Support NeoGAF

[Mumei]

On several occasions (including my previous post), I stated support for both nurture and nature in determining who we are and always have on a number of issues besides gender (e.g. introversion is determined at birth, but there's ultimately flexibility in how a particular individual turns out). I put more emphasis on the "nature" argument because it needs more attention - nurture is already more widely taught to us in society as important while the former is regarded as borderline insignificant. This belief is based on political correctness, a desire to believe one is fully in control of self, and old information that doesn't take into account any of the advances of the last 10-20 years in the study of the brain and neurology.

Oops.

I guess I didn't notice it when it was surrounded by so much pushing of the biological perspective, or maybe I subconsciously dismissed it as lip service. I'm not sure.

It's funny you say that it needs more attention, because I think that outside of perhaps academia, the biological explanation is the dominant way people view differences between boys and girls. They aren't generally viewed as cultural at all, and I think the effect of culture gets short thrift. Even on GAF, there is a very vocal "biology is everything" contingent, so I don't know that you need to be more hardline than you actually are in the service of creating balance.

In early childhood, the historically recent development of classes focused heavily on reading and writing have led to boys to lapse behind and struggle due to the areas of the brain being less developed -- a 5-year old shows development of a 3-year old girl in areas of the brain involving reading and writing and the in-classroom results bear this out. The observed result has sometimes led to repeat instances of negative reinforcement: school is too hard, I'm always being punished, the teacher thinks I'm stupid, my parents are mad at me, they put me in the dumb group, I hate being here, etc.

There are a few things here that bother me. The first is that you are talking about five year olds; should we not be talking about six and seven year olds? The second is that you are taking differences in brain development at that age and appear to attributing them to inherent differences in the way that boys' brains develop. Perhaps there is some evidence that these differences will occur in aggregate even in the absence of the disparate treatment that I suspect exacerbates whatever baseline differences might exist, but it sounds like you're giving short thrift to the possibility that these observed differences might simply be the product of disparate treatment and not its cause.

I realize that you have pointed out numerous times the observed differences between male and female children and male and female adults and some of the continuities between these differences. But the disconnect for me comes in the realm of brain development. We know that socialization plays a big role in how these things are expressed, irrespective of baseline differences, and it explains many of the differences in what is considered typical male or female behavior within a given culture. I don't think you're satisfactorily demonstrating that these biological differences are important enough to be determinative.

I also have questions about boys who do not have these issues. Why is it that these boys do not have these issues? Is it possible that these boys were not simply "lucky" biologically in that the parts of their brains that are associated with quiet play or self-control developed more quickly than the norm, but that there was something different in their experiences or environment that caused these to develop more quickly? I have sort of a vested interest in asking this; my parents have long had the theory that my breaking my leg when I was two and a half, which subsequently left me in a body cast for over a month, was a big cause in giving me a head start. It meant that I was stuck one of those wheely-infant-thingies with the tray around the front. I had to spend my time being entertained by drawing, being read books, watching Sesame Street, making Play-Do animals, etc. My parents have long thought that this inadvertently gave me a head start going into preschool. Is it possible that this sort of experience actually caused these areas of my brain to develop more than they would have if I had had a different set of experiences and this was why reading and early school came very easily to me, especially compared to at least some of the other boys?

Needless to say I'm not suggesting we break boys' legs to keep them still; I just question whether it is possible that parents who actively attempt to socialize their boys in such a way that they learn to control some of their (natural) boisterousness won't be better served than parents who throw their hands up, say that it is natural that boys are this way, and then throw them into school and expect them to adjust immediately. I think that by placing so much emphasis on biological differences that exist, you actually serve to magnify their effect rather than minimize them.

In other cases, boys aren't engaged, literally -- the parts of boys' brains that are larger and more receptive to visuals and motion aren't being engaged when listening to a droning lecture or reading a wall of text. Hence, a boy isn't consciously and intentionally zoning out schoolwork because society taught him that's what boys do (although I'm sure such cases do exist). A naturally higher level of testosterone and pent-up energy also doesn't always transfer well to a classroom that demands a high level of sitting and passive listening; it becomes unbearable to be comply.

I'm also a bit confused about your portrayal of schools. Granted it has been about 19 years since I was in first grade, but as I recall we had many periods of loud, group activities, teachers reading aloud, gym class, regular recess, art classes, and so forth. While we did have to read, we never had to read walls of text or listen to droning lectures; our teachers were pretty interactive and "lessons" didn't last inordinately long.

Now granted, I went to a really good public school; our principal was principal of the year several times and we always had really good testing scores. It might be that my school experience was anomalous. In my experience, schools didn't become the droning nightmare you were portraying until around middle school, well after those early years.

