The Mens Rights /Issues "debate"?

[Sunstone]

I think separating men's issues from feminism might create the misleading impression that there's one DIR for men and another for women, entrenching further binary gender stereotyping.

Of course, there will always be those who "just don't get it". But the "poor" shall always be with us.

 

[Qhost]

To the OP: Here's what I think is going on... Actually, there's a guy on YouTube who explained the thinking you described really well. I'll see if I can find it, but basically it seems the resistance comes not from a real concern about the collective troubles of men in general, but out of envy. "What about me? My life isn't easy either! I sure as hell don't FEEL privileged...!" Imperfect creatures that we are, we are sometimes inclined to resent sympathy, attention and help offered to others because we feel we aren't getting enough sympathy, attention and help ourselves.

It's the (almost) grown-up version of sibling rivalry. "It's not fair Jr. got the flu and doesn't have to go to school! What about me? I don't wanna go to school either! You love Jr. more than me! Wah!"

I'm sorry to say it, but I really think you're off the mark. I've been fairly active in the MRA scene for sometime and I am all too aware of the attitude OP described (bashing feminism rather than sorting out men's issues).

Most people come into a MRA area because they have had a grievance with feminism (not because they feel like they should have something to complain about). Example: maybe they find out that in some legislation rape can only be committed by a man, or perhaps they notice in a study that what they think should be called 'male rape', is instead called 'forced penetration' making the numbers look very one sided - they raise this point only to be said that 'men can't be raped by women'. Or maybe they were accused of being a misogynistic rape supporter for questioning how much the concept 'gender' is biological as opposed to sociological. ( I am aware that there is a far more liberal feminist presence on this board so do not think I equate people here to radicals - I am merely saying these are the type of feminists that many MRA have primary experience with)

Often it is also men finding a lack of support in feminism for a male problem they have encountered. For example, often in other MRA areas someone comes along with an experience in unfair child custody or court sentencing - or maybe they were beaten by their wife and they were put in jail without question. They find MRA as a place to vent, a place to be understood. Much like a women who was abused may well seek feminist groups who have members who experience the same thing. You just do not find a support community of male sexual abuse victims, attacks etc in feminism. Just like you wont find the opposite in men's rights. The very liberal feminist groups will all be too happy to welcome a abused male, and protest his grievances with him, but these groups tend to be small and inadequate.

Ultimately feminism, while having room for male issues, simply is focused on female problems. Men often need to go elsewhere to find adequate support and understanding.

What I am trying to say, is that many MRA's are concerned with bashing feminism because of a bad personal experience with it. This is reinforced by the utter distaste many feminists have regarding MRA's. See: 'Mansplaining' 'Men issues, ha!' 'Rape supporter' 'Sexist'. They come to MRA with a chip on their shoulder which doesn't go away for a while since they see more and more of what happened to them happen to other people.

Even once their anger has calmed down - they become aware of what they perceive as being fundamental errors in feminist theory and concepts. And while they agree with women's rights, they feel the rhetoric and methodology used is as harmful as it is helpful, and continue to be anti-feminist.

The level of anger some feminists experience (saying she should be raped/killed) has never be seen by me in some of the biggest MRA areas I go to - it's Manhood Academy 'students' who spew out that crap.

I hope this helps give you a understanding, feel free to question me further.

 

[Alceste]

I'm sorry to say it, but I really think you're off the mark. I've been fairly active in the MRA scene for sometime and I am all too aware of the attitude OP described (bashing feminism rather than sorting out men's issues).

Most people come into a MRA area because they have had a grievance with feminism (not because they feel like they should have something to complain about). Example: maybe they find out that in some legislation rape can only be committed by a man, or perhaps they notice in a study that what they think should be called 'male rape', is instead called 'forced penetration' making the numbers look very one sided - they raise this point only to be said that 'men can't be raped by women'. Or maybe they were accused of being a misogynistic rape supporter for questioning how much the concept 'gender' is biological as opposed to sociological. ( I am aware that there is a far more liberal feminist presence on this board so do not think I equate people here to radicals - I am merely saying these are the type of feminists that many MRA have primary experience with)

Often it is also men finding a lack of support in feminism for a male problem they have encountered. For example, often in other MRA areas someone comes along with an experience in unfair child custody or court sentencing - or maybe they were beaten by their wife and they were put in jail without question. They find MRA as a place to vent, a place to be understood. Much like a women who was abused may well seek feminist groups who have members who experience the same thing. You just do not find a support community of male sexual abuse victims, attacks etc in feminism. Just like you wont find the opposite in men's rights. The very liberal feminist groups will all be too happy to welcome a abused male, and protest his grievances with him, but these groups tend to be small and inadequate.

