:24+00:00

The denial that women are oppressed in anyway is as ignorant as me saying that men face no oppression.

Then I eagerly await your evidence for womens oppression. I'm certain you won't disappoint.

BrambleEdge · 2013-12-01T18:20:55+00:00

I will not co-operate with dogmatic bigots that spread lies and propagate myths based on their ideological grasp of the world.

So, in my opinion we cannot now, and we cannot ever find common ground with feminists and other female-chauvinist groupings.

dejour · 2013-12-02T06:16:39+00:00

Yes, there is an opportunity for people who believe in true gender equality to work together.

I believe that men and women both shape society. I believe that men and women are treated differently. In some important ways men are treated better and in other important ways women are treated better. I believe the world would be better if people were unconstricted by social norms surrounding their gender.

But in order to achieve gender equality, you need to work on the problems of both men and women. For one thing, it's the fair thing to do. But from another perspective you can't solve the problem by only attacking half the problem. We know that benevolent sexism (often sexism against men) and hostile sexism are strongly correlated (that is, people who believe that women shouldn't be in the military also tend to believe that women should be treated as delicate flowers). As far as I can see, feminists are mostly concerned about eliminating hostile sexism - which makes sense from a self-centred point of view. But often, feminists reinforce benevolent sexism which actually causes hostile sexism. Consider DV campaigns which reinforce the norm that you never hit a girl/woman. If a child learns that you never hit a girl, there are two possible conclusions for a child to draw. Either a) girls and boys are equal but girls are more important than boys. Or b) that girls need special protection because girls are physically inferior to boys. I would say that either conclusion is problematic. Since people don't like thinking of themselves as inferior, I suspect that most boys come to conclusion b). And obviously that leads to conclusions like - girls can't play sports, women can't do physical work, etc. If DV campaigns focused on the message, "never hit anyone except in self-defence", then children wouldn't draw sexist conclusions.

You may well be the type of feminist that could be part of a true solution for gender inequality. But my experience tells me that most self-proclaimed feminists view the elimination of benevolent sexism as misogyny.

My belief is that the MRM is making it more acceptable for men to express their true feelings on gender inequality, and that ultimately our society will have a better understanding of the issues. This increased understanding will lead to better, more effective solutions.

guywithaccount · 2013-12-01T23:26:37+00:00

This confuses me, as I used to think feminism was about the equality of gender so if a man wants to right for the rights he feels he deserves, then that is the same as a woman fighting for the rights she feels she deserves.

Right, so if feminism was actually about that, feminists would be a lot more accepting of the MRM. They aren't because it isn't.

There is a tiny minority of self-identified feminists not represented by the likes of NOW, Jezebel, etc. who take the ideas of equality, social critique, and gender deconstruction seriously and don't just use their feminism as a politically-correct front for whining and man-hating. We could get along with those folks pretty well, although for our taste they could spend more time recognizing the misandry that exists in western society that mainstream feminism won't talk about and won't even admit to. But mainstream feminism is about bigotry and control, not equality.

edit: it would really help if that minority would stop calling themselves "feminists".

ShitLordXurious · 2013-12-01T23:43:17+00:00

Well, you could have just read the link about this in the side bar...

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/g2eme/feminists_tell_you_that_the_solution_to_mens/

ThePigmanAgain · 2013-12-02T01:53:11+00:00

"I am a lady"

So says someone called FractalDude. Why does anyone even bother with these "Why can't we be friends?" posts?

rightsbot · 2013-12-01T16:12:16+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

Your_Bacon_Counselor · 2013-12-01T22:26:02+00:00

First we must find the simplest "Universal Rights" that can be applied to all. Then we can work backwards and undo the excesses of monopoly. Who could argue against bodily integrity for all?

DavidByron · 2013-12-02T20:40:15+00:00

Feminism is a hate movement.

