The Misguided Message of Men's Rights Groups

[Midnight Rain]

What a thread...Tried to post a response and got "error" the first time. Deleted everything now I gotta do it again ....#irritated.

Personal experience with MRA members and advoctes have left with with a sense that they (the people not the groups as a whole nor the whole of the members but just the individuals I have come across in life and on the internet) do have a high amount of anti-feminist angst. A few examples would be the movement that was started by an MRA group that attempted to outlaw marital rape. The initiation of marital rape law was groundbreaking as it was a major strike against the cultural view that wives were the possessions of men in some way and that men had a right to sex if it was their wife. The claim was that there were a large amount of false rape allegations and women would do this on a regular basis to harm men. This was also jutting out from another claim that nearly half of rape claims were false or some such nonsense.

The root of this is that there is a grain of truth to this claim. There are women that have had called out false rape allegations that have ruined men's lives. That is a terrible thing to do. It devalues the suffering of ream rape victims. This is unanimous between feminists and non-feminists. However I don't agree with removing marital rape laws. I also don't agree with the propaganda that generate false data like only 2% instead of 25% of women will receive some degree of sexual assault. There are a lot of shots at feminist claims that I think should not be tolerated. But the actual men's rights themselves should be fought for.

For kicks and giggles I just went to the largest MRA site out there. A Voice for Men – Humanist Counter-Theory in the Age of Misandry

I hoped to see a mass of pro-male rights articles and news and points. I found no such thing. The entire focus of the website is anti-feminism. There were a few good points made and a few good articles made out of the 16 on the front page but the overwhelming vast majority are simply anti-feminism complaining about how bad feminists are and how feminists are trying to do this and a feminist group did such and such to person 'X". Not a single positive thing was said about feminism that I was able to find. I agree with many points they had on the platform of men's issues but soon as I started to read the articles it was nothing but hating on feminists. Its great to have good intentions but when your true colors are colors of hate its hard to get behind them. I personally wouldn't ever side myself with this particular website or supporting organization connected to them. But I do support advancing men's rights. This seems to be the case in many MRA groups. I would like to see if I can get a link to an MRA group that isn't anti-feminist. Many feminist organizations are incredibly inclusive to men and even work specifically for men's rights within those groups. I would like to see the same with MRA groups. I just haven't yet though I admittedly haven't seen many MRA groups except for the one I just researched and the ones mostly seen in the media.


edit*

Also on the video that was posted about the "vile evil feminist pigsow" who protested and MRA meeting. I am familiar with the video and it has been edited to put them in a bad light from the get go. I don't agree with the way that she and the other feminists handled that situation but since then Charlotte (red haired woman) has recieved numerous death threats, rape threats, houndings, hackings, invasion of privacy ect. Anything she did to MRA activists, self proclaimed MRA activists have already retaliated 100 fold. I don't respect those MRA members that would do something like that. I don't really like Charlotte''s display in the video or her vehemency towards another activist group.

In the begning it was feminism and MRA working together. Feminism hasn't turned into an evil organization that hates men and disavowed MRA. The anti-feminist MRA groups have turned against feminism and now there is a stigma on both sides against each other. If there is anti-feminism then that is a terrible thing and I don't agree with your organization and they don't deserve respect. Same to a feminist organization that states they are anti-men's rights. I can see how they would be afraid of MRA hate groups as they have existed and it doesn't bode well when the largest online website for MRA is highly anti-feminist.

Anyway that is just my long winded opinion on the subject.

 

[Revoltingest]

For kicks and giggles I just went to the largest MRA site out there. A Voice for Men – Humanist Counter-Theory in the Age of Misandry
I hoped to see a mass of pro-male rights articles and news and points. I found no such thing. The entire focus of the website is anti-feminism.

I glanced at the titles of pieces at this website. (I really don't want to devote time to read them.) They don't appear to be anti-feminism, although there many which appear to counter some feminist claims. (These are not the same thing, & there are legitimate criticisms of some feminist thought.) In reading the articles, is there more evidence that the "entire focus" is anti-feminism?

 

[Midnight Rain]

Here is a cut from one of the articles. Just....just to give you

I glanced at the titles of pieces at this website. (I really don't want to devote time to read them.) They don't appear to be anti-feminism, although there many which appear to counter some feminist claims. (These are not the same thing.) In reading the articles, is there more evidence that the "entire focus" is anti-feminism?

