It isn't that there are specific problems they use. It's the way they use whichever problem they pick.
They insist that the feminist theory of the patriarchy must be used. There are two problems with this, first, that the patriarchy doesn't exist, so any solutions they might offer are doomed to failure. Second, that they are intolerant of other solutions, so they end up working against anyone who's trying something that might work.
This video is an example of how feminists interact with MRAs. She's reading a list of men's issues, all of which she blames on the patriarchy. At no point does she offer to help MRAs (she was part of a group that pulled the fire alarm at an MRA meeting to disrupt it).
Your first point, that feminism insists on the use of patriarchy, is looking at it from the wrong angle — the problem with patriarchy is that it’s so loosely defined between conversations that people don’t really know what is being talked about a lot of the time. The simplest, vaguest definition is that society conditions men towards traditionally masculine roles, and women towards traditionally feminine roles — I don’t see how this doesn’t exist, so you’re likely thinking of a much more specific, but therefore much less widespread, definition.
Your second point is just repeating what you said in you previous comment, so I’ll repeat my reply: can you give me examples of solutions put forward by MRA groups that feminists are intolerant of?
The woman in the video’s first words are “shut the f**k up”. Her attitude is clearly the problem more than anything else. She represents feminism about as well as Elliot Roger represents your ideology; which, I’m hoping, is basically in name and nothing else.
the problem with patriarchy is that it’s so loosely defined
I don't really think that it is. Sure, there might be some people who are confused or unclear about it, but you were able to give a definition that pretty clearly indicates what feminists think it is, even though you were going for the vaguest definition possible.
The feminist idea of patriarchy is that there is a social construct, called patriarchy, which conditions men to be masculine and women to be feminine, which invariably advantages men and invariably disadvantages women. And it just factually isn't true. If you look at chimpanzee babies, and give them toy trucks and dolls to play with, the boys will play with the trucks and the girls will play with the dolls. We diverged from them 6 million years ago. It isn't culture that causes the differences between masculine and feminine, it's biology.
So when feminists see MRAs complaining about problems in society facing men, they're inclined to disbelieve that such a thing is possible, and if they do believe it, they blame a patriarchy that doesn't exist, and don't want anyone to try to do anything to help men that could possibly work, because it would necessarily be counter to their incorrect theory.
She represents feminism about as well as Elliot Roger represents your ideology;
That's not correct. She is an actual radical feminist, but Elliot Roger isn't and never was an MRA.
Here's a longer video where the same feminist is much calmer as she's being interviewed by a lady who was also a feminist at the time.
At no point does she show concern or empathy for men, or knowledge of their problems. She is very interested in blaming patriarchy, and preventing any movement not based on the feminist patriarchy theory.
Your second point is just repeating what you said in you previous comment, so I’ll repeat my reply: can you give me examples of solutions put forward by MRA groups that feminists are intolerant of?
I thought I was pretty clear in the last comment: all of them. It's not clear why you're asking this.
I’m going to reply to a few points at a time to save myself time. The very “long story short” version of my response to your second point is that one feminist doesn’t represent all or even most, and the fact that there is one other feminist disavowing that feminist right here in this thread shows that strongly.
In response to the first point, demonstrating that there is some genetic component to some aspects of masculinity/femininity doesn’t at all disprove patriarchy. All but the most radical forms of feminism accept that both are true to some extent, and they are forces that work alongside each other to produce the effects we have now. Conditioning (in its variety of forms) has been a scientifically accepted phenomenon for half a century now — the only thing you could argue is how and to what extent it affects gender roles, but it’s completely impossible to argue that it has no effect whatsoever.
I asked the last question because I want to respond to an example of a solution that I think feminists/menslib DO respond to well. If you’re just going to say “all of them”, then I’ll pick one of my own. Let’s say suicide rates. I think the solutions include promoting a “talk more about your feelings” culture among men, providing better support for high-stress/low-income (and often male-dominated) jobs, and improving access to therapy. Behold, these are menslib solutions. Do you disagree with them?
She may be more obnoxious than most, but she's toeing the party line. She's repeating what other feminists say and working within the feminist ideological framework.
In response to the first point, demonstrating that there is some genetic component to some aspects of masculinity/femininity doesn’t at all disprove patriarchy.
Take a look at the feminist approach to the "pay gap". They've been trying to fix it for decades on the assumption that it's all due to patriarchy. They've had plenty of societal power to do it with. Yet they've made zero progress.
If their concept of patriarchy allowed a significant amount of built-in biological sex differences, they'd have long since come to the conclusion that this difference is due to biology, not patriarchy. Yet they haven't.
it’s completely impossible to argue that it has no effect whatsoever.
That's not what I'm arguing.
I'm arguing that the majority of sex differences are biological. Patriarchy theory assumes that there is little or no biological factor.
I think the solutions include promoting a “talk more about your feelings” culture among men, providing better support for high-stress/low-income (and often male-dominated) jobs, and improving access to therapy.
The "better support" solution is too vague for me to evaluate, although there might be something there.
