Some honest critiques of the Men's Rights Movement

[Riverwolf]

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.

I'm not sure I understand. Fashion magazines wouldn't have any power whatsoever if it weren't for the fact that the same message appears in many other forms, from peers, some adults, "traditional" values, etc.

Besides, one thing I've observed is that it seems natural human behavior to gravitate towards a trusted authority figure or figures who can say no wrong. If that trust is placed by young girls on those diet scams(which I regard as the modern equivalent to the 19th century scam artists), that "one-way communication feed" can be very effective.

Trust me: I've had to resist the "appeal to authority" urge I have in my argumentation.

 

[oldbadger]

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.

I agree with all that.
Our Advertising Standards would only need to be tweeked a tiny bit to stop mags photo-editing pics.
Anything unrealistic could be treated as a form of deceit-for-gain.

I wonder if 'blokey' mags don't mess about with pics as well. Anybody with abs or six-packs better than mine should be banned....... (and 'no', I'm not putting my pic up.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree with all that.
Our Advertising Standards would only need to be tweeked a tiny bit to stop mags photo-editing pics.
Anything unrealistic could be treated as a form of deceit-for-gain.

I wonder if 'blokey' mags don't mess about with pics as well. Anybody with abs or six-packs better than mine should be banned....... (and 'no', I'm not putting my pic up.

I thumb me nose at yer limey authoritarian ways!

 

[Riverwolf]

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".

The ones who recognize the problem don't buy them.

Just because a majority culture doesn't recognize the existence of a problem doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist, just as I don't generally buy any games published by Electronic Arts or Ubisoft, unless I think supporting the development team is more important than boycotting the publishers.

Doesn't keep the Battlefield games from selling competitively with Call of Duty, nor does it stop Ubisoft from holding Beyond Good and Evil 2 hostage.

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.)

That's not an accurate assessment of feminism, patriarchy, or the real world.

Patriarchy exists when the bulk of the culture oppresses femininity and elevate masculinity, either in men or women, whether intended or not. The fact that women are capable of obtaining positions of power is an example of the progress we've made in the past several decades, but it's not an indication that we now live in a sexually egalitarian culture, because we don't.

It doesn't inherently lay any blame at the feet of men in general(remember, both men and women, by which I don't mean ALL men or ALL women, are responsible for upholding the patriarchy): it's an accurate description of most countries in the world. (Feminism is a worldwide movement.) Nor is it a word for all the things feminists dislike in society. I hate the megacorporation model, the traditional method of teaching in schools, and digital restrictions management, but those aren't examples of patriarchy.

 

[Riverwolf]

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.

BEAUTIFUL!

And that's the solution. These organizations aren't necessarily malicious; they're trying to make a profit like any company, even if the current standard method is irresponsible. I want them to change their tune, not go away. And that's the standard solution all feminists I've seen propose.

 

[Revoltingest]

The ones who recognize the problem don't buy them.
Just because a majority culture doesn't recognize the existence of a problem doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.

This seems a non sequitur. But I don't disagree.

That's not an accurate assessment of feminism, patriarchy, or the real world.

You're free to disagree of course, but after years on this forum watching how the term "patriarchy"
is used, I say it's a pretty accurate description of how feminists (generally) so broadly use the term.

Patriarchy exists when the bulk of the culture oppresses femininity and elevate masculinity, either in men or women, whether intended or not. The fact that women are capable of obtaining positions of power is an example of the progress we've made in the past several decades, but it's not an indication that we now live in a sexually egalitarian culture, because we don't.

Consider....
Patriarchy | Define Patriarchy at Dictionary.com
To apply such a label without regard to nuance, change or acknowledgment of women's power is extreme.
The idea that as long as there is imperfection in gender equity we live in a "patriarchy" strikes me as
simplistic inaccuracy....divisive sloganeering.

It doesn't inherently lay any blame at the feet of men in general(remember, both men and women, by which I don't mean ALL men or ALL women, are responsible for upholding the patriarchy): it's an accurate description of most countries in the world.

You could make a cogent argument that some places (Saudi Arabia) are patriarchies, but to apply it
without adjustment to each locale is to mislead. And the very term "patriarchy" is all about the male
being in charge. See the definition I posted above, & consider the origin of the term.