Here is a cut from one of the articles. Just to give you a taste. Because I was also pretty impressed at first glance. There only seemed to be one or two that were anti-feminist. However after actually reading them I don't think anyone would question that they are in fact anti-feminist. But anyway yeah here is the clipping.

We often joke, and with good reason, about the stupidity of feminists. After all, have you ever seen Futrelle in a debate, watched Sarkeesian damsel herself while complaining about damseling, listened to Rebecca Watson try to convince skeptics that an invitation to coffee is a threat and social issue for women, or read a few lines of Ally Fogg just after he tells you he is not a feminist?

In fact, in the realm of feminism, particularly online, stupidity is regarded as good breeding; an asset that will get you to the top.

But the question remains, if feminists are so stupid, then why is feminism now the dominant ideology on the planet, affecting almost every institution, political apparatus, provider of every level of education, as well as every law enforcement agency and corporate entity known?

If feminists are so intellectually vacant, then why are we here, without resources and struggling mightily to skate by on guile and creativity in order to do anything about the supposed idiots?

The answer to that is as simple as it is forbidding.

Feminism is not for feminists. Feminists are idiots, but they are the useful idiots in the description previously reserved for Soviet sycophants in cold war America.

Feminism, in reality, is for governments and corporations. And it is the most effective tool for control of the masses since the riot baton and water cannons.​

 

[Revoltingest]

Selecting & perusing one long article.....
Setting the record straight on the men’s rights movement
....I don't see how this is "anti-feminism".

 

[Revoltingest]

Here is a cut from one of the articles. Just....just to give you

Here is a cut from one of the articles. Just to give you a taste. Because I was also pretty impressed at first glance. There only seemed to be one or two that were anti-feminist. However after actually reading them I don't think anyone would question that they are in fact anti-feminist. But anyway yeah here is the clipping.

We often joke, and with good reason, about the stupidity of feminists. After all, have you ever seen Futrelle in a debate, watched Sarkeesian damsel herself while complaining about damseling, listened to Rebecca Watson try to convince skeptics that an invitation to coffee is a threat and social issue for women, or read a few lines of Ally Fogg just after he tells you he is not a feminist?

In fact, in the realm of feminism, particularly online, stupidity is regarded as good breeding; an asset that will get you to the top.

But the question remains, if feminists are so stupid, then why is feminism now the dominant ideology on the planet, affecting almost every institution, political apparatus, provider of every level of education, as well as every law enforcement agency and corporate entity known?

If feminists are so intellectually vacant, then why are we here, without resources and struggling mightily to skate by on guile and creativity in order to do anything about the supposed idiots?

The answer to that is as simple as it is forbidding.

Feminism is not for feminists. Feminists are idiots, but they are the useful idiots in the description previously reserved for Soviet sycophants in cold war America.

Feminism, in reality, is for governments and corporations. And it is the most effective tool for control of the masses since the riot baton and water cannons.​

It would seem from this that MRAs can be just as angry & shrill as what I can find here among RF feminists. But the one article I perused didn't have this kind of language.
Both sides would do well to be more inviting. Brickbats like "Feminists are idiots" & "MRAs are anti-feminist" can sure polarize people. Criticism is needed (for all sides), but it's best kept civil, specific, & productive. Hard to do, eh?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Some of A Voice for Men's distinguished history of promoting equality and men's rights:

A Voice for Men has set up a phony White Ribbon website to coopt the international anti-violence campaign of that name [UPDATE: Real WRC responds to AVFM] | we hunted the mammoth

 

[Midnight Rain]

Selecting & perusing one long article.....
Setting the record straight on the men’s rights movement
....I don't see how this is "anti-feminism".

This isn't the article in which I got that from. Next time I'll provide a link. I can agree to that link and I don't ever think I said everything no that site was anti-feminist. I stated that the vast majority of it seemed to be. I also recall saying I agreed with their points but not the tones and articles that they have expressed due to the infatuation with anti-feminism in almost all of the ones I had seen (again I'll type it so you don't get confused. Almost all. Not all.)

But if you'd like... .
Crashing the gates: the Non-Feminist invasion of Feminist mindspace

Pushing Feminista Jones’ buttons: A book review

“Manslamming” – Is it useful to use the opponents’ tactics?

