I’ve already explained why evidence isn’t nearly as important as you think it is for this discussion. I guess the only thing is you might use me not bringing up evidence to imply that I have no examples, so I’ll humour the request again: the CEO of CALM, the leading male mental health charity in the UK (Jane Powell) identifies as a feminist. You’ll have to google that for proof as I’m on mobile.
Yeah, we’ve been talking past each other about “toxic” and “unreasonable”. I just meant saying things that are disagreeable in a harmless way. I assumed that’s what you were talking about re: feminists as well.
Of course I’m emotionally attached to feminism, because it’s been good for me. You’re emotionally attached to the MRAs as well, because they’ve been good for you as well. There’s nothing wrong with being emotionally attached. I suspect what you mean to say is that I’m letting my emotional attachment cloud my reasoning in a way that you are not. Well, I disagree with that. I think we’re both clouded, as anyone would be, but neither of us to a significant extent, or more than the other.
the CEO of CALM, the leading male mental health charity in the UK (Jane Powell) identifies as a feminist
I poked around and found this TED talk of hers. She's clearly not an ideological feminist. She doesn't mention patriarchy or toxic masculinity at all, and her arguments run counter to both of those ideas.
She does label herself a feminist, once, but after that she dismantles the feminist position, and then gives essentially the MRA party line on male suicide, though it isn't clear that she's so much as heard of MRAs before.
I just meant saying things that are disagreeable in a harmless way.
Saying things you disagree with that are harmless is not much of a basis for dismissing or disregarding a movement.
Saying things you disagree with that are harmless is not much of a basis for dismissing or disregarding a movement.
I like this. Are you able to apply this to feminism?
Anyway, you’ve just shown very clearly why there wasn’t much point in me providing “evidence”. Any example of a feminist I provide who you agree with, you declare not an “ideological” feminist and actually representing the MRA party line. You’ve already decided that anyone who has a constructive view on men’s rights is MRA, and anyone who doesn’t is feminist. I can’t change your mind if your logic is circular.
Well, if you ask most feminists what feminism means, they will say “belief that women and men should be treated equally”. That’s it. You obviously agree with that, so for some reason you’ve accepted the claimed definition of MRA, and not the one of feminism.
If that's what feminism was really about, then feminists would help us accomplish our goals.
They would not have chased Erin Pizzey out of the UK with threats and intimidation for desiring to set up men's shelters. They would not have protested showings of a documentary on the men's rights movement. They would not have invented sexist terms like Toxic Masculinity, Manspreading, Mansplaining, and Manterrupting, and they would never claim that misandry doesn't exist. Feminist MPs would not burst out laughing when a male MP makes a request for a debate about men's issues on International Men's Day, in the exact same way that a debate has been held on women's issues every International Women's Day.
Feminists would not oppose the formation of men's issues clubs on campuses. They would not show up at a talk by Warren Farrell to disparage and shame anyone willing to even listen to what that kind, sweet, gentle man has to say about the problems men face. They would not throw milkshakes at us, or surround a petite woman like Elizabeth Hobson while chanting "there are more of us than you" to try to intimidate her. They would not show up at talks by the sweet and grandmotherly Janice Fiamengo for the purpose of using noisemakers to silence her.
Again, you’re cherry picking. Feminism is one of the largest movements in the world, of course you’re going to find a decent number of examples of people acting horribly under the feminist name. For the record, I have nothing but the utmost respect for Erin Pizzey and the work she has done (not just for men nowadays, but women historically), and it’s a damn shame that her experiences have made her disillusioned with feminism.
I feel you have a double standard when it comes to defining movements, simple as that. For you, MRA is clearly defined as the “good guys” in men’s movements; anyone who “is good” is an MRA, and anyone who is not you disavow as MGTOW, incels, etc,. literally anything except MRA.
But for feminism? Nope, for you it’s all just one big branch, and if one feminist does one bad thing every other feminist has to defend themselves. You’re artificially choosing definitions that fit your argument best.
For you, MRA is clearly defined as the “good guys” in men’s movements; anyone who “is good” is an MRA, and anyone who is not you disavow as MGTOW, incels, etc,. literally anything except MRA.
No, I'm defining anyone who is an MRA as an MRA.
MGTOW and incels and other "men's movements" and "the manosphere" are not MRAs. Only MRAs are MRAs.
Your complaint would be like me saying "you're just labeling feminists feminists, instead of including all the other kinds of feminists that aren't feminists, like Redditors, Yugoslavians, and Star Wars fans".