(Feminism is a worldwide movement.) Nor is it a word for all the things feminists dislike in society. I hate the megacorporation model, the traditional method of teaching in schools, and digital restrictions management, but those aren't examples of patriarchy.

Those are also not issues typically addressed by feminism. The context of my claim is in things
which feminism addresses, & in this sense, it appears that "patriarchy" is the source of all woe.

A fundamental shortcoming of making it about "patriarchy" is that this rallying cry is about the
male (implied) source of trouble, rather than about the actual trouble itself. I suggest railing
against gender inequity rather than patriarchy. Doing so would make feminism appear friendlier
to those of us who share many of the goals, but find feminism rather prickly. After all, what is
the goal of feminists discussing the issue....is it to reinforce their sense of group with specific
off-putting terminology, or is it to find common ground with us "nons"?

 

[Riverwolf]

You're free to disagree of course, but after years on this forum watching how the term "patriarchy"
is used, I say it's a pretty accurate description of how feminists so broadly use the term.

Could be that you're just not understanding us properly. That could either be because we're not communicating in a way that you can understand, or because of your own personal hang-ups keeping you from the meat of our arguments. (And trust me: the latter has happened to me MANY times.)

Consider....
Patriarchy | Define Patriarchy at Dictionary.com
To apply such a label without regard to nuance, change or acknowledgment of women's power is extreme.

We do acknowledge the nuance and change. Doesn't mean there isn't a lot left to do.

The idea that as long as there is imperfection in gender equity we live in a "patriarchy" strikes me as
simplistic inaccuracy....divisive sloganeering.

It's more than just some imperfection, though. There's always going to be some degree of imperfection.

It's outright oppression.

You could make a cogent argument that some places (Saudi Arabia) are patriarchies, but to apply it
without adjustment to each locale is to mislead. And the very term "patriarchy" is all about the male
being in charge. See the definition I posted above, & consider the origin of the term.

Places like Saudi Arabia are worse, to be sure. But just because we're not that bad doesn't mean we aren't a patriarchy of our own.

Our culture elevates the masculine as something positive and the feminine as something negative, so that the concept of holding authority, either explicit or implicit, is, by default, masculine, and the concept of being submissive, either explicitly or implicitly, is feminine.

You also may not realize this, but the word "gay" is used a lot by my generation and the one immediately behind us to refer to something as weak, stupid, or unmanly. Even something as subtle as vernacular contributes to the problem; in this case, implying that anything a man does that isn't traditionally masculine is "girly"; i.e., weak, soft, unassertive, submissive. (I should note, however, that a lot of people recognize the problem, and are desperately trying to stop using the term like that: another example of progress.) I know that might sound like an LGBT+ issue rather than a feminist issue, but there's a LOT of overlap between them and other egalitarian movements.

The use of the word "patriarchy" is metaphorical, referring to subtle behaviors and cultural instincts derived from our culture spending hundreds of years trying to follow Rome's model. It might be a new definition, but new definitions are added to words all the time to suit a culture's communicative needs.

The possibility of a woman becoming president doesn't automatically mean we no longer live in a patriarchy, just as the fact that we have an African-American president doesn't mean racism is no longer a big problem.

Those are also not issues typically addressed by feminism. The context of my claim is in things
which feminism addresses, & in this sense, it appears that "patriarchy" is the source of all woe.

Actually, lack of adequate education is the source of all woe. Patriarchy is just one of many by-products of that due to being part of our cultural heritage.

A fundamental shortcoming of making it about patriarchy is that this rallying cry is about the male (implied) source of trouble, rather than about the actual trouble itself. I suggest railing against gender inequity rather than patriarchy. Doing so would make feminism appear friendlier to those of us who share many of the goals, but find feminism rather prickly.

We do just that. You can disagree with the terms we choose to use, but the nature of decentralized movements like feminism is that not everyone in it agrees with everyone. (Even a feminist panel I otherwise agreed with expressed that men can't be full feminists, but only allies; a sentiment I strongly disagree with). Heck, only one feminist that I've seen (Anita Sarkeesian) uses the term "patriarchy" extensively, and I happen to agree with its application.

