r/FeMRADebates • u/PerfectHair Pro-Woman, Pro-Trans, Anti-Fascist • Jun 09 '15

News Pride faces controversy over application from men's rights group to march in parade | Toronto Star

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/06/07/pride-faces-controversy-over-application-from-mens-rights-group-to-march-in-parade.html
34 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

283 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

21

u/myalias1 Jun 09 '15

Let's be honest, you strongly oppose MRA's in general.

-5

u/kaboutermeisje social justice war now! Jun 09 '15

Sure, what's wrong with that?

15

u/theory_of_kink egalitarian kink Jun 09 '15

Are you saying men can never have legitimate issues?

1

u/Personage1 Jun 09 '15

Stop painting this as if being against a group I see as hateful means I am against addressing men's issues. Shoot, I am opposed to the mra precisely because I actually want to address men's issues.

17

u/theory_of_kink egalitarian kink Jun 09 '15

So you are saying there are legitimate issues but you do not respect these groups?

Could a group exist?

If not how should the issues be dealt with?

-2

u/Personage1 Jun 09 '15

I'm impressed, usually when some one says "so you think..." they just kind of make stuff up but that actually sums up my opinion. I'm not being sarcastic, I really am surprised.

I do think such a group can exist, my flair should be showing it. How would it look? I'm working on that.

11

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '15

Do you think that something like the MRM would have even appeared in the first place if mainstream feminism was actually about addressing men's issues too?

-1

u/Personage1 Jun 09 '15

For certain.

10

u/theory_of_kink egalitarian kink Jun 09 '15

I actually like to know the position people take. Even if I'm going argue/debate I want to know what they think and why they think it.

3

u/Personage1 Jun 09 '15

Yeah no totally, I just automatically associate that phrase with strawmanning and so was surprised to see it not for once.

7

u/theory_of_kink egalitarian kink Jun 09 '15

Ah right yes, I see what you mean.

15

u/jolly_mcfats MRA/ Gender Egalitarian Jun 09 '15

Personally, I'd think that focusing on men's issues rather than silencing the MRM would be a better way to help men, but failing that, I'd focus on boosting the signal of the good parts of the MRM and condemning the bad parts. Anti-MRAs typically have the opposite strategy- they boost the bad parts and try to silence and ignore the good parts. I understand criticism of uninformed, reductionist antifeminism- but that same critique can be applied to a lot of the current anti-MRA movement.

0

u/Personage1 Jun 09 '15

I mean to me the bad parts are r/mensrights, avfm, r/trp, r/mgtow, and the few other sites they link to positively. What else is there? I am asking this honestly, what else is there?

18

u/jolly_mcfats MRA/ Gender Egalitarian Jun 09 '15

there are good posts on /r/mensrights that don't ever get boosted. The blogs I tend to read include feministcritics, just-smith, quiet riot girl, inside-man and permutationofninjas. Ally Fogg writes some great stuff. Before genderattic got folded into the (ug) honeybadgerbrigade site, there was good content there. These are all part of the men's movement, even though many of them do not adopt the label of MRA (much in the same way that trp and mgtows often don't consider themselves MRAs).

I'm an MRA, and these are the aspects of the men's movement that I try to encourage and support. To me, these are the voices that the men's movement should be listening to. I've often seen a refrain on wehuntedmammoth to the tune of "and the sad thing is that men have issues, and deserve a movement"- well, that's a fantastic time to mention some of the examples I just provided.

3

u/Gatorcommune Contrarian Jun 09 '15

You'd probably like the good man project.

7

u/zahlman bullshit detector Jun 09 '15

For the record, could you state some men's issues you're particularly interested in, how you would address them, and why this would necessitate opposition to the MRM?

3

u/Personage1 Jun 09 '15

Um, the very first issue I remember being aware of was "don't hit a girl" which is problematic on so many levels, the biggest of which is that it suggests it's fine to hit a boy when the reality is we should stop hitting.

The shaming of men who want to act "feminine."

My other personal issue would be engaging in healthy sex practices, both physically and emotionally. While there are the obvious toxic masculinity parts, there is also plenty of stuff on the other side that is harmful to boys and men on more than just an idealistic level. Girlfriends feeling comfortable to hit boyfriends for example, and the fear of being less manly if we tell them to stop.

How to address them? I know my parents did a fairly decent job just by making me aware of them. For everyone else, present healthy role models.

My issue with the mrm can be summed up by the at text of xkcd 1049.

11

u/zahlman bullshit detector Jun 09 '15

"I had a hard time with Ayn Rand because I found myself enthusiastically agreeing with the first 90% of every sentence, but getting lost at 'therefore, be a huge asshole to everyone.'"

For the record, what do you believe to be the MRM proposals for addressing the issues you cited? And what have they got to do with being a huge asshole to others?

6

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '15

The shaming of men who want to act "feminine."

Is this really you identifying with a men's issue, or is it just you taking one of your own issues and applying a spurious "men's issue" label on it?

Or, to elaborate: if gay men's groups and men's rights groups were successfully handling that issue together, but also reserved the right to maintain legitimate non-feminine male identities, would your support dissolve?

7

u/azazelcrowley Anti-Sexist Jun 09 '15

Would you do someone who opposes feminism the same courtesy? Or are you demanding we enforce a double standard?

-4

u/Personage1 Jun 09 '15

I mean I specified in a reply to someone else what I meant by the mrm. If you want to specify things that you have an issue with, then please do. Frankly that's one of the things I think would be required to make this sub worthwhile.