While I agree that many feminists are on this boat, myself and many other feminists are not

Why are you in a boat with hatemongers if you're not in agreement with them? That means you are helping them spread hate just by identifying with them. You're part of the problem.

sillymod · 2013-12-02T21:31:45+00:00

Try reading this: http://www.mensrights.ca/the-mens-rights-movement-versus-the-feminist-movement-necessary-conflict/

See what you think.

Then read this: http://www.mensrights.ca/feministmrm-conflict-is-rooted-in-feminist-ideology-and-activism/

romulusnr · 2013-12-03T09:22:55+00:00

I don't agree with the sentiment of "we can't find common ground" from an overall perspective, but I see that MRA perceives some sect or faction or representatives of quote-on-quote "feminism" as being hostile to the acknowledgement and sympathizing with MRA issues. (If e.g. /r/mensrights could focus on pointing out and exposing that, rather than focusing only on anecdotal incidents, it might do some good in the "common ground" category.)

Of course, there is a lot of plain old woman-hating in /r/mr, sadly; some would claim it is counter-exclusionism to the above perceived phenomenon. That is to say, if the feminists aren't going to acknowledge or sympathize with male issues, then the mras aren't going to acknowledge or sympathize female issues. And thus the state of affairs.

(Me, I consider myself a /r/genderegalitarian, and would rather see cooperation and mutual acknowledgement between the genders on their respective issues than petty bickering and oneupmanship.)

romulusnr · 2013-12-03T09:45:20+00:00

Hey guys (I'm looking at you, /r/mr), just a thought, coming in and dogpiling DVs and logical fallacies on the sympathetic feminist isn't exactly the underpinnings of rational discourse. Jussayin.

Alzael · 2013-12-01T18:37:38+00:00

The thing with "equality" is that it's a meaningless concept in this context. Equality requires objective standards by which we can measure things and those do not exist when you are dealing with living creatures because living creatures make choices and act upon the world instead of only being acted upon. So "equality" is a subjective term that in this case has no real definition that can be used. If you can't meaningfully define "equality" then you can't know if you don't have it, how to get it, when you've succeeded in getting it, etc. So "equality" will mean entirely different things to different people, even to different feminists, which is why you have so many variants.

Hence the problem with feminists. All of this "inequality" exists only in their minds. It's there because they want it to be there, so it will never go away, because there's no evidence the "inequality" was there in the first place. Feminists are not driven by reason or logic, they are driven by dogma, and anything that challenges their dogma is automatically wrong because it contradicts their presupposed conclusions.

Korvar · 2013-12-01T20:55:21+00:00

Personally, I'd say I'm every bit a feminist as I am a men's rights activist.

sens2t2vethug · 2013-12-01T23:20:47+00:00

Hello!

I am a lady

Welcome!

Your opening made me think of a funny sketch.

I am coming from a curious and compassionate place.

That's awesome. If we could find a way to meet more feminists like that, I think it'd probably be possible to find common ground. I know that there are many feminists coming from the same place. It's just a shame that, as you mention, there's also a lot of hate from some other feminists, especially online and from the more hardcore minority in real life.

I think a lot of people here, men and women, are just tired of dealing with that: tired of the idea that men are supposed to be stoic and just suck up whatever kind of treatment they get from others.

matthemod · 2013-12-01T17:23:32+00:00

As long as it isn't seen to be a competition between each gender, and their respective movement organisations, then of course a common ground can be reached.

Men have legitimate concerns, such as inequality in divorce court proceedings, Women have concerns such as political disruption of their reproductive rights. As long as it doesn't denigrate into a "our problems are more substantial than your problems" then a common ground can definitely be reached.

Unfortunately there are certain extremists on both sides who are very vocal in maintaining this competition.

Title	How can we find common ground?
Author	FractalDude
Upvotes	38
Comments	196
Date	December 1, 2013 4:12 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1rucx8/how_can_we_find_common_ground/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/how-can-we-find-common-ground.1157362 https://theredarchive.com/post/1157362

Comments