The other self-identified feminists who I follow more regularly (Lewis "Linkara" Lovhaug, Lindsey "Nostalgia Chick" Ellis, and Laci Green who I only recently discovered) don't use the term extensively, if at all, to my knowledge. That doesn't mean they disagree with its application, of course, but perhaps they noticed the sentiment that people like yourself had towards it, and so chose not to use it in order to get to the meat of the problem rather than using terms people get hung up on.

After all, what is
the goal of feminists discussing the issue....is it to reinforce their sense of group with specific
off-putting terminology, or is it to find common ground with us "nons"?

I REALLY need to allow others time to edit, and not respond right away, especially since I can often take so long to edit my own posts...

At the moment, the goal depends on the individual. Feminism has taken a major hit recently due to a lot of bloggers leaving the scene because of the rampant harassment they get.

I can speak for myself: my long-term goal is to make it okay for pre-teen boys to be fans of Sailor Moon and feel safe about it on the schoolyard(I was terrified to admit it, and even a little ashamed of it). My short-term goal is to just not use common sexist tropes, even as a joke, in my games.

But I suppose the general goal is to educate.

 

[Revoltingest]

Could be that you're just not understanding us properly. That could either be because we're not communicating in a way that you can understand, or because of your own personal hang-ups keeping you from the meat of our arguments. (And trust me: the latter has happened to me MANY times.)

Those things certainly could be. But it's also possible that you see feminism in some idealized way...defining it by its best qualities, while ignoring its faults. Feminism is not some monolithic system. It has diversity within a general agenda.
You should be aware that my views are quite similar to many feminists. So I share beliefs & goals, but eschew the label of the movement. This seems to need a thread of its own.

We do acknowledge the nuance and change. Doesn't mean there isn't a lot left to do.

Certainly. But that isn't in dispute. I object to "patriarchy" as the name for gender inequity.

It's more than just some imperfection, though. There's always going to be some degree of imperfection.
It's outright oppression.

Even "oppression" seems histrionic when applied to women's status in N Americastan.

Places like Saudi Arabia are worse, to be sure. But just because we're not that bad doesn't mean we aren't a patriarchy of our own.

Then the term "patriarchy" is so universal as to be a meaningless epithet.

Our culture elevates the masculine as something positive and the feminine as something negative, so that the concept of holding authority, either explicit or implicit, is, by default, masculine, and the concept of being submissive, either explicitly or implicitly, is feminine.

You really believe it's that bad? I don't.

You also may not realize this, but the word "gay" is used a lot by my generation....

I'm not that out of touch with popular culture.

....and the one immediately behind us to refer to something as weak, stupid, or unmanly. Even something as subtle as vernacular contributes to the problem; in this case, implying that anything a man does that isn't traditionally masculine is "girly"; i.e., weak, soft, unassertive, submissive. (I should note, however, that a lot of people recognize the problem, and are desperately trying to stop using the term like that: another example of progress.) I know that might sound like an LGBT+ issue rather than a feminist issue, but there's a LOT of overlap between them and other egalitarian movements.

Slights due to language can offend, but hardly rise to the level of oppression. But if you do give them this weight, then consider that "patriarchy" is about how male dominance is the problem. There are also plenty of specifically male oriented insults in the language.

The use of the word "patriarchy" is metaphorical, referring to subtle behaviors and cultural instincts derived from our culture spending hundreds of years trying to follow Rome's model. It might be a new definition, but new definitions are added to words all the time to suit a culture's communicative needs.

I've no doubt that the term serves the purposes of feminists.
But I'll object to that limited perspective nonetheless.

The possibility of a woman becoming president doesn't automatically mean we no longer live in a patriarchy, just as the fact that we have an African-American president doesn't mean racism is no longer a big problem.

Now you're mixing in the "white privilege" discussion. The existence of problems does not mean that the term "patriarchy" is appropriate.

Actually, lack of adequate education is the source of all woe. Patriarchy is just a by-product of that due to being part of our cultural heritage.

Again, "patriarchy" is just so over-used as to be a meaningless slogan with with an anti-male connotation.

We do just that. You can disagree with the terms we choose to use, but the nature of decentralized movements like feminism is that not everyone in it agrees with everyone. Heck, only one feminist that I've seen (Anita Sarkeesian) uses the term "patriarchy" extensively, and I happen to agree with its application.