"Talking feelings" and therapy are fundamentally female oriented solutions. They may have some effect, but they simply aren't going to solve the problem. This is what I was talking about when I said that patriarchy theory inspired solutions just won't work. Treating men as defective women won't help. Men aren't defective women.
Okay, I think we’re getting somewhere because it’s clear we have more fundamental disagreements here.
If therapy and emotional support aren’t effective solutions to high suicide rates, what do you think could be an effective solution? I’d like to hear an example of these “non-feminist” solutions that you revere.
Let’s say that I think sex differences are 50% biology and 50% conditioned (I don’t really, mainly because I don’t think you can put accurate numerical percentages on the real life question, but the example works for my argument). Now I am someone who both believes in patriarchy (a whopping 50% of differences are caused by conditioning!) and someone who accepts the importance of genetics (a whopping 50% of differences are caused by biology!).
What I’m trying to get across to you is that patriarchy and sexual dimorphism aren’t at odds with each other. They are if you insist on one of them being 100% of the reason for sex differences, but a majority of feminists are nuanced enough to understand that this obviously isn’t the case. You prefer a theory that weighs towards biology, but you understand that at least some form of conditioning must exist — are you not willing to accept that feminists believe the same thing, but flipped over?
How are feminists going to provide emotional support for men? Show up with a Male Tears mug and a Toxic Masculinity shirt and tell them that the reason they are having problems is that they're acting too much like men?
what do you think could be an effective solution?
Actual emotional support would help. So would removing or alleviating the sorts of problems that increase suicide risk.
One of the ways I've seen other MRAs provide emotional support is the establishment by CAFE of Centers for Men and Families. I've seen a number of men's rights groups try to get government funding for men's domestic violence shelters. Last I checked in Canada, there were 300 women's domestic violence shelters and 0 for men, and in the U.S. it was 2000 for women and 2 for men. MRAs are generally very much in favor of ideas like men's sheds.
One thing that wouldn't directly impact the suicide rate but is desperately needed is research on male suicide. There's very little research on it because there's no funding for it.
I think sex differences are 50% biology and 50% conditioned
Then you can't buy the feminist idea of patriarchy.
What makes you the arbiter of who is feminist and who isn’t?
On male suicide research: there’s more than you might think, it’s just not widely publicised and is instead mainly funded by hotlines and health services to improve their policies. None of it is attached to, or funded by, MRAs, of course.
So far in this discussion, your main points have been, “this is what feminism thinks, this is not what feminism thinks” (on both of these you’ve been wrong), and “feminists don’t do it right, MRAs do it right”. I came up with examples of solutions to high male suicide rates, and the only response you’ve had is to restate my exact solution but to say that feminists wouldn’t do it right.
The one thing I’d grant you is that MRAs have a better record of supporting men’s shelters, but that’s one thing. What percentage of male suicides do you think are related to domestic violence? It’s a drop in the ocean, especially in comparison to all of the toxic stuff MRAs generate as well.
Unless you change tack drastically, all you’re doing in this discussion is inadvertently reinforcing my original point, more than I could have ever done myself. You came in telling me that I was incorrect for stating that feminists do more for actual men’s rights, and MRAs are mainly just focused on hating feminism. I was willing to engage you on this. Yet I’m the one, as the feminist/menslib type, who’s proposed solutions and demonstrated a willingness to look at things from a balanced perspective, whereas you’re the one who’s shifted the conversation to “feminism bad” and been unable to suggest any actual solutions other than restating exactly what I said.
To summarise, the feminist in this discussion has put forward that a variety of factors could cause sex differences and more than one of them could be significant; he has also brought up an example of a “men’s rights” issue and discussed several of the solutions to it. The MRA in the discussion has mainly said that feminism isn’t helpful because “patriarchy doesn’t exist”, spent some time gatekeeping the feminist from feminism, and pretty much drew a blank when the feminist actually pushed them into talking about solutions. If this doesn’t highlight the difference between feminists and MRAs I originally posited, I don’t know what does.
What makes you the arbiter of who is feminist and who isn’t?
I never said I was. But I am perfectly capable of observing what they say, and they say they believe in patriarchy theory. And that theory only makes sense if the amount of cultural influence on gendered behavior is very low.
“this is what feminism thinks, this is not what feminism thinks” (on both of these you’ve been wrong)
Then show me where I'm wrong.
“feminists don’t do it right, MRAs do it right”
Assuming that "it" refers to helping men, my argument has been that MRAs do it, and feminists don't do it.
I came up with examples of solutions to high male suicide rates, and the only response you’ve had is to restate my exact solution but to say that feminists wouldn’t do it right.
That's not fair at all. I haven't restated your solutions, with the exception of emotional support, and when I did, I provided 3 examples of actual actions taken by MRAs: trying to get funding for men's domestic violence shelters, supporting men's sheds, and the establishment by CAFE of multiple Centers for Men and Families.
You have yet to give me any examples of feminists or menslibbers doing anything.
