As most of you know, feminism is not a monolith. There is no official leader, no membership organization, no universally-accepted manifesto, and - perhaps most crucially - no message control.

And, as most of you know, this leads to endless frustration when attempting to address feminism, since any feminist called to answer for feminism's harms or ideas can evade accountability simply by shifting blame onto some other feminist ("many feminisms") or stating that the people causing them aren't really feminists (the "no true Scotsman" fallacy). I feel, and I think that many of you would agree, that some feminists use this "all feminism is good/only other feminism is bad" contradiction deliberately to support vile acts while claiming innocence; others may be speaking sincerely but abandon their integrity when they only reject ownership of the distasteful words and acts of a group that they've voluntarily associated with when they're called to account for them.

It would appear that the MRM is on a similar course. We have no official leader, no membership organization, no universally-accepted manifesto, and no message control. We don't even agree on who's part of the MRM and who isn't. The media commonly lumps MRAs, redpillers, tradcons, and more together with no appreciation for the differences between them, causing people to think we're all the same group; what's more, anyone can call themselves an MRA and say anything they want.

As the MRM grows, I predict we will find that we are more frequently asked to account for something that someone else has said that we may not agree with, just as we often ask it of feminism now.

Honesty and fairness demands a single standard for the MRM and feminism. To what extent is an informal organization with self-identified members required to police its fellows in order that its members may be considered to be speaking and acting with integrity - and who does the policing? What amount of consensus or expression is sufficient in order to consider an idea or goal to be a legitimate position of the movement, and how shall that consensus or expression be measured?

I don't have the answers. But unless we can come up with some, I don't think we can complain about feminists NAFALTing anymore... no matter how satisfying it is to call them out or how disingenuous we might think they are for doing it.