Ultimately feminism, while having room for male issues, simply is focused on female problems. Men often need to go elsewhere to find adequate support and understanding.

What I am trying to say, is that many MRA's are concerned with bashing feminism because of a bad personal experience with it. This is reinforced by the utter distaste many feminists have regarding MRA's. See: 'Mansplaining' 'Men issues, ha!' 'Rape supporter' 'Sexist'. They come to MRA with a chip on their shoulder which doesn't go away for a while since they see more and more of what happened to them happen to other people.

Even once their anger has calmed down - they become aware of what they perceive as being fundamental errors in feminist theory and concepts. And while they agree with women's rights, they feel the rhetoric and methodology used is as harmful as it is helpful, and continue to be anti-feminist.

The level of anger some feminists experience (saying she should be raped/killed) has never be seen by me in some of the biggest MRA areas I go to - it's Manhood Academy 'students' who spew out that crap.

I hope this helps give you a understanding, feel free to question me further.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think MRA members feel the need to continue to be anti-feminist if all they wanted was support and understanding for their own troubles, and they're getting all the support and understanding they need from men's rights groups?

I agree, by the way, that the needs of male victims of abuse, rape, unfair custody proceedings, etc. are underserved. I just don't accept that this is because of feminism or feminists. Not in the way you seem to imply, anyway. If I donate money or time (for example) to a feminist organization that helps rescue underage girls from the streets, that's money that wasn't there before. It allows that group to do things that weren't done before. It's new, targeted help for a specific purpose. It's not TAKING help from underage boys on the street.

OTOH, ideally I want them both rescued, but if the organization only rescues girls, that's better than nothing, right? Likewise, I want universally accessible affordable housing, and I donate my time and money to that cause, but the organization I donate to only builds houses for people with kids. I'd prefer they help everybody, but helping only people with kids is better than nothing.

Down the street from the women's resource centre I have volunteered with, there's a men's resource centre. I fully support both of them ideologically, but I don't have time to volunteer at both. I wish there was one resource centre for everyone, and within that centre there could be meetings and support groups for anybody who cared to organize them with others they identify with. But I am not the boss. I don't get to decide what there is and isn't.

My point is that I treat all victims of domestic violence the same, personally, because I am a post-gender-binary feminst. But I still live in a gender-binary culture - one that forces me to choose one or the other if I'm going to contribute my time and money to building a more compassionate and egalitarian world. Of course I'm going to put that effort wherever it's going to make the biggest difference, and however you slice it up, women and girls still have the crappier deal when it comes to abuse and exploitation.

 

[Qhost]

Just out of curiosity, why do you think MRA members feel the need to continue to be anti-feminist if all they wanted was support and understanding for their own troubles, and they're getting all the support and understanding they need from men's rights groups?

Because not only do MRA members often want support and understanding - they want to be involved in the movement (I'm not speaking for all members, but it is a very keyboard-warrior group). Much like a sexually abused woman might go on to run a support group, an abused man might go on to be active in MRA. I've mentioned that there is continued exposure towards anti-feminism in MRA (both reflex anger and also carefully considered problems with the fundamentals of feminist theory).

But there is another driving force. It is very often in a MRA area someone will bring up an article of how (popular example) feminists protested a speech by Warren Farrell. Or a feminist organization has fought against a poster awareness campaign and so on. The experience of having your fellow MRA or your own effort blocked certainly leaves a nasty taste, especially when that blocking is done by a feminist organization.