Semi-related: the study and causes of transsexualism support gender not being a social construct, despite the well-intentioned efforts of gender studies to claim otherwise (hypermasculinity or macho behavior being an exception). Read the first response at the link below (I know, Yahoo Answers, yuck... but it's really good). The research in this field alone destroys the logic of "X: A Fabulous Child's Story." Humans are not born blank slates that, through idealistic thinking, can act and behave identically if we get rid of "gender stereotypes."

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120101192217AAVwUs7

The bolded really isn't an accurate representation of the argument we're making. We aren't arguing for sameness; we're merely arguing that these differences can be exacerbated or ameliorated to some degree by environmental effects.

I wouldn't deny that education in the United States is generally shitty, but I don't think that it is particularly shitty towards boys except insofar as it is apparent incompatible with the way boys are expected and given license to play up until they have to go to school.

 

[mnemovore]

I'm not sure that your premise is necessarily true. Even within the vague motivation of 'achieving equality', there are many different details that might play into what steps you think should be taken to get there. They range from practical considerations (will a given policy achieve its aims?), to differences in values (what's the "time value of equality"?). Though, I suppose perhaps you could consider these as 'motivation [for rejecting feminism] outside of a desire for equality' if you interpreted the question a little differently.

I think I see where you're coming from now. I had thought that you were making a serious and unfounded insinuation (and I still think it still looks rather like that when taken on its own). But, given your explanation now, I get what you were trying to say, and I apologise for treating you so harshly

Those considerations don't seem strong enough to compel someone to reject as large an umbrella as feminism, especially since disagreements along those lines already exist and thrive in the form of healthy discourse.

To elaborate on what I've said, anyone who rejects a label that they would ordinarily fall under would necessarily have a reason for rejecting that label outside of the beliefs such a label would indicate. Such a reason is of utmost importance when that label is the topic at hand. Otherwise, the implication is that the label is inadequate in fulfilling its goal, which both warrants further explanation and potentially slights those who have adopted that label. In addition, rejection of a label may be unwarranted.

I don't think you were that harsh. I appreciate your sincerity.

 

[AlimNassor]

I'm a Mens right supporter, but, ashamed to be. I won't pretend our movement was always sunshine and lollipops, but, lately our movement has been hijacked by Men are always right activists. I used to post on a forum a very large MRA forum, we never hated women, we focused on making men and women equal and removing the traditional gender roles (like how the man has to be the provider, and the woman has to be at home or how men have to act macho or else they're weak) men are forced into.

I don't know what happened, we've always had a few guys who truly hated women, but, they were a minority, but, sometime in like 05-06, we got a huge influx of guys coming in expressing how men were second class citizens and women were "evil". they completely and utterly hijacked the forum, and ruined any cred we had. The sad thing is 90% of them were people who were upset they got rejected or had a bad break up.

These people reminded me of the angry feminist "we don't need no man" forums. It had become a sad sight, and most were hardcore bible thumping conservatives. They all tried to be as "manly" as possible and constantly posted pics of themselves in suggestive clothing, showing off their muscles. Absurd. Most of us left by then.

Going back, and it's gotten worse. Civil discussion is discouraged, if you don't believe men are the oppressed minority and women are the evil overlords making men into "girly men", then you're a white knight and therefore vilified.

Shame, because, men do have legitimate issues, but, our movement is now synonymous with hatred.

 

[The Adder]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKXVcUSBKH4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lHmCN3MBMI

Posted without commentary and in search of opinions.

 

[Kazerei]

I'm a Mens right supporter, but, ashamed to be. I won't pretend our movement was always sunshine and lollipops, but, lately our movement has been hijacked by Men are always right activists. I used to post on a forum a very large MRA forum, we never hated women, we focused on making men and women equal and removing the traditional gender roles (like how the man has to be the provider, and the woman has to be at home or how men have to act macho or else they're weak) men are forced into.

I don't know what happened, we've always had a few guys who truly hated women, but, they were a minority, but, sometime in like 05-06, we got a huge influx of guys coming in expressing how men were second class citizens and women were "evil". they completely and utterly hijacked the forum, and ruined any cred we had. The sad thing is 90% of them were people who were upset they got rejected or had a bad break up.

These people reminded me of the angry feminist "we don't need no man" forums. It had become a sad sight, and most were hardcore bible thumping conservatives. They all tried to be as "manly" as possible and constantly posted pics of themselves in suggestive clothing, showing off their muscles. Absurd. Most of us left by then.

Going back, and it's gotten worse. Civil discussion is discouraged, if you don't believe men are the oppressed minority and women are the evil overlords making men into "girly men", then you're a white knight and therefore vilified.

Shame, because, men do have legitimate issues, but, our movement is now synonymous with hatred.

I feel the same way about the feminist movement. Many perceive the word "feminist" in a negative light, thanks to the radicals who shouted their crazy ideas under the banner of feminism.