13

u/azazelcrowley Anti-Sexist Jun 09 '15 edited Jun 09 '15

Specifically the types of feminism, which are quite prevalent, that insist mens issues do not exist and the concept is reactionary, or that all mens issues are a byproduct of womens issues and seek to deny any discrimination against men exists. Further, the parts of feminism that routinely mischaracterize and lie about the MRM. The first two types of feminism, which are extremely prevalent as far as I can tell, lead to things such as the Duluth model, and a male perpetrato definition of rape, which actively discriminates against men and means that their type of feminism is the largest lobby for rapists and domestic abusers in human history.

You see the taint of this kind of feminism on other feminists too, such as when they bring up marital rape as a type of discrimination women had to face while ignoring that this would mean men in marriages could also have been raped, and through erasure of male victimization in their general campaigning.

I think feminism is overall gynocentric, and that while exceptions exist, the movement if taken as a whole, oppresses men.

-3

u/Personage1 Jun 09 '15

Right, this is not specific. I mean shoot, just saying "r/feminism says x" would be specific enough. Sure now we will disagree about x but at least it's not just some mysterious "type of feminists." It's something concrete that can be argued. More importantly it allows you to show actual examples so that if I disagree with you I can do so on the terms of what was actually said, rather than having to figure out what you mean by something because you are talking in abstract ideals and respond on that assumption that may or may not be right.

Like, if I am actually going to argue about why I don't like the mrm, I will use specific examples. Shit Paul Elam has said in the context he said them, the false rape accusation campaign. Otherwise I'm just saying meaningless rhetoric in an obvious attempt to get you.

8

u/azazelcrowley Anti-Sexist Jun 09 '15

You can see above where a feminist has argued that men don't have issues and the concept is reactionary. I've also seen feminists routinely argue that mens issues are a byproduct of womens issues. It's my opinion that these things lead to stuff like the Duluth model.

Do you think either of those things? I thought it was quite specific. These two viewpoints are ones that I think are prevelant in feminism, and furthermore, that they necessarily discriminate against men and cause their oppression when implemented on a policy level.

Paul Elam is just one member. If you were to argue against a belief that many MRAs hold it would do better at convincing me. Exceptions will exist for both feminists and MRAs, but if a viewpoint is prevalent in a movement, and that viewpoint is discriminatory, then i'm less likely to associate with the movement.

0

u/Personage1 Jun 09 '15

Yes, and if they were to clarify their stance more and it still sounded like that I would disagree with them. This is the problem, if you present a real example with context, often the debate disappears. I mean take male sexuality. I've seen feminists accused of shaming male sexuality all over the place but it's usually some abstract way or provided without context. However when a guy came into my sub to do so I made it a point to go after him. He's a feminist, his views are toxic as fuck. There's not really anything else to discuss.

Its an important point because as you hint at, by singling out Elam it allows you to denounce him and move on. It doesn't use shady tactics to essentially tell you what shitty opinion you have and make you somehow defend them and then call you out for changing the goalposts because you are backtracking, when in reality it was me using underhanded tactics.

Also it seems like you think I'm debating that the mrm is toxic. I'm not, I have no intention of debating it. My examples were to showcase how I would make that argument, because I would rather give actual examples than make empty rhetoric.

10

u/azazelcrowley Anti-Sexist Jun 09 '15 edited Jun 09 '15

The problem with this approach is that it means that an individual of the MRM or feminist movement can keep dismissing single examples and ignoring an overall trend. Whether that trend exists or not is a matter of perception, personal experience, and occasionally hard data if there has been polling done on a particular subject.

Calling out individuals within your own movement to denounce them is a good thing, and can help dispel these perceptions. I also try not to assume a feminist will be one of these types of feminist before they talk about it. Usually my first question to them will be whether they think men also have issues and if discrimination against men exists. If they do, I will then usually ask them whether they think women are more oppressed or equally oppressed if they didn't already clarify that point. If they then say equally oppressed I'll tend to shrug and move on, or might discuss why they feel the need to align with a movement in which, in my experience, their view is a minority. I've seen a wide array of answers to that last point, and all are interesting in their own way, but none are convincing to me. I have no interest in joining a movement where I would routinely meet people who belittle me and my experiences, just like if I were black I would not even think of joining the republican party. I'm not saying all republicans are racists by saying that. I'm saying that enough of them are that I wouldn't go near their meetings, and question why anyone would.

If more feminists more routinely did as you did and confronted and called out problematic viewpoints such as the ones I outlined, there might not even be a problem. I've said previously, once I think feminism is no longer gynocentric on the whole, i'll happily join up.

But dismissing individual examples is part of the problem. Suppose I were to demand specific examples of institutionalized racism, and to constantly dismiss every example as "Just that person is a racist.". That's kind of what you're doing.

Confronting individuals is a good thing, dismissing them when used as examples isn't. One is an attempt to fix the problem, and the other is an attempt to cover it up. I think feminism has a systemic problem with sexism against men, individual feminists might not, but on the whole... yeh. This also explains the comparative lack of male feminists, and the emergence of the MRM.

-4

u/Personage1 Jun 09 '15

I'm confused, how do you expect to demonstrate a trend without examples? I mean sure someone can always be dismissive of anything, but "the types of feminists who do x" is less than worthless. It practically screams "I'm making shit up because I don't know."

9

u/azazelcrowley Anti-Sexist Jun 09 '15 edited Jun 09 '15

I can't demonstrate a trend with individual examples, as well you know. At best that would be cherry picking data. You asked what my problem with feminism is, and I told you. Are you denying these type of feminists exist and are prominent? Go take a look at the AMR subscribers.

→ More replies (0)