25 #QuestionsForMen mansplained, again

Woman walks 10 hours in Mumbai and did not get catcalled even once!

All from the first page alone. A few others I found to be anti-feminist but not the key aspect of the article so I let it slide since they seemed to be genuinely interested in teh issue rather than just anit-feminism.

If you don't see those as anti-feminist then I guess we just won't agree at all. And I suppose I will repeat it again since you have already jumped it once, I am for almost everything listed on their mission statement and goals. I just don't like their anti-feminist tactics and tones. Its great that they want more rights for men. I want that too. There is no reason to be anti-feminist to do it.

 

[Midnight Rain]

It would seem from this that MRAs can be just as angry & shrill as what I can find here among RF feminists. But the one article I perused didn't have this kind of language.
Both sides would do well to be more inviting. Brickbats like "Feminists are idiots" & "MRAs are anti-feminist" can sure polarize people. Criticism is needed (for all sides), but it's best kept civil, specific, & productive. Hard to do, eh?

Yes it can. And a great way to unpolarize things is to not take statements regarding specifics as broad statements

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes it can. And a great way to unpolarize things is to not take statements regarding specifics as broad statements

It also helps to not make overly broad statements. The prefix "some" is most useful.

Edit:
I notice here that self identified feminists overwhelmingly express (quite fervently & often) a low opinion of MRAs. If this reflects a larger picture, I'd expect that MRAs would respond in kind. This raises the question of which one is culpable for the adverse reaction of the other. I say it makes no difference, ie, each side has merit & a responsibility get along & advance mutual goals of justice.

 

[Revoltingest]

This isn't the article in which I got that from. Next time I'll provide a link. I can agree to that link and I don't ever think I said everything no that site was anti-feminist. I stated that the vast majority of it seemed to be. I also recall saying I agreed with their points but not the tones and articles that they have expressed due to the infatuation with anti-feminism in almost all of the ones I had seen (again I'll type it so you don't get confused. Almost all. Not all.)

But if you'd like... .
Crashing the gates: the Non-Feminist invasion of Feminist mindspace

Pushing Feminista Jones’ buttons: A book review

“Manslamming” – Is it useful to use the opponents’ tactics?

25 #QuestionsForMen mansplained, again

Woman walks 10 hours in Mumbai and did not get catcalled even once!

All from the first page alone. A few others I found to be anti-feminist but not the key aspect of the article so I let it slide since they seemed to be genuinely interested in teh issue rather than just anit-feminism.

If you don't see those as anti-feminist then I guess we just won't agree at all. And I suppose I will repeat it again since you have already jumped it once, I am for almost everything listed on their mission statement and goals. I just don't like their anti-feminist tactics and tones. Its great that they want more rights for men. I want that too. There is no reason to be anti-feminist to do it.

From the above, I see a conflation of 2 different things:
1) feminism as a collection of subcultures
2) feminism as the goal of gender equity
To counter the somewhat misandrist elements in #1 is not antipathy towards #2.

Masculinists (MRAs) no doubt have a diversity of subcultures too, & I'd venture that like feminism, some are more (or less) tolerant than others.

 

[dust1n]

In general, avoid "men's rights movements" and stick with other men's movements....


History time...

Men's rights movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Forerunners
The term "men's rights" was used at least as early as February 1856 when it appeared in Putnam's Magazine.[12]

Three loosely connected men's rights organizations formed in Austria in the interwar period. The League for Men's Rights was founded in 1926 with the goal of "combatting all excesses of women's emancipation".[13][14][15][16] In 1927, the Justitia League for Family Law Reform and the Aequitas World's League for the Rights of Men split from the League of Men's Rights.[13][14] The three men's rights groups opposed women's entry into the labor market and what they saw as the corrosive influence of the women's movement on social and legal institutions. They criticized marriage and family laws, especially the requirement to pay spousal and child support to former wives and illegitimate children, and supported the use of blood tests to determine paternity.[13][14] Justitia and Aequitas issued their own short-lived journals Men's Rightists' Newspaper and Self-Defense where they expressed their views which were heavily influenced by the works of Heinrich Schurtz, Otto Weininger, and Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels. The organizations ceased to exist before 1939.[13][14]