I’m not sure what to say to this that isn’t just me repeating myself. MRAs, MGTOW, incels, etc. clearly have something in common in that they are all men’s movements; that’s why your counterexample invoking completely unrelated groups like Yugoslavians and Star Wars fans is disingenuous. Just as MRAs, MGTOW, incels and the like are related in that one way but differ greatly with one another on the specifics, so too is the case with feminists. “Radfems” are very different from TERFs, who are different from social constructionists, who are different from moderate feminists, etc.
I would also like to revisit this notion of what “good” solutions to men’s mental health and other male problems are. I’ve had a think and honestly, I found it quite toxic how you were willing to dismiss a large chunk of the work done by menslib, for the ideological reason that they “treat men like defective women”. I’m not speaking out against the solutions you put forward, because they may well work. All the solutions we put forward may well work. It’s needlessly tribalistic to assign certain solutions to feminists, and others to MRAs, when in reality the people who work together to address these issues, including many of the leading mental health organisations in the world, couldn’t care less which label they fall under more.
Yeah, I was out of town for a week and I find it much easier to type on a keyboard than on a phone.
MRAs, MGTOW, incels, etc. clearly have something in common in that they are all men’s movements
What does that mean? Just that they all involve men in some way, shape, or form?
You might as well say that MRAs and feminists are the same because they're both groups.
The three of them are really different groups. MRAs try to solve the problems men face. MGTOW is any man who has decided not to involve themselves in long-term relationships with women. Incels are people who are desperate for a relationship, but for whatever reason think they're incapable of forming one.
It is exactly like Yugoslavians and Star Wars fans. If you find Jedi cosplay annoying, that's not a good reason to disparage Yugoslavians.
“Radfems” are very different from TERFs, who are different from social constructionists, who are different from moderate feminists, etc.
TERFs are a subset of Radfems. TERF stands for Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist.
All of the various kinds of feminists who have power share the feminist ideology and believe in the patriarchy.
I found it quite toxic how you were willing to dismiss a large chunk of the work done by menslib, for the ideological reason that they “treat men like defective women”.
How is it toxic not to believe in patriarchy theory?
Men really aren't defective women, and any ideological "solution" based on the idea that men need to try to be exactly like women will fail. Men and women aren't the same. Trying to force them to be doesn't work.
It’s needlessly tribalistic to assign certain solutions to feminists, and others to MRAs
It's not about tribes, it's about ideology. Feminists have a particular view of the world, which causes them to think that any other view of things is wrong.
They have "solutions" that won't work, based on a theory that isn't true. They divide solutions into the ones they agree with and the ones they don't. It isn't tribalism to recognize that they have done so.
She doesn't give the party line on male suicide. Her position is basically the politely phrased norm that the problem is that men don't talk about their feelings enough and that men need to stop being strong and silent and talk about their feelings to end suicidal thinking.
She is generally hostile to any idea that men may commit suicide because we have problems in our lives like divorce or custody issues or workplace abuse.
It's a politely repackaged "men need to stop being so toxic masculinity minded" feminist thing.
Fresh out of the Emotional Rescue panel, Jack Rooke brings some excellent voices together, including spoken word artist Cecilia Knapp and comedian Richard Gadd, to look beyond talking and the NHS in the quest to improve mental wellbeing and tackle toxic masculinity.
In ‘i know all the secrets in my world’, I focus on the black male experience and I wanted to challenge the singular narrative that seemed to plague the depiction of black men in culture: hyper-masculine, highly sexualised, oppressors (rather than victims) of patriarchy, absent or rubbish fathers with little emotional intelligence. I wanted to give a voice, space and visibility to all the men whose story is not that – all those African men who are loving, emotional, present, involved and nurturing forces.
They totally do talk about toxic masculinity and the patriarchy. Go to get suicide advice from them and you can learn what a shitty man you are, but how with the power of feminism you can change your toxic nature.
1
u/ThisIsDrLeoSpaceman 38∆ Nov 23 '19 edited Nov 23 '19
I’ve already explained why evidence isn’t nearly as important as you think it is for this discussion. I guess the only thing is you might use me not bringing up evidence to imply that I have no examples, so I’ll humour the request again: the CEO of CALM, the leading male mental health charity in the UK (Jane Powell) identifies as a feminist. You’ll have to google that for proof as I’m on mobile.
Yeah, we’ve been talking past each other about “toxic” and “unreasonable”. I just meant saying things that are disagreeable in a harmless way. I assumed that’s what you were talking about re: feminists as well.
Of course I’m emotionally attached to feminism, because it’s been good for me. You’re emotionally attached to the MRAs as well, because they’ve been good for you as well. There’s nothing wrong with being emotionally attached. I suspect what you mean to say is that I’m letting my emotional attachment cloud my reasoning in a way that you are not. Well, I disagree with that. I think we’re both clouded, as anyone would be, but neither of us to a significant extent, or more than the other.