 

[Zaptruder]

The last two posts make me think that 'true' feminism and 'true' mens rights are two halves of the same coin. That they should unite under the banner of gender equality... The positive side effect is it doesn't draw the crazy sexist crowd of either gender. As much anyway.

 

[The Adder]

The last two posts make me think that 'true' feminism and 'true' mens rights are two halves of the same coin. That they should unite under the banner of gender equality... The positive side effect is it doesn't draw the crazy sexist crowd of either gender. As much anyway.

< Operates under the banner of Civil Rights. Covers everything for everyone.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

The last two posts make me think that 'true' feminism and 'true' mens rights are two halves of the same coin. That they should unite under the banner of gender equality... The positive side effect is it doesn't draw the crazy sexist crowd of either gender. As much anyway.

This is what feminism is, but men's rights people fall into the stereotypical male trap of just not listening and mansplaining what they think of everything.

 

[AlimNassor]

I feel the same way about the feminist movement. Many perceive the word "feminist" in a negative light, thanks to the radicals who shouted their crazy ideas under the banner of feminism.

Odd, how both MRA forums and WRA forums are basically the same things. Women hate men, men hate women, both believe they're correct and everyone is wrong. What would happen if a hardcore MRA and a hardcore WRA were forced to live in the same house? I smell a new sitcom.

 

[Zaptruder]

This is what feminism is, but men's rights people fall into the stereotypical male trap of just not listening and mansplaining what they think of everything.

Its what feminism and mens rights movements are. Except both have shitty names that mislead the ignorant.

Which wouldn't be that bad, except if you're not accounting for the ignorant, then your movement is going to end up waylaid by them at some point or another.

 

[Devolution]

Its what feminism and mens rights movements are. Except both have shitty names that mislead the ignorant.

Which wouldn't be that bad, except if you're not accounting for the ignorant, then your movement is going to end up waylaid by them at some point or another.

Feminism doesn't really have a shitty name, just people who don't get the context.

 

[Femmeworth]

While in theory having everyone under one banner sounds good, I don't see it working out. There's value in specialization.

 

[Mumei]

The last two posts make me think that 'true' feminism and 'true' mens rights are two halves of the same coin. That they should unite under the banner of gender equality... The positive side effect is it doesn't draw the crazy sexist crowd of either gender. As much anyway.

Partly as a result of this topic, and partly because I had a preexisting interest in learning more about the studies of masculinities, I started reading Kimmel, et. al's Men & Masculinities: A Social, Cultural, and Historical Encyclopedia. It is only two volumes, and is a bit out of date in terms of more recent events, being first published in 2003, but it has some really great entries. I think the opening paragraph to the Men's Rights Movement entry are illustrative:

The essential belief that undergirds the men's rights perspective is that the women's movement has wrongly identified men as a privileged class and women as lacking power relative to men. A consequence of this perspective is a view that is unrelentingly hostile to feminist and profeminist ideologies.

The core of the men's rights movement began with the publication of Herb Goldberg's 1976 book The Hazards of Being Male: Surviving the Myth of Masculine Privilege. Goldberg, a psychologist who worked with upper-class professional men, came to the conclusion that men were overworked and overstressed, and he did not understand how a presumably privileged group could be so afflicted. His answer was that the women's movement, while it may have liberated women, only served to keep men in harness by insisting that men's lives were privileged, whereas women lived as second-class citizens. In his own way, Goldberg identified the key claim of the men's rights movement - namely, that feminism made a serious mistake in identifying men as first-class citizens and women as second-class citizens. Either men and women are both equally oppressed or, if anything, men are more oppressed by their traditional gender role.​

The rest of the entry describes some of their supporting evidence (shorter life span, higher successful suicide rates, and higher incidence of stress related diseases vis-a-vis women), how several separate organizations grew out of those original ideological foundations, and the eventual takeover of the movement by the father's rights wing, who took over the National Congress of Men and Children in 1989 and decided "to ignore the broader analysis of the men's rights advocates," and an explanation of how now the MRM has fully embraced a "conservative defense of the traditional male gender role", rather than pointing to it as a source of the problems they alluded to earlier.

At any rate, it is an ideological perspective fundamentally opposed to feminism. There are other men's movements beyond the Men's Rights Movement, of course. There are also movements such as the Promise Keepers, the mythopoeic movement, and profeminist men's movements, and obviously sub-groups within these. The Promise Keepers tend to be antifeminist, and given their presumption that men are the natural heads and the conservative Evangelical Christian basis, this should not surprise anyone. The mythopoeic movement had appeal towards both antifeminist and profeminist men, but couldn't be said to strongly lean one way or the other as a coherent movement the way the latter two could. They also talked about a men's liberation movement in the 1970s that I had not been previously aware of (of which Herb Goldberg was a part), which included profeminist critiques of the male sex role.

