Some honest critiques of the Men's Rights Movement

[Revoltingest]

I often times will post feminist topics in the open forums. We're all welcome to continue to do that, FYI.

Again, the reasoning for having a purple DIR is that too often the topic will be derailed into the angry-male-bashing-feminist-stereotype, or if feminism is even needed at all, instead of actually talking about the topic at hand (wage gap, rape culture, women representation, etc.).

That wasn't a problem before the forum went purple. But feminists (not all) did object to even reasonable discussion from outsiders. It strikes me that fear of derailment by us knuckle walkers is itself an over-blown stereotype. Green & blue would solve that problem too, but purple is a closed door...a telling choice.

I see it in the open forums, which is fine. Feminists actually wanted to talk about these things without having 400 pages of derailment tactics. It's worked out just fine for us. For critics of feminism, feel free to start a thread in the open forums.

Such issues were brought up elsewhere before & after already. (400 pages of derailment? Barsh & flimshaw!) The issue I addressed is different, ie, that the green approach is better (IMO).

Just not here, since feminists are also not to bash MRAs in the purple DIR.

If they did, who would know...other than sympathetic fellows?

 

[Debater Slayer]

If they did, who would know...other than sympathetic fellows?

Purple sections are visible to all members. The restriction on who is allowed to post there have no bearing on who can read posts in those sections.

 

[Revoltingest]

Purple sections are visible to all members. The restriction on who is allowed to post there have no bearing on who can read posts in those sections.

Yes, I've already addressed this in a prior post. To re-state:
Non-feminists (we're the "nons".) would have little reason to look in.
To be prevented from any participation makes it far less interesting.
I ain't no Chauncy Gardner.
Anyway, many nons share much the same views as feminists, but without fitting the label.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

What can MRAs do to be better organized for their causes, then? And what directions should they take?

 

[Alceste]

What can MRAs do to be better organized for their causes, then? And what directions should they take?

Some of the men I know have had major custody issues. The last father I met who was facing the bleak prospect of losing contact with his newborn child had the support of a legal aid charity set up specifically to help men with a variety of issues, but custody in particular. I think he had a far better chance than men who are left to their own devices, and he certainly seemed more optimistic.

I agree with you that if the combined energy of MRAs went into efforts like these, there would be very little for anyone to criticize. (Or at least, to criticize persuasively - some small proportion of loudmouths will always find something to complain about).

 

[Riverwolf]

I have an even lower opinion of the MRM than I did when I initially posted in this thread.

All the legitimate problems that men face that the MRM tries to address are all due to our patriarchal society(men cannot be caregivers because they're not, or not supposed to be, feminine, etc.), and so already covered under feminism. Therein lies the redundancy. I believe I argued that before, but new knowledge has revealed itself since.

Now, I understand that most people who follow the MRM are concerned primarily about those legitimate problems, and are generally against the exact same thing feminists are against. As a result, I don't believe most MRAs are sexist or inherently against feminist values even if you guys say you are; I think you guys who are MRAs and say you're against feminism are fighting either a strawman, or matriarchs who have stolen the term. A matriarchal society would be no better than a patriarchal one.

However, when it comes to the actual movers of the movement, every time I see them, I see blatant(if unintended) sexism, fear-mongering, conspiranoia-like thinking, and complete ignorance of the state of the world. Frankly, they scare me. People who hold political views that oppose mine don't scare me; even the megacorporations who run the US(or at least try to) don't scare me! That's a personal experience, yes, and doesn't automatically speak to the quality or virtue of the movement, but whether fair or not, it's genuinely how I feel whenever I catch a glimpse of their arguments.

Doesn't help that I've since learned about that remake of Wicker Man with Nicolas Cage, which seems to depict the aforementioned strawman feminist.

Part of the reason for this is the fact that I've recently learned that a lot of female feminist bloggers have quit their internet activism due to the constant harassment, death/rape threats, and in extreme cases real life stalkers, etc. they get, reinforcing and giving power to the trolls. Now, so we're clear, I DON'T think MRAs are those trolls, or that they approve, in any way, of the harassment. However, the fact that female feminist bloggers, or just female content creators in general even if the content isn't based on real-world issues, are so uncommon and the ones who are there often get harassed off the scene altogether, is just one of many reasons why I'm a feminist. (Specifically a sex-positive egalitarian male feminist.) And since all the real problems that men face specifically are the result of our patriarchal society(less likely to get child custody, less likely to hold child care positions, etc.), they're covered under feminism.

