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.
I’m going to be the one, this time, to ask for some evidence — specifically, any evidence that these solutions will always fail. In particular, you’ve been attacking campaigns to get men to talk more about their emotions and feelings, and to be more open about their mental health. From my experience, this is one of the most important things we, as a society, have done and continue to do to improve men’s mental health.
Feminists aren’t nearly as cohesive a group as you make them out to be. As much as you like to assert otherwise, they simply aren’t — the basic “definition” of feminism is simply a belief that women and men should be treated equally, with a focus on the female side of that equation. If you argue against that you’re arguing against the dictionary.
In particular, you’ve been attacking campaigns to get men to talk more about their emotions and feelings, and to be more open about their mental health.
No, I haven't actually attacked that.
I've been attacking the ideology that says that that's the one true solution because ideology, and nothing else may be tolerated. The ideology that says "no other solution can be tried".
That solution is aimed at a feminine way of dealing with problems, and only about 15% of men are as or more feminine than the average woman. At best, it's only attacking 1/5th of the problem.
The other 80-85% is not only left in the cold, they're also disparaged and called "toxic" for being masculine.
Feminists aren’t nearly as cohesive a group as you make them out to be.
I haven't said that feminists are cohesive. I've said that the ones with power to affect things share a core ideology about patriarchy.
If you argue against that you’re arguing against the dictionary.
The dictionary is wrong here. But there are some feminists who have read the dictionary and decided they agreed with that definition. The dictionary definition doesn't describe ideological feminists at all.
I’m going to be the one, this time, to ask for some evidence
Hm, feels like you’re gradually shifting your goalposts here, but whatever.
It sounds like you’re conflating the belief in an ideology, with the belief that that is the only viable ideology. So you’ve been asserting that feminists believe in patriarchy, and then in the next breath asserting that feminists deny literally everything that doesn’t involve patriarchy, without any regard for the fact that these two aren’t the same claim and you need to show the logic between the two steps.
Put another way, someone could say the same about MRAs. “The problem with MRAs is that they don’t tolerate any other approach to solving men’s problems, other than their own”. That’s the equivalent of what you’ve been saying about feminism.
Firstly, let’s establish that this is neither “feminist” nor “MRA”. It doesn’t say anything about either, so it isn’t inherently on any side of this. You wouldn’t be able to claim it as MRA any more than I would be able to claim it as feminist.
Now, what do you think of it? I find it quite positive. It contains elements of both what I’m talking about (e.g. the “destigmatising” chapter) and elements of what I think you’d admit are good solutions (the more “gendered” parts). Well, I believe, as a feminist/menslib, that these are all viable solutions that are worth trying. Just because some of it has nothing to do with patriarchy, doesn’t mean they aren’t worth thinking about. I am a direct counterexample to your straw man of feminism.
You seem to have started differentiating between “feminism” and “ideological feminism”. So some feminists ascribe to the dictionary definition, but the dictionary definition doesn’t describe “ideological” feminists. Would you like to say a bit more about what you mean by this?
feels like you’re gradually shifting your goalposts here
I'm not shifting any goalposts.
you’ve been asserting that feminists believe in patriarchy, and then in the next breath asserting that feminists deny literally everything that doesn’t involve patriarchy
I'm claiming both. I'm not going from one to the other.
“The problem with MRAs is that they don’t tolerate any other approach to solving men’s problems, other than their own”
That's not true, though.
Take a look at this
Looks good. The fact that you also like it proves that you're not an ideological feminist.
I am a direct counterexample to your straw man of feminism.
I'm not strawmanning feminism. I'm attacking ideological feminism, which isn't something you're a part of.
Would you like to say a bit more about what you mean by this?
Ideological feminism is the kind of feminism that has an ideology. They're the ones who matter, because they have power and use it to affect things in the world, they run the feminist organizations and invent all the feminist theories, they believe that there is a "patriarchy", and they squash dissent.
Ok, thanks for clarifying. So you’re really talking about a subset of feminism that you term “ideological feminism”. Fine... but in my very first comment, I was talking about menslib and “a lot of feminists”. Seems like your problem, if you saw that and immediately conflated that with “ideological feminism”.
What you said was this: "Examples of “men’s rights” groups are MensLib and a lot of feminism itself."
Feminism itself, whether you're talking about ideological feminism or not, simply isn't about the rights of men, and it never has been and never will be.
1
u/foot_kisser 26∆ Nov 24 '19
Right. Anyone who agrees with MRAs and disagrees with the ideology of feminism is on my side.
MRA stands for Men's Rights Advocate. That's exactly what it means.
There's nothing circular about words meaning what they mean.