It now feels like, to the MRA in large, mainstream feminism is against raising the issue of men's rights (a perfectly debatable topic, again I will reiterate about how welcoming and 'anger-free' I have found the feminist presence here to be) and that is a strong driving force for anti-feminism. (The definition I am using for anti feminism is: 'Against some or all forms of feminism' I don't know many people who are against all forms...)

So anti-feminist feelings continue because:
1) Identifying further problems with feminist theory and its methodology.
2) Seeing the same problem/other problems happen to people in MRA.
3) Seeing what they may consider valid attempts to raising awareness being blocked by feminist organizations / protested in general. (the most important bit is that the blocking is seen to be widespread and popular enough to be 'mainstream feminism')
4) And the general anti-feminist atmosphere.

I agree, by the way, that the needs of male victims of abuse, rape, unfair custody proceedings, etc. are underserved. I just don't accept that this is because of feminism or feminists. Not in the way you seem to imply, anyway. If I donate money or time (for example) to a feminist organization that helps rescue underage girls from the streets, that's money that wasn't there before. It allows that group to do things that weren't done before. It's new, targeted help for a specific purpose. It's not TAKING help from underage boys on the street.

I don't view donating money to feminist places as taking money from men's rights. So I agree with you there.

There is a nice little view of how some (all?) of men's issues came around:

• The patriarchy (or the foundations for it) is/are initially formed pre-history, expanding and modulating the male and female gender roles.
• Women gain empowerment and equal recognition under law (1st wave feminism and onward).
• The gender roles remain (as an example: women being the primary caregiver - a man not being sensitive etc) and thus negatively affecting men in court.

To me this sounds reasonable. It makes sense. The gender roles set up by patriarchal society back-fired. This is also a good foundation as doesn't matter whether you think the patriarchy exists today or not.

So what I am trying to say: I do not think that all (some?) problems men face today are because of feminism, I merely believe that the current incarnation of mainstream feminism isn't willing to, and in some cases, is actively opposing fixing the male side.

OTOH, ideally I want them both rescued, but if the organization only rescues girls, that's better than nothing, right? Likewise, I want universally accessible affordable housing, and I donate my time and money to that cause, but the organization I donate to only builds houses for people with kids. I'd prefer they help everybody, but helping only people with kids is better than nothing.

Down the street from the women's resource centre I have volunteered with, there's a men's resource centre. I fully support both of them ideologically, but I don't have time to volunteer at both. I wish there was one resource centre for everyone, and within that centre there could be meetings and support groups for anybody who cared to organize them with others they identify with. But I am not the boss. I don't get to decide what there is and isn't.

My point is that I treat all victims of domestic violence the same, personally, because I am a post-gender-binary feminst. But I still live in a gender-binary culture - one that forces me to choose one or the other if I'm going to contribute my time and money to building a more compassionate and egalitarian world. Of course I'm going to put that effort wherever it's going to make the biggest difference, and however you slice it up, women and girls still have the crappier deal when it comes to abuse and exploitation.

It is better than nothing, your donation and volunteering is laudable and I make no expectation from you to donate it elsewhere. It's excellent that you support both sides ideologically and I have no issue with you focusing on feminism. It has a been a pleasure discussing with you.

There are some issues with things you said which I might pick up on in another thread, another time. (I'm talking fundamental feminist theory stuff here). But even if my arguments were perfectly valid, your ideology and work certainly does plenty of good to the welfare of our fellow primates, and I would never wish to get in your way.

 

[Sunstone]

...also carefully considered problems with the fundamentals of feminist theory).

Would you list some of the fundamentals of feminist theory that people see as problematic? And explain why those fundamentals are problematic?

 

[DallasApple]

Would you list some of the fundamentals of feminist theory that people see as problematic? And explain why those fundamentals are problematic?

I'd like to hear that too.

Also would you explain what you mean by "isn't willing to " and give some examples of feminist "actively opposing" "fixing the male side". In this quote.

I merely believe that the current incarnation of mainstream feminism isn't willing to, and in some cases, is actively opposing fixing the male side.