Basically, I thought Gary Brodsky represented an exception. I didn't realize his philosophy was mainstream.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have an even lower opinion of the MRM than I did when I initially posted in this thread; now I view it as more than just redundant, but as willfully ignorant, and even a little scary.

Isn't this the kind of language which would get one ejected from a feminism DIR
because of derailment? Let's stick to the issues, rather than dis the movement.

All the legitimate problems that men face that the MRM tries to address are all due to our patriarchal society(men cannot be caregivers because they're not, or not supposed to be, feminine, etc.), and so already covered under feminism. Therein lies the redundancy. I believe I argued that before, but new knowledge has revealed itself since.
Now, I understand that most people who follow the MRM are concerned primarily about those legitimate problems, and are generally against the exact same thing feminists are against. As a result, I don't believe most MRAs are sexist or inherently against feminist values even if you guys say you are; I think you guys who are MRAs and say you're against feminism are fighting either a strawman, or matriarchs who have stolen the term. A matriarchal society would be no better than a patriarchal one.

To make this about opposition to feminism is itself a straw man.

However, when it comes to the actual movers of the movement, every time I see them, I see blatant(if unintended) sexism, fear-mongering, conspiranoia-like thinking, and complete ignorance of the state of the world. Frankly, they scare me. People who hold political views that oppose mine don't scare me; even the megacorporations who run the US(or at least try to) don't scare me! That's a personal experience, yes, and doesn't automatically speak to the quality or virtue of the movement, but whether fair or not, it's genuinely how I feel whenever I catch a glimpse of their arguments.

We see the same in the feminist movement, so it illustrates how we cannot
judge something solely by an extreme element which catches one's eye.

Doesn't help that I've since learned about that remake of Wicker Man with Nicolas Cage, which seems to depict the aforementioned strawman feminist.

Part of the reason for this is the fact that I've recently learned that a lot of female feminist bloggers have quit their internet activism due to the constant harassment, death/rape threats, and in extreme cases real life stalkers, etc. they get, reinforcing and giving power to the trolls. Now, so we're clear, I DON'T think MRAs are those trolls, or that they approve, in any way, of the harassment. However, the fact that female feminist bloggers, or just female content creators in general even if the content isn't based on real-world issues, are so uncommon and the ones who are there often get harassed off the scene altogether, is just one of many reasons why I'm a feminist. (Specifically a sex-positive egalitarian male feminist.) And since all the real problems that men face specifically are the result of our patriarchal society(less likely to get child custody, less likely to hold child care positions, etc.), they're covered under feminism.
Basically, I thought Gary Brodsky represented an exception. I didn't realize his philosophy was mainstream.

What you would call patriarchy is a society in which more women vote than men, & in which women use peer pressure to enforce some norms they decry (eg, stylish but impractical footwear). To characterize it in terms which make menfolk solely culpable avoids the entirety of the problem. Feminists who see that men are the problem, & themselves as the victims simply aren't accepting responsibility for their own role to fix the problems.

 

[Riverwolf]

To make this about opposition to feminism is itself a straw man.

You know what? Fair enough. I disagree with pretty much your entire post, but you're right: there are actual grievances I have with the MRM that have nothing to do with its views on feminism. (Though do remember that I believe most average Joe MRAs aren't essentially in opposition to feminism at all.)

Though I do find it worth mentioning that the majority of the time, the only thing I see MRAs talk about is how much feminism sucks and how sexist feminists are. The rest of the time, it's child custody and care (the only issue I've seen brought up that's a legit problem, but one based on patriarchy), or issues that are basically fabricated or misdirected. I've been directed to several feminist bloggers/content creators, all of whom I can get behind; I've never been directed to an MRM blogger/content creator I can get behind.

I feel the need to stress something I keep saying but might be getting missed: this is what I've seen, and what I've seen doesn't necessarily reflect the bulk of what's out there.

But I can say these: 1. the fact that more women vote than men has nothing to do with whether we live in a patriarchal, sexually egalitarian, or matriarchal society, because voting is a fully-autonomous choice that our culture doesn't pressure anyone to do(which might be why the vast majority of the US population doesn't vote at all). To demonstrate this further, I direct you to the fact that about half of all gamers are women. Now, with your logic, that means that gaming culture doesn't have a problem with sexism. But I only need direct you to the abuse that Anita Sarkeesian got when she dared bring up the fact that there might be sexist elements in our beloved media, as just one of many examples of how sexism is pretty much an epidemic right now in gamer culture despite the earlier statistic. How many of those gamer girls pretend to be men while online out of a legitimate fear of abuse? And 2. feminists I follow have no problem with stylish but impractical footwear, as long as society isn't devaluing women who choose not to wear them (which it does.)