I don't know what you read, but here at RF it's bandied about frequently.

The other self-identified feminists who I follow more regularly (Lewis "Linkara" Lovhaug, Lindsey "Nostalgia Chick" Ellis, and Laci Green who I only recently discovered) don't use the term extensively, if at all, to my knowledge.

Perhaps you're inured to to an anti-male bias because you're so immersed in feminist culture, eh?

 

[freethinker44]

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.

For that I would give you the same response I get when I bring up any sexism or prejudice I notice in the feminist movement: no true Scotsman, I mean feminist, I mean men's rights advocate would do that.

 

[Riverwolf]

For that I would give you the same response I get when I bring up any sexism or prejudice I notice in the feminist movement: no true Scotsman, I mean feminist, I mean men's rights advocate would do that.

I just observe the things that come my way. But the feminists I follow actively seek out the state of the world, and so are going to be much more informed than I am.

That doesn't mean my statement is any less valid, but when I apply it to myself in contrast to others, I mean to say that, except in the case of gamer culture (where sexism/patriarchy is, as stated before, epidemic), I haven't seen much, while the ones I follow, by contrast, have seen much.

The more that's seen, the more likely to be accurate the assessment.

 

[oldbadger]

I thumb me nose at yer limey authoritarian ways!

That pic's bin b-ggered about with..... I mean..... photo-edited.

 

[freethinker44]

I just observe the things that come my way. But the feminists I follow actively seek out the state of the world, and so are going to be much more informed than I am.

That doesn't mean my statement is any less valid, but when I apply it to myself in contrast to others, I mean to say that, except in the case of gamer culture (where sexism/patriarchy is, as stated before, epidemic), I haven't seen much, while the ones I follow, by contrast, have seen much.

The more that's seen, the more likely to be accurate the assessment.

I get what you're saying, your criticisms about MRAs, which I share BTW, is probably just as valid as my criticism of feminists, but that's just the stock answer I get whenever any criticism is brought up, which is basically, "anything you find damaging to feminism isn't really feminism" which is just as absurd as it is when any other group says it.

 

[Riverwolf]

Those things certainly could be. But it's also possible that you see feminism in some idealized way...defining it by its best qualities, while ignoring its faults. Feminism is not some monolithic system. It has diversity within a general agenda.

I would have figured the way I refer to it would have made it clear that I already know that.

No movement is perfect, because no person is perfect.

On the other hand, nothing the four aforementioned people have said anything I disagree with, yet, as far as feminism goes. However, if you want an example of a common feminist sentiment that I DO disagree with, quite strongly in fact, is the idea that men cannot be feminists at all, but only allies.

You should be aware that my views are quite similar to many feminists. So I share beliefs & goals, but eschew the label of the movement. This seems to need a thread of its own.

I agree. With both of those statements.

Tell ya what, how 'bout we make a new thread (outside of Men's Issues, since this particular thing is a people-in-general, perhaps in the Social World general forum), and I can save the rest of my response in a document?

 

[Revoltingest]

I would have figured the way I refer to it would have made it clear that I already know that.
No movement is perfect, because no person is perfect.

Aye, & every movement will look different to each observer.

I agree. With both of those statements.
Tell ya what, how 'bout we make a new thread (outside of Men's Issues, perhaps in the Social World general forum), and I can save the rest of my response in a document?

Already done!

 

[Riverwolf]

Aye, & every movement will look different to each observer.

Indeed.

I've made an edit to that post.

 

[Riverwolf]

I get what you're saying, your criticisms about MRAs, which I share BTW, is probably just as valid as my criticism of feminists, but that's just the stock answer I get whenever any criticism is brought up, which is basically, "anything you find damaging to feminism isn't really feminism" which is just as absurd as it is when any other group says it.

For me, it depends on whether or not the "damaging sentiment" is in agreement with the core principal.

In the case of feminism, if something is in disagreement with gender/sexual equality, then it can't be regarded as feminist.

However, the aforementioned sentiment (that men can't be feminists, only allies) that I vehemently disagree with, IS compatible with feminism, since it's born out of the idea that women need to be able to speak for themselves in order to rise up and reach the coveted equality. That's fair enough, but I disagree with it because, having a feminine nature myself and strongly relating to women more than men(and yes, that does color my opinion into one of unavoidable bias), I have as much of a personal stake in the issue as women.