I think that there is obviously some potential for some men's movements to work alongside feminist movements, and without being subsumed by them but instead working towards the same goals for interrelated - but different - reasons. But I just don't think that the Men's Rights Movement is one of those.

 

[Zaptruder]

If I read that correctly, you're saying that the two shouldn't be merged because they're fighting for fundamentally different things now... because they've been taken over by an extremist fringe.

Fair enough - I'll even concede that feminism retains a greater degree of purity to the original intention.

But how aren't the origins of both groups mutually compatible?

Both at their core desire the equality of genders in all roles - dispelling traditional gender notions in favour of allowing a person of any gender to take any role without prejudice at any level.

Or is that not the founding principles of one or either group?

 

[Devolution]

If I read that correctly, you're saying that the two shouldn't be merged because they're fighting for fundamentally different things now... because they've been taken over by an extremist fringe.

Fair enough - I'll even concede that feminism retains a greater degree of purity to the original intention.

But how aren't the origins of both groups mutually compatible?

Both at their core desire the equality of genders in all roles - dispelling traditional gender notions in favour of allowing a person of any gender to take any role without prejudice at any level.

Or is that not the founding principles of one or either group?

Feminism hasn't been taken over by an extremist fringe dude.

 

[The Adder]

Just going to say I don't see why all of these issues get lumped under the everything-neutral "Civil Rights" term.

Also, the more I look into it, the more I find the idea of males seeking to help deal with problems that effect males by joining up with the feminist movement questionable.

The feminist movement has had a rather shaky history as far as exclusion of other women goes. How are men to find the balm in Gilead if, for example, women of color, especially black women, can't?

 

[Zaptruder]

Feminism hasn't been taken over by an extremist fringe dude.

blargh. That was poor wording.

Mens rights has been, feminism has been tainted by an extremist fringe, and is all too commonly portrayed in media and public conciousness with that extremist fringe.

Point is simply - their names attract a certain degree of misunderstanding from people external to the movements that have over time proved to be counterproductive.

I mean... can you tell me why 'feminism' as a name for the movement is better than the more straight forward 'gender equality'?

 

[Mumei]

If I read that correctly, you're saying that the two shouldn't be merged because they're fighting for fundamentally different things now... because they've been taken over by an extremist fringe.

Fair enough - I'll even concede that feminism retains a greater degree of purity to the original intention.

But how aren't the origins of both groups mutually compatible?

Both at their core desire the equality of genders in all roles - dispelling traditional gender notions in favour of allowing a person of any gender to take any role without prejudice at any level.

Or is that not the founding principles of one or either group?

The mens' rights movement (originally) owed some intellectual debt to feminism, particularly in the notion that the traditional male sex role is at root for many of these things (though the movement has been rejecting these things for over twenty years now since the takeover of the father's rights movement), but the point you seem to be ignoring is that fundamentally the men's rights movement blames feminism for this and argues that feminism actually perpetuates the traditional role. This is something that was true of the movement from its very beginnings.

And the men's rights movement has always ignored the historical (from the 1840s on) arguments of female feminist writers concerning themselves with men's issues and arguing that men's lives would be improved by greater equality, presenting instead an ahistorical and inaccurate man-bashing version of feminism.

You can't just pick and choose the elements where there has been some historical overlap, ignore the fact that the movement as it is today and has been for the last few decades now eschews those same things, and also ignore the elements which are just as old as the elements shared with feminism (the former critique of the male sex role) that place it at ideological odds with feminism by blaming feminism for the woes they point out.

And I would not argue that feminism has not changed; I think that the feminist movement was heavily influenced by the critiques of black, working class, and lesbian feminists whose needs were not addressed by the feminist movement as first constructed (which tended to posit "work" as liberatory and thus implicitly saying that feminism was not for the bulk of women who were already working, and had the unfortunate and unintended effect of categorizing women as a minority, leading companies to treat (particularly white) women as if they were a suitable replacement for the hiring of racial minorities, which led to the view that the gains of the feminist movement were opposed to those of racial minorities and tended to reproduce racist, classist, and homophobic elements of society in the movement itself). There is a reason why if you look at feminist blogs today, you'll find a lot of advocacy on issues of sexual orientation, racial issues, and labor issues and it is because of the critiques of those feminists and ideas like kyriarchy and intersectionality. But I would think we can all agree that this more nuanced perspective is better than the movement at the beginning of the second wave which tended to be more specifically tailored to the needs of upper-class, white women.

And back to the subject of men's movements and feminist movements being able to work together, The National Organization for Men Against Sexism has been doing this for decades and has been profeminist since its inception. Why not them?

 

[Zaptruder]

Just going to say I don't see why all of these issues get lumped under the everything-neutral "Civil Rights" term.

It's too broad.

