The Misguided Message of Men's Rights Groups

[Revoltingest]

This is also an inherent problem with the issue at hand with the MRA groups. So far we haven't seen a tremendous amount of effort put in place for masculine but an incredible amount of effort put into anti-feminism. I don't think that the whole movement has to be this way but it just appears to be this way in every group I have found.

We also see widespread & continual feminist attacks on MRAs. Is it any wonder that hostility would be met with the same?
Let's consider the larger issue.....what is the motive for feminists continually dissing MRAs, insisting that they are uniformly misogynist & anti-feminism? Let's say that feminists are generally better, smarter more tolerant people than masculinists....presuming that, what significance is there to this? How do you use this acknowledgement?

And in general there are very real dangers and threats processed by the counter feminists often in name of the MRA that have caused great harm as you have shown from your personal experience.

Does such open hostility to masculinists mitigate the threat problem or exacerbate it?

 

[JerryL]

I know what they are. The fact that there are American and European males claiming that today is a matriarchy, are doing so in basic rebuttal to the feminism's claim to the existence of feminism. Despite the fact that:

I don't think I've spoken on the topic of men who are asserting that "today" is a matriarchy.

I'm also not entirely clear on "today". Since a day cannot obviously be any sort of 'archy; I assume you must mean that they mean that something is, today, a matriarchy. While there are some specific things that are (I have worked for two companies where the portion I was a part of was); I've not seen that assertion made and so cannot comment.

I was neither joking nor mocking. You noted that when feminists call MRA members whiny it's not joking or mocking. Mocking someone is just making jokes specifically to offend someone. Joking could be the same thing, depending who the person listening is for. Either way, people are going to mock people they disagree with. If you happened to notice my post in which I quoted the most populated MRA forum on the internet and posted some of the information, there are were all sorts of jokes and mocks.

What I put in quotes, and what you quoted before writing this was a mock, but not a joke. Mocking is not "jokes specifically to offend".

Frequency

Weekly
Total circulation
(2013) 3,286,467[1]

Time (magazine) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4Chan and Canvas founder Christopher Poole (Moot) took the stage to talk to Erick Schoenfeld about creating vibrant online communities. Poole revealed that that the eight-year-old 4Chan is averaging 8 million users according to Quantcast and 18 million monthly users according to Google.

4Chan Has 18M Uniques A Month, Canvas Participation Is Optional | TechCrunch

Apples and oranges. If we were discussing a post on Time's web-forums then the comparison (though irrelevent) would at least be valid.

The *point* of what I posted was the *difference* between a webboard and a publication. You've ignored that difference entirely in your response.

Time cannot publish articles saying "black people are inferior in every way to white people" and keep its circulation. Posting that same thing on 4Chan (which any one of us can go do right now: can you get an article in Time?) will likely only increase browsing. The two are not comparable... again: my point.

 

[JerryL]

I remember you stating you couldn't read that link in the op. Have you yet been able to? Perhaps this is where I am getting confused.

I managed to open the Jezebel article, but not the article it was a commentary on.

I think that historically 4 has been true but it has fundamentally changed over recent years. And #4 has never been a part of feminism as an ideology. If you have a problem with specific feminist and feminist groups then that is understandable. However do you separate them from the rest of the larger group? If we are still doing full anecdotal evidence it has been my experience that 100% of feminists I have come across have not denied that men have issues that need to be addressed. But again anecdotal.

I am pretty sure people on this thread have either denied or come as close as possible to denying without outright denying that men have issues that need to be addressed. I'm not sure if you are noticing when that happens.

What I'd like to see is this "larger group of feminists" join voices in decrying the very vocal radical feminists.

Instead: I'm seeing the radicals get wildly successful kickstarter campaigns to spread their brand of feminism. I'm seeing them get write-ups all over the mediaverse (the blow-back from GamerGate being a great example).

I am *not* seeing a lot vocal advocates of feminism even distancing themselves publicly; much less condemning the radicals.

Of course: I'm not seeing men do it either but, to be fair, I'm not hearing MRA groups except when I see a feminist complaint about them.

This is not remotely what I had stated. I had stated that general "feminist views" are not represented in many of your anecdotal examples. But the larger portion of what I said is that even if feminists were just as bad as many people say and I couldn't come up with a dozen "good" feminist groups it wouldn't invalidate my criticism of the MRA group that I had mentioned. The inverse is true and its why I haven't made a single negative comment against MRA movements.