Movement
The modern men's rights movement emerged from the men's liberation movement which appeared in the first half of the 1970s when some thinkers began to study feminist ideas and politics.[17][18] The men's liberation movement acknowledged men's institutional power while critically examining the costs of traditional masculinity.[17] In the late 1970s, the men's liberation movement split into two separate strands with opposing views: the pro-feminist men's movement and the anti-feminist men's rights movement.[17] Men's rights activists have rejected feminist principles and focused on areas in which they believe men are disadvantaged or oppressed.[17][18] In the 1980s and 90s, men's rights activists opposed societal changes sought by feminists and defended the traditional gender order in the family, schools and the workplace.[19]

Men's rights activists see men as an oppressed group[20][21][22][23] and believe that society and state have been "feminized" by the women's movement.[20] Sarah Maddison, an Australian author, has claimed that Warren Farrell and Herb Goldberg "argue that, for most men, power is an illusion, and that women are the true power holders in society through their roles as the primary carers and nurturers of children."[20]

One of the first major men's rights organizations was the Coalition of American Divorce Reform Elements, founded by Richard Doyle in 1971, from which the Men's Rights Association spun off in 1973.[18][24] Free Men Inc. was founded in 1977 in Columbia, Maryland, spawning several chapters over the following years, which eventually merged to form the National Coalition of Free Men[25] (now known as the National Coalition for Men). Men's Rights, Inc. was also formed in 1977.[26][25] In the United Kingdom, a men's rights group calling itself the UK Men's Movement began to organize in the early 1990s.[27] The Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF) was founded in 2005, and in 2010 claimed to have over 30,000 members.[28][29][30]

 

[Revoltingest]

In general, avoid "men's rights movements" and stick with other men's movements....

Wouldn't that be like saying to avoid "feminism", & stick with other "women's movements"? It seems an undue focus upon labels.

History time...

Men's rights movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Forerunners
The term "men's rights" was used at least as early as February 1856 when it appeared in Putnam's Magazine.[12]

Three loosely connected men's rights organizations formed in Austria in the interwar period. The League for Men's Rights was founded in 1926 with the goal of "combatting all excesses of women's emancipation".[13][14][15][16] In 1927, the Justitia League for Family Law Reform and the Aequitas World's League for the Rights of Men split from the League of Men's Rights.[13][14] The three men's rights groups opposed women's entry into the labor market and what they saw as the corrosive influence of the women's movement on social and legal institutions. They criticized marriage and family laws, especially the requirement to pay spousal and child support to former wives and illegitimate children, and supported the use of blood tests to determine paternity.[13][14] Justitia and Aequitas issued their own short-lived journals Men's Rightists' Newspaper and Self-Defense where they expressed their views which were heavily influenced by the works of Heinrich Schurtz, Otto Weininger, and Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels. The organizations ceased to exist before 1939.[13][14]

Movement
The modern men's rights movement emerged from the men's liberation movement which appeared in the first half of the 1970s when some thinkers began to study feminist ideas and politics.[17][18] The men's liberation movement acknowledged men's institutional power while critically examining the costs of traditional masculinity.[17] In the late 1970s, the men's liberation movement split into two separate strands with opposing views: the pro-feminist men's movement and the anti-feminist men's rights movement.[17] Men's rights activists have rejected feminist principles and focused on areas in which they believe men are disadvantaged or oppressed.[17][18] In the 1980s and 90s, men's rights activists opposed societal changes sought by feminists and defended the traditional gender order in the family, schools and the workplace.[19]

Men's rights activists see men as an oppressed group[20][21][22][23] and believe that society and state have been "feminized" by the women's movement.[20] Sarah Maddison, an Australian author, has claimed that Warren Farrell and Herb Goldberg "argue that, for most men, power is an illusion, and that women are the true power holders in society through their roles as the primary carers and nurturers of children."[20]

One of the first major men's rights organizations was the Coalition of American Divorce Reform Elements, founded by Richard Doyle in 1971, from which the Men's Rights Association spun off in 1973.[18][24] Free Men Inc. was founded in 1977 in Columbia, Maryland, spawning several chapters over the following years, which eventually merged to form the National Coalition of Free Men[25] (now known as the National Coalition for Men). Men's Rights, Inc. was also formed in 1977.[26][25] In the United Kingdom, a men's rights group calling itself the UK Men's Movement began to organize in the early 1990s.[27] The Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF) was founded in 2005, and in 2010 claimed to have over 30,000 members.[28][29][30]