 

[freethinker44]

For me, it depends on whether or not the "damaging sentiment" is in agreement with the core principal.

In the case of feminism, if something is in disagreement with gender/sexual equality, then it can't be regarded as feminist.

That's the exact same counter-argument I see when the debating with some theists and shariah law or the inquisition is brought up. They say those people are mistaken because that's not in line with their core values, but I just see that as the logical conclusion of their core values. If your core values start to break down when they're tested to the extreme, maybe you should rethink your values. I actually do this with my own personal values before I adopt them, if they are still good during extreme situations they are keepers, if it starts to look like I'm implementing my own version of shariah law it's out.

And it's easy to see how relatively trivial ideas that seem like decent values can become absurd monstrosities in the extreme, like saying people should be modest seems like a decent value, but if you take it to the extreme and you are stoning women to death for riding in a car without a male relative, maybe it's not such a decent value after all, maybe we should rethink our position on that.

So I see the extremists of a group not as some crazy fringe minority, but as a reflection of the mainstream ideology with all the feelgood BS trimmed away. They're just taking the core values to the logically absurd conclusion.

 

[Riverwolf]

That's the exact same counter-argument I see when the debating with some theists and shariah law or the inquisition is brought up. They say those people are mistaken because that's not in line with their core values, but I just see that as the logical conclusion of their core values. If your core values start to break down when they're tested to the extreme, maybe you should rethink your values. I actually do this with my own personal values before I adopt them, if they are still good during extreme situations they are keepers, if it starts to look like I'm implementing my own version of shariah law it's out.

I believe that there's no such thing as a set of values incapable of being corrupted.

And it's easy to see how relatively trivial ideas that seem like decent values can become absurd monstrosities in the extreme, like saying people should be modest seems like a decent value, but if you take it to the extreme and you are stoning women to death for riding in a car without a male relative, maybe it's not such a decent value after all, maybe we should rethink our position on that.

Or, rather, maybe modesty is something that can just be regarded as praiseworthy without being obligatory.

So I see the extremists of a group not as some crazy fringe minority, but as a reflection of the mainstream ideology with all the feelgood BS trimmed away. They're just taking the core values to the logically absurd conclusion.

Give me any positive guiding principle, moral philosophy, and set of virtues, and I'll corrupt them. There are more ways to do that than just taking them to extremes.

Besides, if the conclusion the extremists take is logically absurd, then it can't be regarded as part of the core movement because it takes so far as to be, well, absurd.

 

[freethinker44]

Besides, if the conclusion the extremists take is logically absurd, then it can't be regarded as part of the core movement because it takes so far as to be, well, absurd.

But it may also be an indicator that the core beliefs may be logically absurd.

 

[Riverwolf]

Heck, at least you named some names. That gives you a massive persuasive advantage in this debate over those who are weeping and moaning about all those nasty man hating feminists without providing any specific examples.

It's enough to raise doubts that such people exist in any significant quantity. Kind of like all those scientists who supposedly reject AGW and evolution.

An illustration.

Anita Sarkeesian's "Tropes Vs. Women in Video Games" youtube series drew a LOT of criticism before and after it aired. (I'm not talking about the harassment, either; a HUGE majority of gamers, far as I can see, expressed that they strongly disagreed with her assessment, or at least questioned her credibility. A lot of that criticism was whether or not she's really a gamer (based solely on one thing she said years ago, as if it were relevant either way), whether or not she actually played the games she cited (also as if that were relevant), and similar sentiments with questionable relevancy.

But I recently rewatched the series just to confirm a few facts for a post I was making in another forum (since I'm partially active in a few other places besides here, these days), and while I still couldn't find anything I particularly disagreed with, I did notice something interesting.

"Tropes vs. Women in Video Game" is a four-part series (at least at this point; she might do more videos on the subject in the future, but that's just speculation on my part since there's so bloody much to talk about). The first episode had close to two million views as of a few months ago. Okay, that makes sense, since it was highly publicized for a while due to being crowd-funded. However, the other three videos didn't even break half a million views. (I think the third video didn't even break 200,000 views.)

Quite telling, if you ask me.