OK. I am sorry if I misunderstood. I agree with your statement above.

Two things.
1) I posted the definition of patriarchy so to me its not up for debate. If you disagree then we disagree. I am not going to waste time trying to change your opinion of the definition of a word.
2) In government women do not. There are drastically fewer women representing.

1) I agree with the definition you posted: but you are applying it to non-examples.
2) There are vastly fewer women in congress; but they are not barred from power (a requirement of patriarchy). Just as nursing isn't a matriarchy just because there are vastly fewer men in it.

Its great that those companies are forward thinking. But isolated cases do not change the statistics being drastically against women. Currently they only hold 14.6% of executive offices in the private sector and only 8.1% of top earners and only 4.6% of the fortune 500 CEO's. It has been changing and working for the better as all three of these stats have gone up over the years. However we aren't there yet.

Doing better than male nurses.

But it seems to beg several questions.
1) Is the cause actually descrimination by the board of directors (or someone else father down the line during the up-and-coming phase of a CEO); or is there something else (see my comments on the wage gap)?
2) Since CEOs are not grown overnight (founders notwithstanding: Why hasn't a women founded Facebook, Google, MySpace, PayPal, eBay, Amazon, etc?): then is the problem sexism from 20 or 30 years ago rather than now?

I am sorry you had an isolated incident where men were kept from power. However the overall statistics have not changed. Our society is far less favorable of women in upper management and high earning positions.

And less favorable of men in the larger middle management high-earning positions; and less favorable of men in college.

But again we are begging the question. There are less male teachers. Is society far less favorable of men teaching or are men not drawn to teaching to the same degree? Few to no women miners. Is that society too?

I don't understand your discontent. Women make up 52% of the work force and hold 51% of middle management. Is there some sort of misrepresentation of men I should know about?

How many percent before it "counts"?

I think I have explained before that women does not mean feminist.

I cannot make that sentence make sense.

Female voters hold the functional power in elections. If there's an issue with the gender of congress you can blame either the women who are not running or the women who are not voting for them.

As have feminist groups and as do I. I don't think we are against each other here and feminist groups are not against men in this regard. I don't believe that feminism is against men in general but promotes equality. We may squabble about how that is done and where the line of equality is but I don't think there are any feminists that want women in a superior position to men. If they do then they are not feminists by the definition of the word.

That seems like a "No True Scottsman" response.

But let's just take it at face value. If they are activists (and I presume we agree that they are), and they are promoting equality, then why aren't they being more active against the [not true] feminists who are indeed anti-men?

I know a great number of women who identify as feminist who (on every principle even if not every specific) I completely agree with. I suspect you and I are very close on what we think the world should be like. If not for these loud voices we've been discussing: I'd identify as femenist myself.

This is the second time it is obvious that you have misread one of my statements. I have never inclined that the ICU of the hospital where I work now is a perfect representation of male nurses on the national level. I am however stating that I have witnessed change in a large hospital over the course of half a decade.

And we've witnessed change in the CEO field; but you seem to have put forth your "isolated incident where men [are near parity]" as an assertion that things are good while lamenting that the general CEO field (which has a greater percentage of women than nursing has men) is not.

Women have improved in statistics over the years. Men have in many ways as well (nurses for example) and that is the goal and tells me that it is working. I don't think we are there but I would like to think that the hardest battles are behind us. I think MRA and the individuals who support men's rights do have a long battle ahead. I personally am supportive and I know that feminism should be an ally not an enemy.

I think many MRA organizations (heck: for all I know every one) is deserving of condemnation for their radical stance. That doesn't mean that there is no actual issue and that doesn't mean that none of their points are valid.

On this: I believe we both agree (again: I think were are close on generalities and basically arguing perceptions of individuals... well that and the meaning of words).

 

[Revoltingest]

I am pretty sure people on this thread have either denied or come as close as possible to denying without outright denying that men have issues that need to be addressed. I'm not sure if you are noticing when that happens.

I've seen a plurality of recognition & support for men's issues from feminists here.
But it's a tragedy that my defense of them cannot be stored in long term memory.

What I'd like to see is this "larger group of feminists" join voices in decrying the very vocal radical feminists.

Aye, tis easy to see & decry the abusive & wacky elements on the other side, & paint them as representing the entire group.

I am *not* seeing a lot vocal advocates of feminism even distancing themselves publicly; much less condemning the radicals.