I can advocate for men's rights without seeing us as an "oppressed group". (Same for women.) I theorize that there's much animosity because too many SJWs see people as groups rather than individuals sharing a trait. Some men endure some injustices which won't affect the majority. (Also true for women.) It matters not whether men or women suffer more, or exercise more power...what matters is that the injustice be mitigated where it exists.
It reminds me of one of the most annoying feminist objections....that men will have power over women's reproduction. Yet there are also a great many women who would impose control over other women's reproduction. In my view, it's wrong for either gender to seek control over women's (or men's) reproductive rights.

 

[dust1n]

Wouldn't that be like saying to avoid "feminism", & stick with other "women's movements"? It seems an undue focus upon labels.

That's fine with me. Women can call whatever they do whatever they want, and it undoubtedly will be called many things to. At the end of the day, their various efforts will be necessary. There will always been boys hurting girls and girls hurting boys, and boys hurting boys, and girls hurting girls, and everything between, and the new number of ways in which this manifest probably all require careful detail and specific methods at addressing them. People are going to complain about the injustices they experience. Other people will take advantage of that as well.

I can advocate for men's rights without seeing us as an "oppressed group". (Same for women.) I theorize that there's much animosity because too many SJWs see people as groups rather than individuals sharing a trait. Some men endure some injustices which won't affect the majority. (Also true for women.) It matters not whether men or women suffer more, or exercise more power...what matters is that the injustice be mitigated where it exists.
It reminds me of one of the most annoying feminist objections....that men will have power over women's reproduction. Yet there are also a great many women who would impose control over other women's reproduction. In my view, it's wrong for either gender to seek control over women's (or men's) reproductive rights.

Well, a higher concentration of men do support pro-life as oppose to women, and traditionally even more so. I don't think pro-choicer's make an exception for women who are pro-life when comes to taking steps to achieve their aims. It's certainly no mystery to me that most people are wrong about many things, including myself by the way. The perception that men are responsible for anti-abortion is half-vestige and half-the-fact that there's a higher concentration of men in government in positions of power who actively seek to undo a court decision made fifty years ago and constantly waste taxpaper money by making illegal state laws that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars in legislation. However, I notice that the Republican party (or at least parts who are actually trying to win an election again) have started using rhetoric adjusted towards winning over women, and also to addressing wealth inequality. Heck, there are female politicians who are against abortion. But either or reality or by the time the information actually reaches most consumers, it certainly seems like men politicians and interest groups are much more active in political changing the situation. However, I don't discount groups such as the Susan B. Anthony foundation, or whatever...

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, a higher concentration of men do support pro-life as oppose to women, and traditionally even more so.

Presuming this is correct, what should we make of a greater likelihood of men being pro-life than women? How does this have bearing on Jane's not wanting a man to to control her reproduction, but being silent on Sally doing the same?

I don't think pro-choicer's make an exception for women who are pro-life when comes to taking steps to achieve their aims. It's certainly no mystery to me that most people are wrong about many things, including myself by the way. The perception that men are responsible for anti-abortion is half-vestige and half-the-fact that there's a higher concentration of men in government in positions of power who actively seek to undo a court decision made fifty years ago and constantly waste taxpaper money by making illegal state laws that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars in legislation. However, I notice that the Republican party (or at least parts who are actually trying to win an election again) have started using rhetoric adjusted towards winning over women, and also to addressing wealth inequality. Heck, there are female politicians who are against abortion. But either or reality or by the time the information actually reaches most consumers, it certainly seems like men politicians and interest groups are much more active in political changing the situation. However, I don't discount groups such as the Susan B. Anthony foundation, or whatever...

We should bear in mind that politicians (many of these backwards males) are elected often with a majority of voters being women. They're major players in the "patriarchy", which sorta defeats the claim, eh?

 

[dust1n]

Presuming this is correct, what should we make of a greater likelihood of men being pro-life than women? How does this have bearing on Jane's not wanting a man to to control her reproduction, but being silent on Sally doing the same?