 

[LemonGrenade]

To the OP: Here's what I think is going on... Actually, there's a guy on YouTube who explained the thinking you described really well. I'll see if I can find it, but basically it seems the resistance comes not from a real concern about the collective troubles of men in general, but out of envy. "What about me? My life isn't easy either! I sure as hell don't FEEL privileged

I think there's some truth to that. Although men and women have issues that are unique to them I think it is short-sighted to turn it into gender warfare. The vast majority of men have in common with women the fact that they are forever excluded from the upper echelons of the patriarchal order and so have scarcely any greater influence over the forces which shape their lives.

 

[Qhost]

Would you list some of the fundamentals of feminist theory that people see as problematic? And explain why those fundamentals are problematic?

Since I cannot post URLs to other sites until I have made at least 15 posts, please excuse my bad workaround.

Feminist theory and feminist researchers embrace two key tenets (copying from 'feminist theory' wikipedia) (1) their research should focus on the condition of women in society, and (2) their research must be grounded in the assumption that women generally experience subordination. The second one is what many MRA's strike a problem with. If a researcher is going into a project with assumptions it seems obvious that there is the possibility of bias. Originally I myself wasn't convinced until I stumbled onto this report [LINK: pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V71-Straus_Thirty-Years-Denying-Evidence-PV_10.pdf] (More context/full report from same book [LINK: pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V70-Gender-symmetry-PV-Chap-11-09.pdf]) detailing the actual symmetry in Domestic Violence numbers. Continued exposure to methodological problems raised in studies done on the wage gap, rape numbers and so on further enforced this point for me (including heavy criticisms of famous feminist works like 'Sexual Politics').

My next problem has not been researched by myself, and I will firmly state I currently do not subscribe to it, only am aware of it. But I am told that the feminist tenet that gender is a purely sociological phenomenon which can be overcome may not be sound. Apparently the hard sciences (Evolutionary Biology, Neuroscience) have a decent amount of evidence that Gender initially stems from nature, not nurture (even if it modulated by society later). If true, perhaps it can still be completely overcome, but it would render a central sociological feminist tenet, as I am aware of it, wrong. ( remember being linked to this two part article [LINK: apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=162, but again, I cannot talk of its use as I have not yet read through it, and would not expect anyone else to).

There are further problems I believe concerning the validity of the patriarchy as purely sociological, but once again, it is not something I have personally made a decision on.

 

[Sunstone]

Since I cannot post URLs to other sites until I have made at least 15 posts, please excuse my bad workaround.

Feminist theory and feminist researchers embrace two key tenets (copying from 'feminist theory' wikipedia) (1) their research should focus on the condition of women in society, and (2) their research must be grounded in the assumption that women generally experience subordination. The second one is what many MRA's strike a problem with. If a researcher is going into a project with assumptions it seems obvious that there is the possibility of bias. Originally I myself wasn't convinced until I stumbled onto this report [LINK: pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V71-Straus_Thirty-Years-Denying-Evidence-PV_10.pdf] (More context/full report from same book [LINK: pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V70-Gender-symmetry-PV-Chap-11-09.pdf]) detailing the actual symmetry in Domestic Violence numbers. Continued exposure to methodological problems raised in studies done on the wage gap, rape numbers and so on further enforced this point for me (including heavy criticisms of famous feminist works like 'Sexual Politics').

My next problem has not been researched by myself, and I will firmly state I currently do not subscribe to it, only am aware of it. But I am told that the feminist tenet that gender is a purely sociological phenomenon which can be overcome may not be sound. Apparently the hard sciences (Evolutionary Biology, Neuroscience) have a decent amount of evidence that Gender initially stems from nature, not nurture (even if it modulated by society later). If true, perhaps it can still be completely overcome, but it would render a central sociological feminist tenet, as I am aware of it, wrong. ( remember being linked to this two part article [LINK: apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=162, but again, I cannot talk of its use as I have not yet read through it, and would not expect anyone else to).

There are further problems I believe concerning the validity of the patriarchy as purely sociological, but once again, it is not something I have personally made a decision on.

Thanks! I wasn't aware that feminists researchers are somehow required to assume women generally experience subordination. If so, that would seem to me unscientific.