 

[Revoltingest]

You know what? Fair enough. I disagree with pretty much your entire post, but you're right: there are actual grievances I have with the MRM that have nothing to do with its views on feminism. (Though do remember that I believe most average Joe MRAs aren't essentially in opposition to feminism at all.)

Good to know. But "the MRM" itself has no views on feminism....only individuals
have their own views. And just as it is among feminists, no one person speaks for all.

Though I do find it worth mentioning that the majority of the time, the only thing I see MRAs talk about is how much feminism sucks and how sexist feminists are. The rest of the time, it's child custody and care (the only issue I've seen brought up that's a legit problem, but one based on patriarchy), or issues that are basically fabricated or misdirected. I've been directed to several feminist bloggers/content creators, all of whom I can get behind; I've never been directed to an MRM blogger/content creator I can get behind.

I couldn't even name a single MRM blogger, but it doesn't me from advocating for men's rights...& for people in general.

I feel the need to stress something I keep saying but might be getting missed: this is what I've seen, and what I've seen doesn't necessarily reflect the bulk of what's out there.

Tis a worthwhile caveat for all.

But I can say these: 1. the fact that more women vote than men has nothing to do with whether we live in a patriarchal, sexually egalitarian, or matriarchal society, because voting is a fully-autonomous choice that our culture doesn't pressure anyone to do(which might be why the vast majority of the US population doesn't vote at all). To demonstrate this further, I direct you to the fact that about half of all gamers are women. Now, with your logic, that means that gaming culture doesn't have a problem with sexism. But I only need direct you to the abuse that Anita Sarkeesian got when she dared bring up the fact that there might be sexist elements in our beloved media, as just one of many examples of how sexism is pretty much an epidemic right now in gamer culture despite the earlier statistic. How many of those gamer girls pretend to be men while online out of a legitimate fear of abuse? And 2. feminists I follow have no problem with stylish but impractical footwear, as long as society isn't devaluing women who choose not to wear them (which it does.)

Gaming & voting are very different.
The former doesn't determine who runs government, thereby directly affecting the culture,
but the latter does. If women (& male feminists) use their apparent majority to vote in
politicians who perpetuate the very things they decry, then blaming "patriarchy" will effect
no solution. Less blaming; more striving.

Gamers....I've never experienced their "culture", & know nothing of it except what I hear in
this forum. It sounds abusive & awful. Perhaps you should switch to board games played IRL.
I play go (aka wei qi), & we have a high standard of etiquette & civility.

 

[Riverwolf]

Good to know. But "the MRM" itself has no views on feminism....only individuals
have their own views. And just as it is among feminists, no one person speaks for all.

I know. Just reporting my experience that several of these individuals go to great lengths to talk about how much feminism sucks.

I couldn't even name a single MRM blogger,

MundaneMatt (though come to think of it, I don't know if he self-identifies as an MRA).

but it doesn't me from advocating for men's rights...& for people in general.

So like I said: not in opposition to feminism at all.

Gaming & voting are very different.
The former doesn't determine who runs government, thereby directly affecting the culture, but the latter does.

I WISH it did. ...okay, it technically does, but how much does your average voter really know about the politicians who aren't the President?

If women (& male feminists) use their apparent majority to vote in politicians who perpetuate the very things they decry, then blaming "patriarchy" will effect no solution. Less blaming; more striving.

It's not the government who primarily perpetuates the patriarchy(those who do receive lots of criticism). It's the media and culture. Fashion magazines, diet scams, fat/**** shaming, rape culture, "girl hate", etc...

Gamers....I've never experienced their "culture", & no nothing of it except what I hear in this forum. It sounds awful. Perhaps you should switch to board games played IRL. I play go (aka wei qi), & we have a high standard of etiquette & civility.

I would, but I love the games themselves too much; they're a foundational aspect of my life. ^_^ I don't actually do much participation in the culture, except in areas where the sexual harassment doesn't reach(as much of an epidemic as it is, it's still a minority), and I don't generally play online.

Then again, I don't know if modern board game culture (which plays games like Settlers of Catan, Cards Against Humanity, Resistance, Descent, etc) has the same high standards of etiquette as Go culture. ...considering the nature of Cards Against Humanity, I'd kinda doubt it. ^_^ (Then again, since it's not online, there's better control over who gets to play and who doesn't).