I've seen the occasional feminist criticism of their extreme elements, but it's more of the "no true feminist" fallacy variety of acknowledgement. Real feminists are all paragons of magnanimity....the opposite of masculinists.
I'm a conscious objector in this war of words between these 2 groups. Perhaps because they have so much in common, the fighting is so vicious, eh?

I'd identify as femenist myself.

I identify as "pro-feminism", "misogynist" & "rape apologist".
The first term I chose for myself. The latter ones were bestowed upon me here.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do we have anyone on RF who identifies as a "masculinist" or MRA?
(We need fresh meat.)

 

[JerryL]

I've seen a plurality of recognition & support for men's issues from feminists here.
But it's a tragedy that my defense of them cannot be stored in long term memory.

I agree a plurality.

Aye, tis easy to see & decry the abusive & wacky elements on the other side, & paint them as representing the entire group.

Even someone not representitive of a group can come to represent it... for better or for worse.

I identify as "pro-feminism", "misogynist" & "rape apologist".
The first term I chose for myself. The latter ones were bestowed upon me here.

Sounds about right

 

[Midnight Rain]

I am pretty sure people on this thread have either denied or come as close as possible to denying without outright denying that men have issues that need to be addressed. I'm not sure if you are noticing when that happens.

I haven't read the whole thread no. I haven't that much time. If you'd like to point out a few I would actually like to comment on them.

What I'd like to see is this "larger group of feminists" join voices in decrying the very vocal radical feminists.

Instead: I'm seeing the radicals get wildly successful kickstarter campaigns to spread their brand of feminism. I'm seeing them get write-ups all over the mediaverse (the blow-back from GamerGate being a great example).

I am *not* seeing a lot vocal advocates of feminism even distancing themselves publicly; much less condemning the radicals.

The general form of activism that often takes place with feminism is education. Education equally dispurses ignorance of both extremes. It sheds light onto the radical feminist (thought that term has historically be used against outspoken feminists rather than legitimate radical feminists) and there is also the problem that many radical feminists do have roots in things that are correct but taken too far. Every time a feminist group does a seminar on gender equality they do speak out against radicalist feminists even if they don't call them out by name. I would like a few organizations to start hammering down on extremist views that are not their own but usually they spend their time spreading the real message rather than countering the riff raft.

1) I agree with the definition you posted: but you are applying it to non-examples.
2) There are vastly fewer women in congress; but they are not barred from power (a requirement of patriarchy). Just as nursing isn't a matriarchy just because there are vastly fewer men in it.

Do men control the majority of power in congress for example? A patriarchy doesn't require total control by a single gender but a significant majority.

Doing better than male nurses.

Statistically untrue for many of those. But men are also under-represented as maids, CNA's and fashion. But I don't see any men working hard to get more representation in those jobs. Which is part of the flip side to the argument that women haven't campaigned for equal opportunity in trash collection and the like.

But it seems to beg several questions.
1) Is the cause actually descrimination by the board of directors (or someone else father down the line during the up-and-coming phase of a CEO); or is there something else (see my comments on the wage gap)?
2) Since CEOs are not grown overnight (founders notwithstanding: Why hasn't a women founded Facebook, Google, MySpace, PayPal, eBay, Amazon, etc?): then is the problem sexism from 20 or 30 years ago rather than now?

1) The wage gap still was in favor of societal pressures that barricade women in our world today. Similar functions are in play here.
2) This is an interesting question in regard to new CEO's. In fact some of the most impressive technologies were invented recently by women (such as bluetooth) but no one could even name them.

And less favorable of men in the larger middle management high-earning positions; and less favorable of men in college.

But again we are begging the question. There are less male teachers. Is society far less favorable of men teaching or are men not drawn to teaching to the same degree? Few to no women miners. Is that society too?

How many percent before it "counts"?

By technicality men are over-represented in middle management. So they are not lacking favor by the statistics of pure middle management. When there is a significant and repeating statistic of bias for women would be the point in time in which we would know that there is a problem in reguards to men and women proportions in middle management.

I cannot make that sentence make sense.

Female voters hold the functional power in elections. If there's an issue with the gender of congress you can blame either the women who are not running or the women who are not voting for them.

Even if female voters make up the (slight) majority of voters it bears little consequence on the ideological myth that men are better suited for positions of power. This myth and sexist view exists within both male and female demographics. It is not a fight against "men" and "male voters" it is the fight against this idea that there is a bias against women in the mind of all voters (not literally all but statistically significant bias)

That seems like a "No True Scottsman" response.