We should bear in mind that politicians (many of these backwards males) are elected often with a majority of voters being women. They're major players in the "patriarchy", which sorta defeats the claim, eh?

The majority of voters being women is a more recent phenomenon, and there is also many more pro-choice people in office now. As far as tying pro-choice and feminism together would be a misstep by a feminist or not. All sorts of people are pro-choice. Not all feminists are pro-choice.

And source for the claim: U.S. Still Split on Abortion: 47% Pro-Choice, 46% Pro-Life

 

[Midnight Rain]

It would seem from this that MRAs can be just as angry & shrill as what I can find here among RF feminists. But the one article I perused didn't have this kind of language.
Both sides would do well to be more inviting. Brickbats like "Feminists are idiots" & "MRAs are anti-feminist" can sure polarize people. Criticism is needed (for all sides), but it's best kept civil, specific, & productive. Hard to do, eh?

The key difference here is that there should not be a vs mentality ever in this regard. Both are sub-categories of equitists. Feminist groups hardly ever mention MRA. In fact the only time I have ever seen feminist groups mention MRA is in response to MRA assaults on feminism. The vast majority of articles, blogs ect are not geared towards anti-MRA activities. However in many MRA (and I say many not some in this case) it seems to be a focal point.

The second difference when looking specifically at the website above is that feminists have taken serious aim at men's issues. I have not seen the MRA do anything similar towards feminist issues.

Though I again I put this in my first post, please link me to an MRA group that is not based or grossly affected by anti-feminism and I would like to join it.

It also helps to not make overly broad statements. The prefix "some" is most useful.

Edit:
I notice here that self identified feminists overwhelmingly express (quite fervently & often) a low opinion of MRAs. If this reflects a larger picture, I'd expect that MRAs would respond in kind. This raises the question of which one is culpable for the adverse reaction of the other. I say it makes no difference, ie, each side has merit & a responsibility get along & advance mutual goals of justice.

I went back and read my post. I never stated absolutes and used categorical adjectives such as many, some and quite a few. But beside the point I think now.

Though I disagree that feminists are often knocking men's issues. Many MRA groups and especially the Men's Rights Association have a name for being anti-feminist and according to every source I have read there are two distinctly different men's movement. One being a positive one based upon masculism and the second based upon anti-feminism. One was a movement and one a countermovement.

But again feminists have always (to my knowledge) been open to the men's issues but have reacted badly to organized attempts due to one reason or another. But feminism and masculism worked together in the past and it seems that they became oil and water with the countermovement.

From the above, I see a conflation of 2 different things:
1) feminism as a collection of subcultures
2) feminism as the goal of gender equity
To counter the somewhat misandrist elements in #1 is not antipathy towards #2.

Masculinists (MRAs) no doubt have a diversity of subcultures too, & I'd venture that like feminism, some are more (or less) tolerant than others.

I agree that there are more and less tolerant groups. I have asked several times to be linked to groups that are respectable in nature. So far the only ones I have been able to locate were the most vocal and most controversial.

Though I disagree with the alternating definitions of feminism. If we were to separate the them into two different terms it would be
1 Feminism- The movement and its activities
2 Feminism- The philosophy.
1 being the historical actions and effects and 2 being the stated goals. It is somewhat similar in some ways to your definitions but they are far more distinctly connected. One cannot be against the "collection of subcultures" without being against their core values. You may have issues with specific subcultures or fringe extremists and I think they are fully within their rights to be so. I advocate that feminists should be against the fringe extremists as Muslims should be against the radical Islamists. Though that isn't really an apt comparison as one group kills thousands of people and the other yells into a megaphone.

 

[Midnight Rain]

We should bear in mind that politicians (many of these backwards males) are elected often with a majority of voters being women. They're major players in the "patriarchy", which sorta defeats the claim, eh?

When the majority of held congressional seats are women then that would defeat the claim. Women are fully capable of being anti-feminist. In fact many MANY women are anti-feminist. Being a woman and ascribing to the ideology of gender equality are not one in the same as being a man doesn't make you a member of the MRA.

 

[JerryL]

The key difference here is that there should not be a vs mentality ever in this regard. Both are sub-categories of equitists. Feminist groups hardly ever mention MRA.

The first time I ever heard of "Men's Rights Movement" was from a feminist group that was calling them evil.

