Is there anything else anyone would add or subtract or correct in my response? I'm just curious as to how others would handle this.

THEM: I get where you're coming from but asking why feminism exists is like saying "how come there's no WHITE HISTORY MONTH??" Every fucking month is white history month. The 'men's rights movement' is pretty much every political and social institution in this country.

ME: I don't think it's anything like that. I'm not against having a women's history month. Every month is not white history month, and a more accurate analogy would be "I don't think there should be a black history month there should be a history month that includes all races," but even that doesn't fit because I'm not objecting to the idea of setting aside a month to highlight women and/or women's rights. There is no limit to the genetic factors I'm willing to set aside a month to celebrate. I get an inkling for what you are trying to say, but I don't think you have the right analogy.

Discrimination against men isn't justified because of the patriarchy. You cannot and should not punish a gender or race because of a historical ethos. That would be like your grandpa punching my grandma in the face and me taking it out on every future generation of your family. You and I are not liable for it any more than we are personally responsible for slavery. I see a distinct difference when reading articles about women's rights versus feminism. Misandry is a fictional concept in the realm of feminism (or at least the version of feminism I constantly run into). The womens' rights movement, on the other hand, doesn't concern itself with revenge and does not practice invalidating any opinion you have just because you are a "privileged male."

Case in point: groups that blame other groups for their hardships (even if it's well justified) leads to hate. Hate for a group based on gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. nauses the afflicted group to stand up and discriminate the group that was discriminating them. In this case: gender wars. What I am saying is that, if feminism leads to discriminating against men, and the mens' rights movement leads to discrimination against women the solution seems to be the elimination of both groups in order to focus on gender equality across the board.

There are equity feminists, and I love that. No problem with that at all. Then there are gender feminists who are fighting for not equal, but better treatment than men, and also to dismiss any discrimination against men deeming it impossible because of the patriarchy. This type of feminism, in my view, is wrong.

There are feminists who actively spin up false statistics, rooted in an emotional appeal, in order to get laws passed that are anti-men. Which, if you think about it, is leveraging ideas about women being the weaker sex instead of fighting those ideas, which would align more closely with the desire for equality. If the 'extra bonuses' of getting both of those things weren't harmful to the cultural view of men I don't think I'd have a problem with it. Look at statistics and social situations and what the social and legal views are towards men. Women do 40% less jail time for equivalent crimes. False rape accusations, vilification, unfair custody discrimination, and (to be a bit extreme) the social acceptance of genital mutilation are all issues facing men. Flip the genders around, and think about whether or not the audience would be roaring with laughter if a women's private parts were mutilated and chopped up in a garbage disposal: http://youtu.be/muuFygvXPAM There is no show in the US broadcasting network that wouldn't be crucified if the roles were reversed. Please note that I don't really care about Sharron's laugher as much as the entie cast and audience seems to find it just as hilarious (except Sara Gilbert, who seems to be the only sane person in the room). See also: circumcision.

I find this to be very good evidence that oppresion is not the right reaction to oppression. I have never, in my corner of the world, seen a real life example of notible discrimination against women. That's not to say it doesn't exist, but I think balance has shifted so much that the feminist movement has taken interest in trying to make the very concept of being a male as something that is wrong or broken. And so it goes, it will just be one big pendulum swinging back and forth "men are evil, women are evil, men are evil women are evil..." and so on and so forth. I restate my question as follows, "why do feminism and mens' rights groups exist when egalitarianism exists?" It was originally stated as a reaction to what I had been reading, and I also think men's rights is a reaction to women's rights, so if we just started with gender equality without any specific gender as the focal point of the movement - we'd be a lot better off.