Alright. So, I would not consider myself a MRA at this point, but by all means am not a feminist. So I just want to understand this some more. In the world of law, advocacy is divided into two main sectors; positive cases and negative cases. A positive case is advancing an idea or doctrine. If Bob was advocating to get lemonade in the school cafeteria, he would be making a positive case. A negative case is against an idea or doctrine. If Doug says that they need to stop serving chocolate milk in the cafeteria, then he is making a negative case. Most things can be presented in both a positive and negative case. There are times when one way to present it is better than the other. Sometimes, it is clear how to present a case (the Civil Rights Movement was presented negatively, and that was clearly the best way to go about it). So there are times when you should present an idea or doctrine in a certain way, but when trying to resolve or counter a social issue, USUALLY you present a positive case, because usually you aren't resisting against oppression. I can tell you from a mostly neutral standpoint, that men - while there are issues that need to be addressed, are not systemically oppressed, so MRA should present it in a positive case. But they don't. Whether they have better points or better causes than feminism doesn't matter, because their methodology is the same. I just need some context to explain why MRA aren't addressing the issues facing men in a positive case.