I am aware of the notion that gender is purely a sociological phenomenon. I've long had serious reservations about that -- ever since reading about studies to the contrary in the evolutionary sciences, neuroscience, and so forth. But I am not aware of exactly how widespread that assumption is among feminists. Perhaps wrongly, I have assumed it's a minority position, a throw back to the 60s and 70s when it was widely believed in many sciences that humans were infinitely malleable.

 

[Qhost]

I'd like to hear that too.

Also would you explain what you mean by "isn't willing to " and give some examples of feminist "actively opposing" "fixing the male side". In this quote.

The link (pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V71-Straus_Thirty-Years-Denying-Evidence-PV_10.pdf) in my last post details 7 methods:

• Conceal The Evidence
• Avoid Obtaining Evidence on Female Perpetration
• Selective Citation of Research
• State Conclusions That Contradict The Data
• Block Publication of Articles That Have Information Feminists Don't Like
• Prevent Funding of Research
• Harass, Threaten, or Punish People Who Publish Information Feminists Don't Like

• Altering definitions (This one can be explain here: leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html)

There are more specific examples of organizations protesting legislation which would help male issues, but I cannot hunt down the source. I apologize.

Thanks! I wasn't aware that feminists researchers are somehow required to assume women generally experience subordination. If so, that would seem to me unscientific.

I am aware of the notion that gender is purely a sociological phenomenon. I've long had serious reservations about that -- ever since reading about studies to the contrary in the evolutionary sciences, neuroscience, and so forth. But I am not aware of exactly how widespread that assumption is among feminists. Perhaps wrongly, I have assumed it's a minority position, a throw back to the 60s and 70s when it was widely believed in many sciences that humans were infinitely malleable.

I often get a very negative reply with feminists when I suggest that there is the possibility that Gender/Patriarchy came about through evolution. Maybe they think by suggesting it I am saying that men are naturally superior and should be on top. Nevertheless I always have to be careful with things like this. (and so should you!)

 

[DallasApple]

The very liberal feminist groups will all be too happy to welcome a abused male, and protest his grievances with him, but these groups tend to be small and inadequate.

I guess my mind just cant grasp.Why the what seems like "insistence" that feminist groups in particular welcome and protest for an abused male?But further of the ones that do then the complaints are those groups are too small and inadequate for the men.


Why does the MRA not have larger and more adequate groups themselves that welcome abused males and protest his grievances with him?What is the mission of the MRA?

More and more and I mean no offense it seems like the mission is pretty much just to complain about feminism in general or what feminist aren't doing enough for men in particular.And overall just complain about women period.

There are two main causes that mostly affect men that if somebody in the MRA could arrange and raise enough funds to get even a petition on the table in front of me I would sign for and send a few $'s. Prison rape and in general inhumane treatment (cruel and unusual) and family court/child custody reform mainly starting with the presumption of 50/50 custody. Oh also I would like to see the issue of males being circumsized in infancy brought to an end.At least some broad education on it.I'll send money in for that one.

But all I ever see about it is complaining on the internet.

 

[Qhost]

I guess my mind just cant grasp.Why the what seems like "insistence" that feminist groups in particular welcome and protest for an abused male?But further of the ones that do then the complaints are those groups are too small and inadequate for the men.

Your wording is a little unclear, but I think I get what you mean. The complaints are not for the sake of complaining, rather the truth that (I daresay) most males do not find adequate support in the female dominated feminism.

Why does the MRA not have larger and more adequate groups themselves that welcome abused males and protest his grievances with him?What is the mission of the MRA?

Why do the MRA not have larger groups? It is hard for them to grow. Nevetheless they are gaining traction. If you were active or lurked in the MRA you'll see there are a lot of poster pulling by feminists and anger when a men's right group is attempted to be set up. For example, the recent poster drama ctvnews.ca/video?playlistId=1.1361457 . This should also reinforce my previous point about blocking attempts to raise awareness.

For the mission statement, this FAQ is pretty coherent. reddit.com/r/MensRights/wiki/faq

More and more and I mean no offense it seems like the mission is pretty much just to complain about feminism in general or what feminist aren't doing enough for men in particular.And overall just complain about women period.