Racial minorities, religious minorities, sexuality minorities, and gender issues all vying for attention under one big crowded tent...

One big crowded tent for closed minded people to better ignore.

I suppose it cuts both ways... if people understand that they're a part of a minority, and that minorities combined are actually a majority, then there'd be more engaged in 'civil rights'.

But that said... civil rights is already a thing... I don't see why it'd be important to lump all the various movements into one indivisible banner.

 

[The Adder]

But that said... civil rights is already a thing... I don't see why it'd be important to lump all the various movements into one indivisible banner.

Civil Rights is a thing, yes. It's about Ultimate Equality. Just because the Civil Rights Movement during the 50s and 60s had a focus on African Americans doesn't mean it's exclusively about race. Note the lack of mention of race in the term.

It's too broad.

Racial minorities, religious minorities, sexuality minorities, and gender issues all vying for attention under one big crowded tent...

One big crowded tent for closed minded people to better ignore.

I suppose it cuts both ways... if people understand that they're a part of a minority, and that minorities combined are actually a majority, then there'd be more engaged in 'civil rights'.

You make one big movement and you sub-divide it for different issues. Not only do you now effectively have one big and powerful group out for the equality of all races, sexes, genders, and sexualities, but you can also draw on the people actively involved in other sub-divisions to help out a cause in yours.

 

[WanderingWind]

How about Equalist?

Too religious sounding?

 

[The Adder]

How about Equalist?

Too religious sounding?

Korra ruined that term forever for a few million Americans.

 

[WanderingWind]

Korra ruined that term forever for a few million Americans.

Equaltarian? Too horsey?

 

[Femmeworth]

Civil Rights is a thing, yes. It's about Ultimate Equality. Just because the Civil Rights Movement during the 50s and 60s had a focus on African Americans doesn't mean it's exclusively about race. Note the lack of mention of race in the term.



You make one big movement and you sub-divide it for different issues. Not only do you now effectively have one big and powerful group out for the equality of all races, sexes, genders, and sexualities, but you can also draw on the people actively involved in other sub-divisions to help out a cause in yours.

It doesn't work that way. Having one big movement tends to work against the advantage of minorities within the movement. Look at the LGBT rights movement and how it has treated transgender people in the past.

 

[AlimNassor]

Feminism hasn't been taken over by an extremist fringe dude.

But, Men's Right movements have? Since when did Feminism not have extremists?

 

[The Adder]

It doesn't work that way. Having one big movement tends to work against the advantage of minorities within the movement.

You mean like men would be in the feminist movement?

Look at the LGBT rights movement and how it has treated transgender people in the past.

You don't even have to go that far. Look how the feminist movement itself has treated non-white women, or poor women, or Transwomen in the past.

 

[Devolution]

But, Men's Right movements have? Since when did Feminism not have extremists?

Where did I say it lacked extremists?

You mean like men would be in the feminist movement?

You're proving her point.

 

[WanderingWind]

But, Men's Right movements have? Since when did Feminism not have extremists?

It's obvious that any group has extremists and equally obvious that it's the entertaining loud fringe groups that garner the most attention. I mean, it's not very exciting when a dude says "Women and men should be totally equal" but infinitely so much more so when he says "Men's Rights Coalition X is about taking back the rights feminazis have stolen from us."

And vice versa.

 

[The Adder]

You're proving her point.

Kind of my intention, actually. It's sort of a win-win for me here.

My point is twofold

1. If we're going with the theory that these issues might as well be put under the feminist umbrella, why not put the feminist umbrella under the civil rights umbrella?

2. If that doesn't work, for whatever reason, then why would moving the legitimate male-related issues that there are under the feminist umbrella work?

 

[Devolution]

Kind of my intention, actually. It's sort of a win-win for me here.

My point is twofold

1. If we're going with the theory that these issues might as well be put under the feminist umbrella, why not put the feminist umbrella under the civil rights umbrella?

2. If that doesn't work, for whatever reason, then why would moving the legitimate male-related issues that there are under the feminist umbrella work?

Um there is a difference in labels, groups and actual ideology. The contention is that the current MRA groups are anti-feminist.

 

[The Adder]

Um there is a difference in labels, groups and actual ideology. The contention is that the current MRA groups are anti-feminist.

Yes, but earlier in the topic it was suggested people who want to address these men's rights issues should support the feminist movement, because that would address these issues.

 

[WanderingWind]

Um there is a difference in labels, groups and actual ideology. The contention is that the current MRA groups are anti-feminist.

That seems A) awfully hard to prove and B) somewhat of a self-fulling prophecy. Just like any group, the fringe idiots keep the noise pollution crazy, so you see crazy and it just confirms what you're labeling an entire movement as. There are plenty of men's rights advocates who aren't anti-feminist, just as feminists who post up lists of every man on campuses as "potential rapists" aren't indicative of feminism as a whole. It's simply...unfair...to judge either movements based on the lunatics self-adhering themselves to it.