 

[Revoltingest]

I WISH it did. ...okay, it technically does, but how much does your average voter really know about the politicians who aren't the President?

Well, if even the people with grievances don't bother to try to improve
things, they ought'a start accepting responsibility for their lot in life.

It's not the government who primarily perpetuates the patriarchy(those who do receive lots of criticism). It's the media and culture. Fashion magazines, diet scams, fat/**** shaming, rape culture, "girl hate", etc...

What makes fashion magazines "patriarchy"? I don't buy this implicit blame of us mens.
The feminist movement is too invested in blame for me to identify with it.

I would, but I love the games themselves too much; they're a foundational aspect of my life. ^_^ I don't actually do much participation in the culture, except in areas where the sexual harassment doesn't reach(as much of an epidemic as it is, it's still a minority), and I don't generally play online.

Then again, I don't know if modern board game culture (which plays games like Settlers of Catan, Cards Against Humanity, Resistance, Descent, etc) has the same high standards of etiquette as Go culture. ...considering the nature of Cards Against Humanity, I'd kinda doubt it. ^_^ (Then again, since it's not online, there's better control over who gets to play and who doesn't).

Cards....pbbbbbbt!

 

[Riverwolf]

Well, if even the people with grievances don't bother to try to improve
things, they ought'a start accepting responsibility for their lot in life.

If only it were that easy. There's simply no way to trust that politicians are telling the truth, and once in office, most people are simply too busy trying to feed themselves and their families to care whether the elected officials are sticking to their election platform. It's one thing to have plenty of time to do the adequate research and vote fully informed, it's another thing to literally not have time for that.

Besides, the people with grievances ARE trying to improve things. Hence the various activist movements.

What makes fashion magazines "patriarchy"? I don't buy this implicit blame of us mens.
The feminist movement is too invested in blame for me to identify with it.

Uh... no.

Fashion magazines in their current state are designed deliberately to make women feel bad if they don't conform to that standard of beauty: that is, their implicit message is: "If you don't look like this, you're worthless." (Translation: "If you don't buy our products, you're worthless.") The worst part about it is that very few of the "models" are real women; most of them are basically Photoshop-Frankensteins. Even if a real model is being used, the picture they took of her is digitally altered. Fashion magazines are just one type of magazine marketed primarily at teenage girls that engages in this sort of thing; most of the magazines marketed at that age group do it. And at the same time, the culture is simultaneously telling young girls to look as sexy as they can, but not too sexy and certainly not show off that sexiness lest they be labelled a ****. I'm REALLY trying to come up with some equivalent that we young men had to deal with(or at least my generation), and I seriously cannot come up with one that can accurately compare, since when it comes to body type, we're exposed to hundreds of variations on how to look good.

And it's just as dangerous as the time ~300-ish years ago when corsets were first being worn, and the pressure was on women to get their waists so small that men could wrap their hands fully around them.

You're not to blame for it any more than me, and no feminist that I've ever seen would say such a thing. It's patriarchy because it's an example of female oppression, not because men are to blame. (In fact, men aren't; just as many women hold equal blame in reinforcing and upholding our patriarchal society. Just as with pretty much all of society's problems, the source cause is people, not a particular group of people.)

Feminism isn't anti-man, and not ONE feminist that I've seen has held such a sentiment(in fact, I only ever see that sentiment as some kind of accusation against feminism). Here's the truth: the vast majority of feminists LOVE sex and sexiness as much as the rest of us. While not universal, many of them are also okay with porn (at least in theory). It's called sex-positive feminism.

 

[Curious George]

If only it were that easy. There's simply no way to trust that politicians are telling the truth, and once in office, most people are simply too busy trying to feed themselves and their families to care whether the elected officials are sticking to their election platform. It's one thing to have plenty of time to do the adequate research and vote fully informed, it's another thing to literally not have time for that.

Besides, the people with grievances ARE trying to improve things. Hence the various activist movements.

Uh... no.

Fashion magazines in their current state are designed deliberately to make women feel bad if they don't conform to that standard of beauty: that is, their implicit message is: "If you don't look like this, you're worthless." (Translation: "If you don't buy our products, you're worthless.") The worst part about it is that very few of the "models" are real women; most of them are basically Photoshop-Frankensteins. Even if a real model is being used, the picture they took of her is digitally altered. Fashion magazines are just one type of magazine marketed primarily at teenage girls that engages in this sort of thing; most of the magazines marketed at that age group do it. And at the same time, the culture is simultaneously telling young girls to look as sexy as they can, but not too sexy and certainly not show off that sexiness lest they be labelled a ****. I'm REALLY trying to come up with some equivalent that we young men had to deal with, and I seriously cannot come up with one that can accurately compare, since when it comes to body type, we're exposed to hundreds of variations on how to look good; even looking fat can look good for men!