But let's just take it at face value. If they are activists (and I presume we agree that they are), and they are promoting equality, then why aren't they being more active against the [not true] feminists who are indeed anti-men?

I know a great number of women who identify as feminist who (on every principle even if not every specific) I completely agree with. I suspect you and I are very close on what we think the world should be like. If not for these loud voices we've been discussing: I'd identify as femenist myself.

Few radical views stop you from agreeing with the core values of feminism? Or is it something else?

And we've witnessed change in the CEO field; but you seem to have put forth your "isolated incident where men [are near parity]" as an assertion that things are good while lamenting that the general CEO field (which has a greater percentage of women than nursing has men) is not.

Technically not. Both top earners and CEO are lower. Executive positions don't always mena CEO and women currently hold a slightly higher percentage.

And I don't remember claiming that "its all good". I have claimed that men are not suffering from a statistical discouragement from any current leadership position. I disagree with intentional discrimination in favor of women but instead support the removal of the bias against them. The only point I wished to convey with that was to show that even beyond any sort of discrimination against men it doesn't fully make up for the discrimination against women. Neither discrimination is correct or justified but only that men are not statistically disadvantaged.

I think many MRA organizations (heck: for all I know every one) is deserving of condemnation for their radical stance. That doesn't mean that there is no actual issue and that doesn't mean that none of their points are valid.

Agreed. Recently in my breaks at work I have been looking into feminist organizations or generalized organizations that may drive towards these issues. I have found a father's group that specifically worked with the court system and parental concerns with divorce and adoption but it hasn't breeched out into some of the broader issues. I think the greatest thing that can be done at this level and should be the focus for any new or existing group is education. Education is still the primary focus of femnist organizations today and should be for MRA as well.

 

[Midnight Rain]

We also see widespread & continual feminist attacks on MRAs. Is it any wonder that hostility would be met with the same?
Let's consider the larger issue.....what is the motive for feminists continually dissing MRAs, insisting that they are uniformly misogynist & anti-feminism? Let's say that feminists are generally better, smarter more tolerant people than masculinists....presuming that, what significance is there to this? How do you use this acknowledgement?

I would disagree that there is a widespread and continual attack of the MRA by feminist at large. I think that there needs to be a congregation of the the issues to be talked about in a neutral ground and in some ways I have devised that the most effective way would be for a feminist group to take on a partnership with a masculism based MRA group so that they could work as two wings of the same plane.

Does such open hostility to masculinists mitigate the threat problem or exacerbate it?

I think it does. I also think the reverse is also true.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Equestrian? It's not my cup of syrup, but I've no objection to the sport.

Anyway, inapplicable ideological constructs should be the province of academics looking to over-complicate simple concepts.

Understanding of these mechanisms is dire for now and for our future when hopefully they are no longer necessary. Just as racism and its mechanisms should be understood long after racism is a significant issue.

I don't say power is equal....only that women wield great power. (I don't want the false-equivalency-club to pounce upon me.) I've also read over the years various analyses of the pay disparity, & it is real, but it's causes are not solely discrimination. (It's beyond the scope of this thread to explore that issue) Nonetheless, pay disparity does not defeat the claim of women's great power. It does point to potential to improve things.

I would agree that specific combatant of these mechanisms would lead to being the most effective resolution of the issue.

It's good that feminism fights sexism. It's good that masculinism fights sexism.

It isn't good when they fight each other. Which more or less has been the recurring theme of my posts. In a round about way I think they have been yours as well (Or perhaps mine have been rounder)

I cannot agree. I don't see a freely made choice as something imposed by society. Example:
When a person goes into a voting booth, they'll do as they please with no one even watching. Certainly, society influences our decisions (even ;us privileged menfolk). But when women (as a group) chose Obama as prez twice, they dictated the course of the country to a very large extent. Would you deny that this is great power?

Has homophobia and all of the consequences along with that been "free choice" of individuals?

Here's a rare moment where I, not you, lay blame at the historical feet of patriarchy. When men were in full control (ignoring the occasional queen in England), the institution of slavey blossomed. But I agree with you regarding racism in 21st century Americastan.

Indeed but I don't see any particular reason to assume that it was the male dominance itself that caused such a growth in slavary but rather several economic and social factors. However I have heard of an unsubstantiated claimed that there is a psychological drive for male based racism against other men that have to do with male obsession with penis size. Interesting read but not all that convincing.