Yes, but earlier in the topic it was suggested people who want to address these men's rights issues should support the feminist movement, because that would address these issues.

To a certain extent, this is true. Feminists and MRAs who are truly interested in equality and not pointless coup counting would find much common ground. You can be a feminist and a MRA. Seems that if you really believe in either, the other would follow.

 

[Devolution]

Yes, but earlier in the topic it was suggested people who want to address these men's rights issues should support the feminist movement, because that would address these issues.

You can do both. A feminist friendly Men's Movement would be much more constructive than the current stock of MRA advocates who don't actually discuss issues so much as think feminists turned society matriarchal.

That seems A) awfully hard to prove and B) somewhat of a self-fulling prophecy. Just like any group, the fringe idiots keep the noise pollution crazy, so you see crazy and it just confirms what you're labeling an entire movement as. There are plenty of men's rights advocates who aren't anti-feminist, just as feminists who post up lists of every man on campuses as "potential rapists" aren't indicative of feminism as a whole. It's simply...unfair...to judge either movements based on the lunatics self-adhering themselves to it.

How is hard to prove? Did you ignore the long posts Mumei made on the MRA movement?

 

[The Adder]

You can do both.

Agreed. But as I recall (and I may be recalling wrong, always a possibility as I'm looking back through the posts in this topic to find it, but I digress) it wasn't proposed as an addition, but an alternative.

Found'em. Fugu's posts on page 2.

 

[WanderingWind]

How is hard to prove? Did you ignore the long posts Mumei made on the MRA movement?

It's hard to prove in the way that it falls to the person claiming men's rights advocacy to fight against the No True Scotsman scenario. MRA as an official group can hold claim to a certain ideology, but it's hardly as if they're the only ones allows to lay claim to the title, as it's an all-encompassing term that covers all the sub-groups that call themselves all sorts of things. And it's not as if all under that specific group are unified in exactly what they think.

 

[charlequin]

Racial minorities, religious minorities, sexuality minorities, and gender issues all vying for attention under one big crowded tent...

This is why one of the greatest outgrowths of third-wave feminism (especially as it cross-pollinated with other fields of social justice) was the concept of intersectionality and the notion that all oppressions are connected. Ultimately the post-third-wave model of oppression isn't that men (as a category) are oppressing women (as a category), it's that society creates oppression by enforcing firm and inflexible identities on people based on intrinsic qualities like gender, race, orientation, ability, etc.

When you look at it like that, there's really no reason different groups can't work together with the shared goal of breaking down restrictive identities in society and combating oppression in general.

 

[WanderingWind]

This is why one of the greatest outgrowths of third-wave feminism (especially as it cross-pollinated with other fields of social justice) was the concept of intersectionality and the notion that all oppressions are connected. Ultimately the post-third-wave model of oppression isn't that men (as a category) are oppressing women (as a category), it's that society creates oppression by enforcing firm and inflexible identities on people based on intrinsic qualities like gender, race, orientation, ability, etc.

When you look at it like that, there's really no reason different groups can't work together with the shared goal of breaking down restrictive identities in society and combating oppression in general.

It's the most mind-boggling aspect of the whole ordeal. People interested in equality for themselves seem unable to even consider the plight of others. Cue the photo of the group of black folks eating at Chik-Fil-A in a sign of solidarity. Even here we have people who get so damn angry about any sign that their pet cause isn't as vastly different from other equality issues as they seem to think. It's just so self-defeating.

 

[lopaz]

This is why one of the greatest outgrowths of third-wave feminism (especially as it cross-pollinated with other fields of social justice) was the concept of intersectionality and the notion that all oppressions are connected. Ultimately the post-third-wave model of oppression isn't that men (as a category) are oppressing women (as a category), it's that society creates oppression by enforcing firm and inflexible identities on people based on intrinsic qualities like gender, race, orientation, ability, etc.

When you look at it like that, there's really no reason different groups can't work together with the shared goal of breaking down restrictive identities in society and combating oppression in general.

Now this I can get on board with. For a comprehensive account of the particular oppressive identity that men labour under, see this essay: http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminism-and-the-disposable-male/

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Men Rights, its hard to even read with out laughing. I think the sexes are pretty even as far as society and the laws. Women have all the opportunities as a man does or pretty damn close. Groups to protect the rights of men, its hysterical if you need this shit your kinda missing the point of being a man.

So...you think the sexes are pretty even and therefore you laugh at the idea of a Mens Rights Movement. Let me ask you, since you feel the sexes are pretty even, do you also laugh at the idea of a Womens Rights Movement (ie, feminism)?

If only there were a surefire way to avoid getting a girl pregnant.