And it's just as dangerous as the time ~300-ish years ago when corsets were first being worn, and the pressure was on women to get their waists so small that men could wrap their hands fully around them.

You're not to blame for it any more than me, and no feminist that I've ever seen would say such a thing. It's patriarchy because it's an example of female oppression, not because men are to blame. (In fact, men aren't; just as many women hold equal blame in reinforcing and upholding our patriarchal society. Just as with pretty much all of society's problems, the source cause is people, not a particular group of people.)

Feminism isn't anti-man, and not ONE feminist that I've seen has held such a sentiment. Here's the truth: the vast majority of feminists LOVE sex and sexiness as much as the rest of us. While not universal, many of them are also okay with porn (at least in theory). It's called sex-positive feminism.

I think your take on fashion magazines is a little bit of the tail wagging the dog. Fashion magazines are what they are because it sells. This is a byproduct of our patriarchal system. Sure, the magazines then contribute in a cyclical fashion to the patriarchal system with their contributions toward socialization, but they are hardly the driving force. While such magazines may merit criticisms for failing some perceived journalistic obligation to the public, (given there position of power). Ultimately, media is not the largest force in individuals socialization. Individuals must take the blame instead of pointing fingers up the ladders of power.

 

[oldbadger]

You're not to blame for it any more than me, and no feminist that I've ever seen would say such a thing. It's patriarchy because it's an example of female oppression, not because men are to blame.

If cosmetics, fashion magazines, high heels, etc, were done away with, tomorrow, by legislation, then most women who live in westernised countries would scream 'OPPRESSION'!!!

....and it would be.........

 

[Riverwolf]

I think your take on fashion magazines is a little bit of the tail wagging the dog. Fashion magazines are what they are because it sells. This is a byproduct of our patriarchal system. Sure, the magazines then contribute in a cyclical fashion to the patriarchal system with their contributions toward socialization, but they are hardly the driving force. While such magazines may merit criticisms for failing some perceived journalistic obligation to the public, (given there position of power). Ultimately, media is not the largest force in individuals socialization. Individuals must take the blame instead of pointing fingers up the ladders of power.

I don't disagree.

It was just one example I was using. I didn't mean to imply that it was only things like fashion magazines that contributed to it. In a world where corporations run things, the most important vote (more important than the one done at election time) is the vote made with the wallet. Young girls buy those magazines, get those unrealistic expectations of beauty, the focus groups interview those girls on their beauty ideals, and then the companies sell more of those magazines. It's a chicken-egg scenario.

The degree to which any given element influences an individual or subculture will vary; for some the media is THE driving force, for others its peripheral, and there's everything in between. But the constant thing is that it's always several different elements working together to reinforce each other, not a single thing that can just be removed and everything will automatically be okay. If it were that simple, Buffy would have had a much stronger and more lasting impact than the more subtle one it had.

 

[Riverwolf]

If cosmetics, fashion magazines, high heels, etc, were done away with, tomorrow, by legislation, then most women who live in westernised countries would scream 'OPPRESSION'!!!

....and it would be.........

:clap

It absolutely would be.

The government isn't the only thing in the world capable of being oppressive.

 

[Curious George]

I don't disagree.

It was just one example I was using. I didn't mean to imply that it was only things like fashion magazines that contributed to it. In a world where corporations run things, the most important vote (more important than the one done at election time) is the vote made with the wallet. Young girls buy those magazines, get those unrealistic expectations of beauty, the focus groups interview those girls on their beauty ideals, and then the companies sell more of those magazines. It's a chicken-egg scenario.

The degree to which any given element influences an individual or subculture will vary; for some the media is THE driving force, for others its peripheral, and there's everything in between. But the constant thing is that it's always several different elements working together to reinforce each other, not a single thing that can just be removed and everything will automatically be okay. If it were that simple, Buffy would have had a much stronger and more lasting impact than the more subtle one it had.

have you considered bronfenbrenner ecological systems approach to socialization? The approach is pretty intuitive. I see you point that the importance of factors varies from person to person, however I strongly disagree that a one way communication feed can have dominance over factors which involve live-language, intimacy, and acknowledgment.