There are two main causes that mostly affect men that if somebody in the MRA could arrange and raise enough funds to get even a petition on the table in front of me I would sign for and send a few $'s. Prison rape and in general inhumane treatment (cruel and unusual) and family court/child custody reform mainly starting with the presumption of 50/50 custody. Oh also I would like to see the issue of males being circumsized in infancy brought to an end.At least some broad education on it.I'll send money in for that one.

But all I ever see about it is complaining on the internet.

In my previous few posts I feel like I have adequately explained why anti-feminism is very deeply rooted in MRA.

As for your suggestion of activism. There are petitions, and there are things you can donate to. They are much harder to find simply because the MRA movement is small. There are not huge organizations that make the news regularly like the NWO. It isn't hard to google and find one of the few Men's shelters in the UK or US and donate to them.

 

[Sunstone]

I often get a very negative reply with feminists when I suggest that there is the possibility that Gender/Patriarchy came about through evolution. Maybe they think by suggesting it I am saying that men are naturally superior and should be on top. Nevertheless I always have to be careful with things like this. (and so should you!)

Well, I don't think it's clearly demonstrated yet that patriarchy came about primarily through evolution. Hunting/gathering groups today -- the very few that are left -- tend to vary considerably in that regard. So, it might be reasonable to suggest that our ancestral hunting/gathering groups also varied considerably. And since we spent most of our evolutionary time in such groups, that might suggest to us that we have a wider range of behaviors selected for by evolution than simply patriarchy.

One theory I've heard asserts that hunting/gathering groups are more patriarchal in ecosystems in which males make the major contribution to the food supply, and more egalitarian in ecosystems in which females and males make equal contributions, or in which females make the greater contribution.

 

[DallasApple]

Actually I have located an organization I can donate to fight agaisnt prison rape.Its for men and women but of course men/males are mostly the victims.

I'll send the link and anyone that wants to donate to the org can.Its was not created by the MRA by the way.

Just Detention International

 

[Qhost]

Well, I don't think it's clearly demonstrated yet that patriarchy came about primarily through evolution. Hunting/gathering groups today -- the very few that are left -- tend to vary considerably in that regard. So, it might be reasonable to suggest that our ancestral hunting/gathering groups also varied considerably. And since we spent most of our evolutionary time in such groups, that might suggest to us that we have a wider range of behaviors selected for by evolution than simply patriarchy.

One theory I've heard asserts that hunting/gathering groups are more patriarchal in ecosystems in which males make the major contribution to the food supply, and more egalitarian in ecosystems in which females and males make equal contributions, or in which females make the greater contribution.

I agree, I don't think the patriarchy route is as researched as the gender one. I definitely think that the anthropological research going on today regarding tribal hunter/gatherers is vital to understanding the origin of our own societies.

 

[Sunstone]

I definitely think that the anthropological research going on today regarding tribal hunter/gatherers is vital to understanding the origin of our own societies.

I completely agree. It's also fascinating in its own right, albeit still too often inconclusive.

 

[DallasApple]

If you were active or lurked in the MRA you'll see there are a lot of poster pulling by feminists and anger when a men's right group is attempted to be set up.

Um..O/K I'm not sure what "poster pulling " is but I know "anger" is not the same as "blocking".Blocking to me anyway is more along the lines of Prop8 to stop gay marriage.With LOTS of money going against it and people beating the pavement knocking on doors to prevent it.

Why would you let mere "anger" block you ?

Why do the MRA not have larger groups? It is hard for them to grow.

I only can think of cliches.Nothing worth having comes easy.And necessity is the mother of all invention .

They are much harder to find simply because the MRA movement is small.

Why if so many men are affected? Especially when you have started out with the benefit of huge/ instant/fast /relatively inexpensive access to social media?

And by the way yes I have lurked around the MRA various sites for a couple of years.And to be honest the experience did little to gain my sympathies.Seriously.Lots of angry men mad at women.It was pretty disturbing to read so many men talking about what sluts and whores and screeching wenches women are.Gold diggers marrying and divorcing for cash and prizes and on and on .