If you lack the self control to either wear a condom or abstain from the one activity that can create a child then tough shit.

Obviously condoms break but there are countless activities with the potential for a negative outcome and if you choose to take that risk, you deal with the consequences.

This assumes of course that you're serious.

A long winded way of saying "keep it in your pants". Interesting thing is that women can have sex, become pregnant and still opt out.

She can have an abortion and if she doesn't want to do that she can always put the baby up for adoption and if that is too much work some states let her just drop the baby off at a safe location, no strings attached. For men it's just "keep it in your pants or welcome to parenthood".

So...is the bias clear yet?

It would be more accurate to say that our position is that men's issues (the real ones; not the ones that are just misogynistic whining disguised as issues advocacy) and women's issues are caused by by the same patriarchal system. Our perspective is that working on deconstructing patriarchy also benefits men. I wouldn't care if someone wanted to deconstruct patriarchy because doing such a thing would benefit men, while not caring a whit about what benefits it would have for women.

Right, so come under our umbrella MRA's, we're on the same side?

Ok, sounds great. A few questions though:

What are your plans for fixing the family courts?
What are your plans for addressing prison rape against males?
What are your plans for addressing the way males are presented in the media? The same media that shapes the children of the future.
What are your plans to address violence against men, which aside from domestic violence is higher than violence against women?

Oh, I see, you have no plans to deal with those issues. Ok then, guess we'll continue on with our own little movement.

People want to know why these issues aren't taken seriously and I'm telling them straight up, their spokespeople so far are misogynistic bitter brats. If they want to get angry about the truth oh well. I have discussed these issues and I've linked to books and studies about them. I'm not a "men have no issues worth discussing" advocate but I cannot in good conscience act like the groups in this movement are anything but hate groups.

So, you agree that men have valid grievances but you are really waiting for the perfect MRA group to come along before you will take these issues seriously? Of course, when you were shown a positive group you shot them down too. You're exact words were (Page 5 #214):

They're another group that endorses bullshit about VAWA.

Well, let's face it, no MRA group is ever going to meet with your approval. I appreciate that you see the issues, I don't appreciate that you find excuses to dismiss them.

I'm sorry, but I can't take that position seriously. It's only hurtful to the child, and is pushing towards creating a society with even more impoverished single mothers and disadvantaged, father-less children. The resulting negatives way outweigh any potential equality you're attempting to justify.

You don't want men to have an opt-out of parenthood, right?

So uh, is abortion hurtful to the child in your opinion?

See, no one will argue that abortion is punishing the child but people will argue that men not paying child support is. If you even suggest that abortion is hurtful to the child or punishing the child you will be slapped down with 100 people telling you that a woman shouldn't be held hostage to a fetus. Why should a man be held hostage to a fetus? Giving the man a way to opt out before pregnancy occurs or during the same time period that the woman has to abort seems the "equal" thing to do. You are interested in equality, right?

 

[Douche McBaggins The 3rd]

So...you think the sexes are pretty even and therefore you laugh at the idea of a Mens Rights Movement. Let me ask you, since you feel the sexes are pretty even, do you also laugh at the idea of a Womens Rights Movement (ie, feminism)?



A long winded way of saying "keep it in your pants". Interesting thing is that women can have sex, become pregnant and still opt out.

She can have an abortion and if she doesn't want to do that she can always put the baby up for adoption and if that is too much work some states let her just drop the baby off at a safe location, no strings attached. For men it's just "keep it in your pants or welcome to parenthood".

So...is the bias clear yet?



Right, so come under our umbrella MRA's, we're on the same side?

Ok, sounds great. A few questions though:

What are your plans for fixing the family courts?
What are your plans for addressing prison rape against males?
What are your plans for addressing the way males are presented in the media? The same media that shape the children of the future.
What are your plans to address violence against men, which aside from domestic violence is higher than violence against women?

Oh, I see, you have no plans to deal with those issues. Ok then, guess we'll continue on with our own little movement.

There isn't a plan. It's to smile, grin and nod like most men and feminists try to dissuade the general population from believing there is any legitimate grievances.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

I've checked feminist blogs and websites for the last two hours to see if the so often here repeated claim "feminism covers men's rights issues" is true. I didn't see a single article specificaly focussing on a men's rights issue. Not ruling out that such articles exist or that some feminists genuinely care about it but it's obvious to me after checking the sites that it doesn't seem to play much of a role in the grand scheme of things. Not asking for a 50-50 representation of mens rights issues but surely at least regularely something should pop up that concerns itself with it for a movement that covers it according to some users here?

In fact after digging a little deeper i found a statement on a feminist FAQ that encouraged men to create their own spaces for discussion of men's rights issues. (then why the reflex like ridicule evertime a men's right issue is even mentioned?)