You get a frubie for this mirthful response to my little joke. Your equanimity & civility are praiseworthy, given how contentious these issues are, & how annoying I can be.

I don't think you have been as bad as you think. Once we cleared up some things the discussion seems to have flowed better. The biggest thing to realize in these conversations and the biggest thing in the general when talking about masculism and feminism is that they are not enemies. We are not enemies and we work towards the same goal often with different ideas on how to get it done but thus is the point of discussion.

 

[Revoltingest]

I would disagree that there is a widespread and continual attack of the MRA by feminist at large.

Just going by feminists at RF & links they provide, I get this impression. Is this place anomolous?

I think that there needs to be a congregation of the the issues to be talked about in a neutral ground and in some ways I have devised that the most effective way would be for a feminist group to take on a partnership with a masculism based MRA group so that they could work as two wings of the same plane.

Sounds like progress to me.

I think it does. I also think the reverse is also true.

Do you mean that feminist hostility towards masculinists both mitigates & exacerbates the problem? No, I say it's just the latter.

 

[Revoltingest]

Has homophobia and all of the consequences along with that been "free choice" of individuals?

Say whuh?

Indeed but I don't see any particular reason to assume that it was the male dominance itself that caused such a growth in slavary but rather several economic and social factors. However I have heard of an unsubstantiated claimed that there is a psychological drive for male based racism against other men that have to do with male obsession with penis size. Interesting read but not all that convincing.

I blame the institution of slavery on the males in charge who perpetrated it. But they were just the ones who did it. I don't say it was due to male psychology, particularly weird genital metric based theories.....who comes up with such stuff? Academics wearing awkward eye wear & bland tweed, I'll bet.

I don't think you have been as bad as you think.

It depends whom you talk to. The ones who find me a misogynistic, dishonest, threatening, predatory & mentally abusive rape apologist would disagree. But what do they know.....I prefer your far more rational opinion. Thanx!

Once we cleared up some things the discussion seems to have flowed better.

It occurred to me that I needed to move from argument mode to discussion mode. Work'n on that.

The biggest thing to realize in these conversations and the biggest thing in the general when talking about masculism and feminism is that they are not enemies. We are not enemies and we work towards the same goal often with different ideas on how to get it done but thus is the point of discussion.

Sounds great to me!

 

[freethinker44]

In fact some of the most impressive technologies were invented recently by women (such as bluetooth) but no one could even name them.

Not really though. Bluetooth was invented in the 90s which used technology from the 40s that was co-invented by a woman and a man. It's kind of nit-picky I admit, but it's disrespectful to ignore what was actually invented and say she invented bluetooth, because what she actually invented is so much greater than being able to look like an idiot while talking on your phone.

Her real invention was spread spectrum frequency hopping which enable submarines to control torpedos without the enemy jamming the control signal.

Also, not recognizing that was co-invented by a man is an especially dick move coming from feminists considering one of their complaints is that women in science often weren't recognized for their acheivements when they co-invented/discovered something with men. So it's a tad hypocritical.

 

[Revoltingest]

Her real invention was spread spectrum frequency hopping which enable submarines to control torpedos without the enemy jamming the control signal.

Of course, all real nerds know (without googling)....

I forget Mr Anthiel too, but forgive me cuz he wasn't a celebrity.

Let's be generous to Midnight, who has been pretty civil & dedicated in this thread.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Do you mean that feminist hostility towards masculinists both mitigates & exacerbates the problem? No, I say it's just the latter.

You are right. I would assume only the latter. However MRA anti-feminism tends to fuel the fire against them from feminists as well. It is not the big feminist organizations just stamping out MRA. It has been a back and forth. And as stated earlier in the thread MRA and Feminism were at one time working together and this dynamic changed during the counter-movement which shifted the focus of MRA from men's rights to counter feminism.

Say whuh?

Exactly what I said. Is homophobia and its historical effects on society purely the free choice of the people or are there greater powers at play ?

 

[Midnight Rain]

Not really though. Bluetooth was invented in the 90s which used technology from the 40s that was co-invented by a woman and a man. It's kind of nit-picky I admit, but it's disrespectful to ignore what was actually invented and say she invented bluetooth, because what she actually invented is so much greater than being able to look like an idiot while talking on your phone.

Her real invention was spread spectrum frequency hopping which enable submarines to control torpedos without the enemy jamming the control signal.