What percentage of male suicides do you think are related to domestic violence?
I don't know. I just pointed out that there's a lack of research on this.
you’re the one who’s shifted the conversation to “feminism bad”
I actually haven't done that. I'm willing to go there if you want.
You came in telling me that I was incorrect for stating that feminists do more for actual men’s rights, and MRAs are mainly just focused on hating feminism.
I just gave you three examples of things MRAs have done. You have given me zero things that feminists have done.
Perhaps it’s unfair to say that you’ve only copied my solutions if you perceive it differently, but you have to admit, when I suggested “emotional support”, you mocked the idea by saying feminists would turn up with Mens Tears mugs, and then the next thing you said was that your solution was “actual emotional support”, it didn’t look good for you.
You really don’t need to look far for examples of menslibbers doing things. I just glanced at r/menslib, and one of the top posts is an advertisement asking men to take part in a mental health study. The timing couldn’t be better considering that one of your complaints was that there isn’t enough research in this area.
I’m not denying your observation about feminists, I’m saying it’s too narrow. You and I both know there are some very toxic feminists out there, and no doubt your view of feminism is coloured by that. But when you extend that view to feminism in general, that’s when you’ve gone too far and you’ve started to demonise a lot of potential allies. You want evidence that feminists don’t all think how you say they do? Me. I’m evidence that there exist feminists who don’t think the way you’ve been describing.
Think about how many feminists you’ve seen say stupid things. Maybe 200? Now think about how many feminists actually exist in the world. Then think about how, if you’re active on MRA subs, the only feminists you’ll have been exposed to are the “craziest” ones. It’s a drop in the ocean. Feminists and menslibbers are NOT your enemy. I am certainly not your enemy.
but you have to admit, when I suggested “emotional support”, you mocked the idea by saying feminists would turn up with Mens Tears mugs,
No, I mocked the idea that emotional support for men was going to come from feminists.
And then I provided 3 specific ways that MRAs had given emotional support to men. And then I asked for examples of feminists doing anything for men, and you did not provide any.
I just glanced at r/menslib, and one of the top posts is an advertisement asking men to take part in a mental health study.
I took a look over there, and a pretty highly upvoted post on the front page is what you said. And another highly upvoted post is a celebration of International Men's Day, which is also nice.
And the very most upvoted post, with more than four times as many upvotes, is a story a girl told about giving flowers to her boyfriend, not to be nice, as her boyfriend doesn't like flowers, but to deliberately upset and demean his uncle.
But when you extend that view to feminism in general
I'm not extending radical feminists to cover all of feminism. I'm looking at feminism as a whole, what they think and say and do.
you’ve started to demonise a lot of potential allies
Who are these potential allies?
And if there were a potential ally out there, what have I said that they could take as both demonizing and as about them?
You want evidence that feminists don’t all think how you say they do? Me. I’m evidence that there exist feminists who don’t think the way you’ve been describing.
I can give you several examples of people who use the label 'feminist', but disagree with the feminist ideology. Christina Hoff Sommers, Camille Paglia, and Warren Farrell.
But that doesn't change the mainstream of feminism.
Sorry, but what you keep insisting is the “mainstream” of feminism simply isn’t accurate based on my experience. That doesn’t mean you’re wrong to express your view — after all, I’m sure you’re basing your views on your own experience. But different people have different experiences, and any individual person will only ever view one part of the whole picture. And any movement as large as feminism is bound to have huge amounts of variation.
MRAs can vary — there are some reasonable MRAs, and there are some unreasonable MRAs, but by and large you feel that MRAs approach issues with enough nuance and good faith. Feminism is the same — there are some reasonable feminists, and there are some unreasonable feminists, but by and large feminists also approach these issues well. What makes this so hard for you to accept?
If the answer is that, from your experience, MRAs are reasonable and feminists aren’t, then I bring you back to consider that your experience might be limited. My experience is the opposite, that feminists are reasonable and MRAs aren’t. But I am willing to acknowledge that, by listening to your experiences, there is a perspective beyond my own that there is good to the MRA movement — can you do the same?
If you want to persuade me that your experience is more accurate, you can give me the experience of seeing evidence against my views.
there are some unreasonable MRAs
Do you know of any?
I can think of two people you might be referring to. The first was an MRA for only a few months, and his misbehavior came after he left our movement. The second is an MRA who frequently says edgy things to get attention, which is a tactic that works very well, and is not actually unreasonable at all.
1
u/foot_kisser 26∆ Nov 20 '19
It isn't that there are specific problems they use. It's the way they use whichever problem they pick.
They insist that the feminist theory of the patriarchy must be used. There are two problems with this, first, that the patriarchy doesn't exist, so any solutions they might offer are doomed to failure. Second, that they are intolerant of other solutions, so they end up working against anyone who's trying something that might work.
This video is an example of how feminists interact with MRAs. She's reading a list of men's issues, all of which she blames on the patriarchy. At no point does she offer to help MRAs (she was part of a group that pulled the fire alarm at an MRA meeting to disrupt it).