What is your criticism on this article?

thereslcjg2000 · 2020-02-10T14:42:11+00:00

As with most anti-MRM articles, it's full of strawmen and whataboutisms. I'm going to examine it from beginning to end:

AVfM questions the legitimacy of male privilege, asserting that we live in a female-dominated world and that men, in fact, are subject to widespread disadvantage and discrimination on the basis of their gender.

AvfM and the MRM in general do not say our world is DOMINATED by women; rather, they suggest that women are generally more protected and get more sympathy than men.

Although MRAs made headlines recently for their alleged connection to the Santa Barbara shooter (a connection many MRAs have tried to deny)

HE HAD NO CONNECTION TO THE MRM. PLEASE STOP CONFLATING EVERYONE IN THE "MANOSPHERE".

Unfortunately, despite their activist moniker, MRAs do not generally use their networks to create meaningful change. Instead, they often parrot the same talking points on the bottom of articles about women's issues to prove that men are, in actuality, the more oppressed gender.

MRAs have made a lot of meaningful change - for insteace, calling into question the constitutionality of the draft, and gaining funds for shelters. It's not so easy, though, when feminists block every chance for activism that MRAs create.

the hostility expressed by MRAs towards the struggle for women's rights does nothing to rectify the injustices men may face, primarily because these injustices are not caused by women.

MRAs ARE NOT HOSTILE TOWARDS THE STRUGGLE TOWARDS WOMEN'S RIGHTS. They're hostile towards the inegalitarian principles that are often coupled with that struggle, as well as the one-sided, misleading interpretation of certain rights. Nor do most MRAs say the problems men face are solely caused by women; rather, they say those struggles are caused by society as a whole, which includes men as well as (gasp!) women.

Feminists hate men, and are out to turn the world against them.

Most MRAs don't think feminists HATE men, just that they tend to "other" men and diminish the struggles they face. Something which, like it or not, has a LOT of support by real world evidence, including by the very feminists who make the laws. Oh, and just a few lines later:

and assertions that "not all men" are part of the problem are disruptive and unhelpful.

Oh, the hypocrisy! "We don't hate men, but stop telling us not to generalize hateful statements towards all men!" Men just want to be respected as human beings. Hostile comments towards our gender are not helpful towards that.

MRAs also may think feminists hate men because they do not devote equal attention to their problems in feminist spaces.

No, MRAs' issue is with the fact that feminists complain about MRAs talking about their issues, saying that they fit under the umbrella of feminism, only to turn around a few seconds later and rant that how dare MRAs expect feminists to include the issues men face as part of their umbrella.

It's essential to recognize that patriarchy hurts men, too

Ugh, one of those really annoying platitudes rampant throughout feminist literature.

The supposed "perks" of being a lady are largely the result of "benevolent sexism," a set of behaviors shown to be harmful to both women and social activism specifically because people often fail to see them for what they really are: practices steeped in restrictive stereotypes of masculinity and femininity that hinder gender equality by keeping men in a position of dominance over women.

Ugh, I'm tired of the "benevolent sexism" argument. If women are advantaged in the aforementioned ways, HOW THE HELL DO THEY KEEP MEN IN A POSITION OF DOMINANCE OVER WOMEN? In any case, regardless of what the cause of chivalry is, it still advantages women over men, like it or not. And feminists tend to support chivalrous attitudes.

Most disputes* are settled out of court, meaning that custody placement does not rest in the hands of judges (most of whom are men, by the way).

Most disputes are settled out of court because they recognize that the courts will give them a biased result. And "men's problems are caused by men so they don't matter" is a super fucked up attitude.

Even if a court awards custody to a mother solely because she is a woman (as opposed to carefully considering the innumerable factors that determine a child's best interest), then such bias would be due to patriarchal gender roles that dictate men should be breadwinners and women should be caregivers.

WHY DOES IT MATTER WHAT CAUSES THIS? It still fucking disadvantages men!

Thoughtful consideration of the medical and philosophical implications of circumcision are not without merit, but there is no equivalence in terms of harmful long-term effects between slicing off a young girl's clitoris (and in 80% of cases, the entire labia minora as well) and removing a baby's foreskin.

FGM is a spectrum, which includes lighter acts like piercing women's genitalia (which, unlike MGM, can heal over time). Those actions are still banned, as they should be! Yet circumcision is accepted.

Many studies have found male circumcision, on the other hand, to have a low complication rate, and that it may reduce the risk of getting or spreading HPV, HIV, herpes, syphilis and UTIs.

Those studies have been critiqued by most major medical associations. In particular, the HIV study was halted before it was completed, and the circumcised men, unlike the uncircumcised men, were encouraged to wear condoms.

It's also true that in the U.S., the draft has not been around for 40 years.

The draft hasn't been USED for 40 years. It's still around, and it's still illegal for a man not to sign up for it. Is that not troubling to feminists? Wait, I already know the answer.

2020-02-10T14:58:48+00:00

/u/thereslcjg2000 posted a good rebuttal of that article.

I think these kind of back-and-forth blaming articles can be counterproductive. A left-wing male advocate agenda will have positive points that align in part with feminist objectives (or that feminists won't particularly object to), as well as positive points that might clash with other feminist objectives (or that feminists will object to). A tug-of-war of "they say that we don't care about this or that, but we totally do" or "they pretend to care about this or that, but for the wrong reasons" doesn't lead far. However, that doesn't mean that criticizing the "other side" is never worthwhile. Blind allegiance to their dogmas, as well as blind hatred and opposition, are both bad, but one has to be able to recognize points of difference as well as points of overlap.

Comments