The exception if there is one is men's for fathers rights.They aren't just complaining they are doing things.And that to me is an issue that really concerns me.I have never been divorced and my husband is a crucial element and an awesome father to our children.

 

[Qhost]

Um..O/K I'm not sure what "poster pulling " is but I know "anger" is not the same as "blocking".Blocking to me anyway is more along the lines of Prop8 to stop gay marriage.With LOTS of money going against it and people beating the pavement knocking on doors to prevent it.

Why would you let mere "anger" block you ?

Poster pulling, the removal of posters. You should have seen in the Edmonton scandal how feminists were removing the posters. This is not the first time it has happened and it does block awareness. It isn't limited to that, there is more (such as), preventing mens groups from been set up by putting pressure on colleges blocks awareness. Threatening researchers to block progress. This is no mere anger. Google Warren Farrell feminist protest for another example of blocking education.

Why if so many men are affected? Especially when you have started out with the benefit of huge/ instant/fast /relatively inexpensive access to social media?

And by the way yes I have lurked around the MRA various sites for a couple of years.And to be honest the experience did little to gain my sympathies.Seriously.Lots of angry men mad at women.It was pretty disturbing to read so many men talking about what sluts and whores and screeching wenches women are.Gold diggers marrying and divorcing for cash and prizes and on and on .

The exception if there is one is men's for fathers rights.They aren't just complaining they are doing things.And that to me is an issue that really concerns me.I have never been divorced and my husband is a crucial element and an awesome father to my children.

Consider how many thousands of years it took for the feminist movement to come about in any real power. Considering the stage we are at in only 40 or so short years, I think it's a fine track we are on. And just like not every female will seek support from abuse, many men will not seek support because they feel getting abused isn't 'manly'. 'Why isn't it bigger if so many men are affected?' isn't a sound statement.

As for your experience, I would question the places you spent time at. If you visit today the biggest MRA site there is, the mens rights subreddit, you'll find while there is anger sprinkled around, it is hardly woman hating, and comments like '****' 'whore' are often down-voted and are in the minority. Have a look at a very recent thread: reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1i2wg5/update_im_about_to_give_up_im_not_sure_i_can_keep/ the subject matter shows a woman ruining a mans life and yet all the comments are hardly abusive. They are helpful and offering the support the man needs.

You once again mention concern about there not being enough activism, I have addressed this before in this thread. I again urge you to remember the MRA is small, but it is growing fast as awareness spreads. Surely you don't expect MRA to be playing out campaigns on the scale of feminism so soon?

 

[Alceste]

I think there's some truth to that. Although men and women have issues that are unique to them I think it is short-sighted to turn it into gender warfare. The vast majority of men have in common with women the fact that they are forever excluded from the upper echelons of the patriarchal order and so have scarcely any greater influence over the forces which shape their lives.

Sure. They have a lot of advantages, but they don't have complete autonomy and liberty. That's pretty frustrating for anybody.

 

[Alceste]

Well, I don't think it's clearly demonstrated yet that patriarchy came about primarily through evolution. Hunting/gathering groups today -- the very few that are left -- tend to vary considerably in that regard. So, it might be reasonable to suggest that our ancestral hunting/gathering groups also varied considerably. And since we spent most of our evolutionary time in such groups, that might suggest to us that we have a wider range of behaviors selected for by evolution than simply patriarchy.

One theory I've heard asserts that hunting/gathering groups are more patriarchal in ecosystems in which males make the major contribution to the food supply, and more egalitarian in ecosystems in which females and males make equal contributions, or in which females make the greater contribution.

I read a lot about first nations culture, which was pretty similar at contact to what we would consider to be a paleolithic society. There are still indigenous cultures that live as hunter-gatherers today that we can look at to help with our speculation as to what the "natural state" of early human societies might have been.

The thing these cultures tend to have in common is that, while there are often fairly rigid gender roles, there is never complete subordination of one gender to another, and the social norms of the culture are not maintained through coercion or violence.

Just a long-winded way of saying that I think the idea that patriarchy is an "evolutionary trait" is total nonsense.