The second time was from a feminist group that had made a picture that showed a screaming infant and said that's what MR groups were.

The third time, and the first time I actually looked them up, was again a complaint from a feminist group (I have a couple people on my FB list that regularly like or comment on feminist sites).

Anecdotes aren't statistics; but that has been my experience.

In fact the only time I have ever seen feminist groups mention MRA is in response to MRA assaults on feminism. The vast majority of articles, blogs ect are not geared towards anti-MRA activities. However in many MRA (and I say many not some in this case) it seems to be a focal point.

It feels, sometimes, like that's because there's a desire to not limit attacks to a specific group of men. I see words like "misogyny, patriarchy, male gaze, male privileged, etc" far too often.

The second difference when looking specifically at the website above is that feminists have taken serious aim at men's issues. I have not seen the MRA do anything similar towards feminist issues.

I support people and groups that strive to right wrongs. I don't care of those people or groups are inclusive or specific (focusing on only one group of wrongs).

There are many vocal and avowed feminists who are creating wrongs rather than seeking to right them.

Though I disagree that feminists are often knocking men's issues. Many MRA groups and especially the Men's Rights Association have a name for being anti-feminist and according to every source I have read there are two distinctly different men's movement. One being a positive one based upon masculism and the second based upon anti-feminism. One was a movement and one a countermovement.

Let me ask. MRA groups are regularly knocking femenism... are they regularly knocking *women*?

Are MRA groups, in your experience, accusing the general female population of misandry?

If I accuse the black panthers of maleficence; does that mean I'm anti-racial-equality?

Perhaps you will answer "yes". I've really paid little attention to the MRA.

But again feminists have always (to my knowledge) been open to the men's issues but have reacted badly to organized attempts due to one reason or another. But feminism and masculism worked together in the past and it seems that they became oil and water with the countermovement.

Some, certainly. Perhaps even the silent majority.

But when I pointed out in a "women in STEM" discussion that women are also under-represented in logging, trash collection, and construction I was told "men can have those crap jobs". I don't recall the litany that followed well enough to recount it; but the gist was that the several women commenting were not interested in equal access, but superior access.

I can point at a lot of avowed feminists publicly attacking men as a whole. I have indirectly already. Is it a surprise that such attacks would generate a response?

 

[dust1n]

Let me ask. MRA groups are regularly knocking femenism... are they regularly knocking *women*?

Pretty much. Many are online groups, which works through various MRA websites, and mainly anonymously through 4chan. For example, last year a twitter hashtag was created called #EndFathersDay. Fake accounts were created on Twitter, posing as "feminist" girls as starting this hashtag and posting things like "Fathers don't deserve a day," etc.

I personally sympathize with various males for a number of reasons, especially concerning children, unfair incarceration, lack of shelters of males from abuse.

But their is a whole segment that purposely creates an entire philosophy off an essentially anti-feminism stance.

Considering how many RF members here are concerned with "victimization," they don't tend to note in very much in this certain segment of the population. I assume because they are unaware that it exists.

Are MRA groups, in your experience, accusing the general female population of misandry

Most definitely.

But, let's make the distinction here real quick. There are male groups out there that are in no way anti-feminism, and some are pro-feminism. By MRA, we are pretty much referring to a very specific type of male advocacy.

If I accuse the black panthers of maleficence; does that mean I'm anti-racial-equality

Definitely not. But it would be unfair to miscontextualize the Blank Panthers and it's varied history.

Perhaps you will answer "yes". I've really paid little attention to the MRA.

To be fair, I don't pay much attention to it either, until it comes up in someway or another. I pretty go about my life totally unaffected by feminists and whatever they are doing. But I don't tend to disagree with central tenets of various feminist theories.

 

[dust1n]

your experience, accusing the general female population of misandry?

Also:

"At an average of 25,000 daily unique visitors (and growing), AVfM is the largest Men’s Rights web site in the world. At this point almost no one can ignore us, even our haters.

So with this sort of large and growing visibility, you may have at times wondered: Is this a “liberal” movement? Is it a “conservative” movement? Well we have always taken a strong nonpartisan stance, because we view virtually all political parties as fundamentally misandrist, some just more overtly than others. We view this movement as about basic civil and human rights, which no political party or ideology has a lock on."

How do Men’s Rights Activists align politically?