The closest that i found during these two hours regarding men's rights was something about verbal harrasment of homosexuals and non masculine men which was mentioned in the context of verbal harrasement of women.

There is no denial that feminism focusses first and foremost on women's rights issues, which is fine in and of itself. But with that in mind it appears severely dishonest to proclaim that feminism is the natural home for everyone interested in gender equality issues.

It happens here too, a million pro feminist threads pop up and any mention of mens rights gets you told you are hijacking the thread and to start one on mens rights. That's how I ended up in this thread actually.

Well, here we are in a mens rights thread and what do we have? Well, most of the thread is feminists (male and female ones) telling us we don't need a movement and/or laughing at the concept that us privileged men aren't out spending our time taking a cruise around the world on our "you get this for being born male" yachts.

Now, before I came to this thread I was told that feminists don't invade threads like this, but rather talk with us about our problems and the best way to solve them. What can I say except, bullshit. According to them, the best way to solve mens rights issues (after the cruise) is to become feminists and then wait in line for them to get around to giving a shit about mens issues.

 

[Yaboosh]

It happens here too, a million pro feminist threads pop up and any mention of mens rights gets you told you are hijacking the thread and to start one on mens rights. That's how I ended up in this thread actually.

Well, here we are in a mens rights thread and what do we have? Well, most of the thread is feminists (male and female ones) telling us we don't need a movement and/or laughing at the concept that us privileged men aren't out spending our time taking a cruise around the world on our "you get this for being born male" yachts.

Now, before I came to this thread I was told that feminists don't invade threads like this, but rather talk with us about our problems and the best way to solve them. What can I say except, bullshit. According to them, the best way to solve mens rights issues (after the cruise) is to become feminists and then wait in line for them to get around to giving a shit about mens issues.

I know I will regret asking this, but what do you think are the main issues facing men today?

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

I know I will regret asking this, but what do you think are the main issues facing men today?

Why would you regret asking this and why does it matter what I, personally think are the main issues facing men? This thread is full of mens issues and I agree with most of them. Actually, you can just read my posts on page 17 and get your answer. I'll wait.



Ok, get your answer. Why did you want to know?

 

[Freezie KO]

I know I will regret asking this, but what do you think are the main issues facing men today?

There's a post that is 4 posts above yours. I know I will regret asking this, but why didn't you read, at least, the page that you're posting on before asking?

 

[Admiral Bone to Pick]

I know I will regret asking this, but what do you think are the main issues facing men today?

-Higher suicide rates

-Significantly higher crime rates

-Lower grades in school through all levels of education, controlled for race, income level, etc., lower college enrollment rates

-Shorter life expectancy, more likely to contract heart disease and cancer

-Higher unemployment; lower class male-dominated fields (e.g. construction) were hit hard by the recent recession

I think the backlash against some misogynist MRA people has basically made the entire movement a target, even though there are many legitimate issues facing men today.

 

[Platy]

I think the backlash against some misogynist MRA people has basically made the entire movement a target, even though there are many legitimate issues facing men today.

...so, do you think that "Men Rights" should be renamed ?

 

[Yaboosh]

Why would you regret asking this and why does it matter what I, personally think are the main issues facing men? This thread is full of mens issues and I agree with most of them. Actually, you can just read my posts on page 17 and get your answer. I'll wait.



Ok, get your answer. Why did you want to know?

So are the four things you posted in your response the four main issues men face?

Why does it matter what you think are the issues facing men? Because I am trying to have a discussion with you and I want to know. But I already regret it.

There's a post that is 4 posts above yours. I know I will regret asking this, but why didn't you read, at least, the page that you're posting on before asking?

Where does it say that he thinks those are the main issues?

 

[Admiral Bone to Pick]

...so, do you think that "Men Rights" should be renamed ?

You could rename it the "Men's Issues" movement if you wanted to, but it wouldn't make much of a difference if people already have a vendetta against it.

 

[gutter_trash]

the bond between father and son has to evolve with more compassion IMO

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

So are the four things you posted in your response the four main issues men face?

Why does it matter what you think are the issues facing men? Because I am trying to have a discussion with you and I want to know. But I already regret it.



Where does it say that he thinks those are the main issues?

You don't start a discussion with "I know I am going to regret asking this". What that told me is that anything I typed would be looked down on.

Anyway, I don't think there are any main issues as I think most mentioned in this thread are equally important. I haven't put them into a priority list and most of the issues are equally open for discussion. For example, I don't want to talk about men being free to cross dress. It's a valid issue for some and there are double standards but it's just not an issue I take interest in.

Someone mentioned the high suicide rates of men, that issue is directly tied to the family courts. Many issues are tied to each other and it is as simple as putting them in a top ten list. Not for me anyway.

...so, do you think that "Men Rights" should be renamed ?

Some have suggested a name change. The MHRM, The Mens Human Rights Movement.