Also, not recognizing that was co-invented by a man is an especially dick move coming from feminists considering one of their complaints is that women in science often weren't recognized for their acheivements when they co-invented/discovered something with men. So it's a tad hypocritical.

I should have stated co-invented. I don't see it as a dick move like you do but I can agree I should have said it. I take it you are not a feminist?

But just as a challenge to you and everyone else in the thread, can you name five women inventors of importance in the last 30 years? With the internet its easy. I'll even make it easier. Inventors or innovators. From 1985 to now as time of invention or notable innovation. Again don't use the internet.

 

[Revoltingest]

You are right. I would assume only the latter. However MRA anti-feminism tends to fuel the fire against them from feminists as well. It is not the big feminist organizations just stamping out MRA. It has been a back and forth. And as stated earlier in the thread MRA and Feminism were at one time working together and this dynamic changed during the counter-movement which shifted the focus of MRA from men's rights to counter feminism.

But towards non-masculinists & even pro-feminists I've seen much unprovoked hostility & unfounded accusations of abuse from some of RF's more vocal feminists. That other feminists tolerate this is harmful to the movement by alienating allies, even other women. (I sometimes ask gals if they're a feminist, & a common response of "no" for this reason.)

Who is to say that masculinists started the flame war with feminists, & bear guilt for continuing it? But even more interesting, why is it that feminists here uniformly heap such blame on the other? What is the motive this?

Exactly what I said. Is homophobia and its historical effects on society purely the free choice of the people or are there greater powers at play ?

"Homophobia" is a pervasive attitude which inhabits both society & government. Do people choose to have it? I doubt that. Neither do people choose to endure it.
Is this an argument that women don't have power in society or government?

 

[freethinker44]

But just as a challenge to you and everyone else in the thread, can you name five women inventors of importance in the last 30 years? With the internet its easy. I'll even make it easier. Inventors or innovators. From 1985 to now as time of invention or notable innovation. Again don't use the internet.

Of importance? In the last 30 years? I can't do it. Not without looking it up. But I can't name any important male inventors or innovators in the last 30 years either, so it's kind of moot.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Of importance? In the last 30 years? I can't do it. Not without looking it up. But I can't name any important male inventors or innovators in the last 30 years either, so it's kind of moot.

Steve Jobs and Bill gates didn't come to mind?

 

[Midnight Rain]

k

Who is to say that masculinists started the flame war with feminists, & bear guilt for continuing it? But even more interesting, why is it that feminists here uniformly heap such blame on the other? What is the motive this?

Simply that the first wave was welcomed and it was the second wave that we had an immediate change in attitude when we look at the historical views of notable feminists. Though the second movement was a conservative backlash against the feminist movement based upon traditional family values which more or less embodied the feminists goal to fight. It may have been a match made in hell so to speak. I don't blame either or at this point but I can say that I would blame people for being anti-feminist if their ignorance was the main reason. Feminists are usually against MRA because they are anti-feminsit not because of what they stand for. Though this is anecdotal and I may be wrong but it has not been my view so far.

"Homophobia" is a pervasive attitude which inhabits both society & government. Do people choose to have it? I doubt that. Neither do people choose to endure it.
Is this an argument that women don't have power in society or government?

A pervasive attitude is a good way to put it. Sexism, one of the core driving mechanicms for bias against women, would be along the exact same line. The view can equally be held by men or women.

 

[Revoltingest]

Simply that the first wave was welcomed and it was the second wave that we had an immediate change in attitude when we look at the historical views of notable feminists. Though the second movement was a conservative backlash against the feminist movement based upon traditional family values which more or less embodied the feminists goal to fight. It may have been a match made in hell so to speak. I don't blame either or at this point but I can say that I would blame people for being anti-feminist if their ignorance was the main reason. Feminists are usually against MRA because they are anti-feminsit not because of what they stand for. Though this is anecdotal and I may be wrong but it has not been my view so far.

A pervasive attitude is a good way to put it. Sexism, one of the core driving mechanicms for bias against women, would be along the exact same line. The view can equally be held by men or women.

First, that spurious "k" that appeared at the top of me post is due to some weird computer malfunction. Even with my finger nowhere near that key, that letter just pops up all over the place. Before I post, I try to find them all, but occasionally I miss one.

Second, I have no second point. We're pretty much on the same page.

Steve Jobs and Bill gates didn't come to mind?

Or Dean Kamen & Craig Ventor.

About Hedy Lamarr.....she's so famous as an inventor because it's so unusual a profession for someone more famous for acting.