 

[Revoltingest]

If only it were that easy. There's simply no way to trust that politicians are telling the truth, and once in office, most people are simply too busy trying to feed themselves and their families to care whether the elected officials are sticking to their election platform. It's one thing to have plenty of time to do the adequate research and vote fully informed, it's another thing to literally not have time for that.
Besides, the people with grievances ARE trying to improve things. Hence the various activist movements.
Uh... no.
Fashion magazines in their current state are designed deliberately to make women feel bad if they don't conform to that standard of beauty: that is, their implicit message is: "If you don't look like this, you're worthless." (Translation: "If you don't buy our products, you're worthless.") The worst part about it is that very few of the "models" are real women; most of them are basically Photoshop-Frankensteins. Even if a real model is being used, the picture they took of her is digitally altered. Fashion magazines are just one type of magazine marketed primarily at teenage girls that engages in this sort of thing; most of the magazines marketed at that age group do it. And at the same time, the culture is simultaneously telling young girls to look as sexy as they can, but not too sexy and certainly not show off that sexiness lest they be labelled a ****. I'm REALLY trying to come up with some equivalent that we young men had to deal with(or at least my generation), and I seriously cannot come up with one that can accurately compare, since when it comes to body type, we're exposed to hundreds of variations on how to look good.

And it's just as dangerous as the time ~300-ish years ago when corsets were first being worn, and the pressure was on women to get their waists so small that men could wrap their hands fully around them.

You're not to blame for it any more than me, and no feminist that I've ever seen would say such a thing. It's patriarchy because it's an example of female oppression, not because men are to blame. (In fact, men aren't; just as many women hold equal blame in reinforcing and upholding our patriarchal society. Just as with pretty much all of society's problems, the source cause is people, not a particular group of people.)

Feminism isn't anti-man, and not ONE feminist that I've seen has held such a sentiment(in fact, I only ever see that sentiment as some kind of accusation against feminism). Here's the truth: the vast majority of feminists LOVE sex and sexiness as much as the rest of us. While not universal, many of them are also okay with porn (at least in theory). It's called sex-positive feminism.

I don't claim that feminism is anti-man. But I see a recurring theme of hostility towards men...not from every feminist, but it's there. Worse though, is the disempowering theme of victimhood. Do men (straight ones, anyway) buy fashion magazines which supposedly oppress women? No. If women don't like dressing per the dictates of X-ray thin fashionistas, then women ought'a stop buying their propaganda & blaming their discomfort on "patriarchy". They turned corsets & padded shoulders into historical oddities, so they can surely rise above uncomfortable pointy toed shoes. When I'm dictator, women will be sporting Keen & Ecco loafers with sensible low heels & box toes. And they'll have cargo pants so they don't need to always carry a purse. There is a downside to comfort....girlies will all look like Revoltingistanians.

From what I gather, "patriarchy" is simply the name for all things feminists dislike in a society. Whether men are in charge or not, whether women are in charge or not, or to what extent men & women share power, the name is the name. If this is the case, then why have a name which inherently lays blame at the feet of men? A name which focuses on the problem would make more sense, eg, "gender inequity". But then tis better to feel the thrill & camaraderie of victimhood if one's team has a rallying cry against a foe....."Down with patriarchy"! (This last part is to rile Mystic/Uppity.)

 

[Alceste]

If cosmetics, fashion magazines, high heels, etc, were done away with, tomorrow, by legislation, then most women who live in westernised countries would scream 'OPPRESSION'!!!

....and it would be.........

True, but I did read about a magazine that responded positively to a letter campaign from their teen readers to start using realistic pictures of women to help combat the teenage eating disorders that are exacerbated by routinely photoshopping skinny models to look even skinnier.

That's the sort of initiative I would support, and it would be nice to see that commitment more wide spread.

"Real women" are a better marketing strategy these days anyway. I don't think doing away with unrealistic beauty standards would hurt anybody's bottom line.

 

[Revoltingest]

Back to the OP.....

First off, let me say by "critique," I don't mean the same old feminist talking points that MRA's are all a bunch of sexist pigs who want to take us back to the dark ages.

Is this really said in feminism? It would seem to be a very fringe view which shouldn't characterize the whole movement.

Unfortunately, in using equality as a starting point, the MRM has attempted to cast men as a weak and entitled creature who is at the mercy of feminists. In being too open to "compromise" and working within a system that's rigged from the beginning, the MRM is already at a lot. Modern feminism and the MRA are both based on victimhood. True strength lies in indifference and the development of it's quality through avenues that are noble, not popular and simplistic.

I wouldn't say the movements are "based on" victimhood, even thought that element is there in both.