So this is in response to the thesis published recently comparing the language used in mensrights vs menslib; the paper is, as of this writing, currently on the front page of both subs. I'm going to breakdown why menslib is wrong about using feminism to address men's issues, and what the flaws in the feminist approach are. This is only going to be an intro to the subject, I plan on following up with a longer and more detailed essay in the future. For now, this will serve as a quick glance guide to the topic.

Firstly, the study itself, which you can see in the first link, it's extremely questionable. The metric by which it analyzes the contents of is sub is a word count formula, counting the usage frequency of specific words and phrases and comparing. However, this is a grossly ineffective way to analyze a sub's content and philosophical principals for two main reasons:

1 : Counting word usage does nothing to measure the accuracy and context of said usage. Repeating a phrase many times does not make it any more or less true, and repeating a word many times does not mean that it is being used correctly. Someone can say something untrue many times- this makes it no less untrue. One of the conclusions the study makes is that because the word "women" is used more in MR, this indicates that MR is more focused on being against women/misogyny; but this is unsubstantiated and pure conjecture. Comments such as

"The MRM supports equality for men and women"

and

"Women in my school are pro-MRA"

would be counted in the final tally, but obviously not examples of bias or misogyny.

2 : Factors such as moderation and subscriber count were not controlled for. The MR sub is more lenient in moderation and much larger, increasing the chance of casual users to post anecdotes and questions. This could tie in the first point as well; a newcomer might ask "does the MRM have any members who are women?", for example.

Secondly, let's look at menslib/feminism, and how they approach men's issues. Menslib is a pro feminist subreddit and will remove any posts critical of feminism, or that do not align with feminism theory. This is problematic for several reasons:

  1. Feminist theory is not absolute science. Menslib presents feminist theory and terminology as inherently true, but this is flawed because there are no empirical methods to 'prove' the nature of feminist theory, so it cannot be assumed as fact. It is unscientific to restrict any valid questioning of a hypothesis yet still maintain that hypothesis as absolute fact.

  2. Feminism is not sufficient to address men's issues. Feminist groups and theory ignore many male issues discussed with the MR, or even actively work to perpetuate them, as will be discussed below. A women's movement should not dictate what can or cannot be said in a sub intended for "mens liberation"; a men's sub should be by men and for men, spoken from the perspective of the lived male experienced. It's not "up to" a women's movement to "decide" what male issues are and how they should be addressed, especially when knowledge of said issues are so poorly informed and understood.

If a movement or school of theory does not adequately address a topic, it is completely justified to apply critical commentary and analyses to it; mens lib does not do that, and as such, is not sufficient to cover and present men's issues.

So let's look at why feminism is not sufficient to address men's issues.

Firstly, simply by opposing an independent men’s movement, feminism is claiming authority over what male issues are, and how they should be addressed. But a women’s movement should have no authority over how men talk about the things they experience in their lives; a men’s movement should be separate. Just like nothing gives feminist theory inherent objectivity, nothing gives feminism the inherent right to dictate how a men’s movement should operate.

There are issues such as the education gap, bias in the grading, the prison sentence gap, etc, are not adequately addressed by feminism. Feminists claim that addressing patriarchy and gender roles will address said issues, but again, this is supplementing theory as fact, and also exert an assumed authority over the narrative. It also fails because, as will soon be discussed, feminists often take actions which perpetuate gender roles, thus failing to address these issues in such way.

Secondly, feminist groups directly work against male issues and equality, some examples of which I will show below:

  1. It’s not illegal to rape men in India specifically because of feminists. Men are specifically excluded from sexual assault laws under the constitution. This happened solely because of feminist lobbying; in 2013 the government was set to amend the law and include men, but withdrew after lobbying from feminist groups, who are actually quoted in the article. It’s been an ongoing issue since

  2. Feminists protested equal pension ages. Feminists are protesting the equalization of pension ages using very weak arguments that would only make sense with the assumption that gender roles are appropriate. They say that the increases are unfair because women do not have time to prepare- but prepare for what? There’s nothing to prepare for, a woman now would just continue to work until the same age as a man would have to. Just because you were hoping for a better outcome, doesn’t make that outcome just. The argument that women are “tired” and want to retire early is only valid if you’re operating under a premise that female workers are weaker than male workers…otherwise, why wouldn’t the male workers be just as tired?

  3. Feminists have called for two distinct legal systems for men and women, where women would be automatically treated more leniently simply on a gendered basis. Here are some links:

To close women’s prisons

defending a separate standard for women

These arguments directly contradict the notion of opposing gender roles and stereotypes, and are direct examples of feminists actively working against an equal and gender neutral outcome. It’s worth noting that it is now the legal standard in the UK to treat men and women differently in the court system. This is a blatant disparity and inequality.

Thirdly, let's look at rhetoric from public feminist figures.

Bahar Mustafa- kill white men

Sarah Jeong-kill all men and its a little sick how much joy i get in being cruel to old white men

These examples are noticeable because they are not "fringe examples", one was hired as editor of one of the worlds largest newspaper, the other was a welfare officer at a major university. Why were people with such views selected to begin with? And what's more telling IMO is the lack of response- why did no feminist figure or organization call them out?