The false "Facts" of the MRA movement.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

taciturnCandid:
I usually don't get involved with this but take a look at those CDC numbers.

Men forced to penetrate numbers are almost the same number as women raped. The reason for the discrepancy in male rape vs female rape is simply the definition.

Or not.

For a start, there's a problem that 1:1 ratio in the last 12 months does not remotely correspond with the 4:1 ratio in lifetime occurrence. This means it's unsafe to claim the figures for male and female are "almost the same", because you're cherry picking which stats to use. On a deeper level, I think the disparity suggests some kind methodological problem.

Data is correct by the criteria it was gathered. The stats also includes attempted rapes. Whilst rape is usefully split into three categories (completed, attempted, and drugs assisted completed) in that survey, forced penetration is unhelpfully not. The specific question asked by the CDC survey regarding rape / forced penetration appears to have been "When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, did..."

That's an extremely broad way to interpret rape. Most people of any gender or ideological persuasion do not consider (consensual) sex whilst only moderately drunk to be rape, nor do almost any jurisdictions I know recognise it as rape either. However, lots of people have sex whilst drunk, and so a substantial number may answer yes to this question. This will result in sex that the state, most people (including those using these stats to claim rape victim parity) and potentially even the victims themselves don't believe is rape being recorded as rape by the survey.

It's worth noting that other major crime victim surveys exist, and - whilst they unfortunately don't generally measure male rape satisfactorily - tend to come with rather lower figures for female rape. This would consistent with the idea that the definitions in the CDC survey are much looser.

There are therefore significant methodological and statistical issues that make such a claim of parity far more problematic than it might seem. Whilst it might be true, we need much better data to really say so.

Agema:

For a start, there's a problem that 1:1 ratio in the last 12 months does not remotely correspond with the 4:1 ratio in lifetime occurrence. This means it's unsafe to claim the figures for male and female are "almost the same", because you're cherry picking which stats to use. On a deeper level, I think the disparity suggests some kind methodological problem.

I've wondered about that too. However, the 12 month figures present a better value for calculating current rates of occurence, and thus suggesting that they paint current rates as "almost the same" is entirely reasonable.

The lifetime rate is a bit less useful for that purpose, as events that happened in the 80s are in those numbers. Why is there such a big gap between lifetime and previous 12 month numbers? Well, it could be that there was a wide gap in rates of occurrence in the past that has since closed. Or it could have everything to do with how people process and remember things (essentially being told you can't be a victim of that over a long period of time coloring how you process and recall it). Or it could be some methodological issue, though I'd love a suggestion as to what that could be, since they're using essentially the same questions aside from the time frame referenced, are they not?

Agema:
Data is correct by the criteria it was gathered. The stats also includes attempted rapes. Whilst rape is usefully split into three categories (completed, attempted, and drugs assisted completed) in that survey, forced penetration is unhelpfully not. The specific question asked by the CDC survey regarding rape / forced penetration appears to have been "When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, did..."

That's an extremely broad way to interpret rape. Most people of any gender or ideological persuasion do not consider (consensual) sex whilst only moderately drunk to be rape, nor do almost any jurisdictions I know recognise it as rape either. However, lots of people have sex whilst drunk, and so a substantial number may answer yes to this question. This will result in sex that the state, most people (including those using these stats to claim rape victim parity) and potentially even the victims themselves don't believe is rape being recorded as rape by the survey.

Another interesting question that could be answered by reading over the survey instrument for NISVS, does the "made to penetrate" category include attempted cases or only completed ones?

You're basically arguing the exact opposite of the people who argue that you can't ask about "rape" directly because not enough people will respond affirmatively to being directly asked if they've been raped. For example, Mary Koss -- the origin of the "1 in 4" rape statistic arrived at that number from a study in which only about a quarter of her "rape victims" would agree that they had been raped. Another example, according to Tamen from Genderratic: "The latest CSEW did a split-sample experiment to test a new set of questions. The new questions had an option that male victims who had been made to penetrate could answer yes. The analysts classified those who answered yes to that question as NON-VICTIMS."

It's also worth noting that there's a trend to minimize male victims in studies on these kinds of topics. Generally not in the data itself, but in how the data is analyzed, interpreted, and presented. You can go from boys or men being ~1/3 of victims of something to only talking about the harm it does to girls in the jump from raw data to summaries and presentation, in a way that makes you wonder if there's an agenda involved. There's also a trend for people strongly on one specific side of the fence to move the goalposts, going from "most victims are women" to "prevalence being similar is irrelevant, it's more severe when it happens to women" to "severity being similar is irrelevant, now some other aspect is what's important" that makes even trying to discuss these topics unpleasant at a minimum.

You see the same thing when talking about gender and education, where at some point after girls/women started having generally better educational outcomes than boys/men there was a sudden need to focus entirely on the handful of fields where that isn't the case as being problematic, and blame boy's/men's lesser performance everywhere else on femmephobia, because when women are behind, the problem is men holding them down -- when men are behind, the problem is men holding themselves down.

Agema:
Whilst it might be true, we need much better data to really say so.

I think this is one thing that literally everyone would agree on.

Gethsemani:
feminists and anti-MRA people point out things like "RegisterHer"

Aside from the so-called "editorial categories" (which even a lot of proponents of the site find to be bullshit and a dilution of the site's purpose), do you have anyone you have a particular issue with?

I do find your "without proof it was an intentional act" thing a bit confusing though. Do you have someone in mind for whom it might not have been an intentional act? How do you claim "this person raped me" unintentionally? Are you talking about mistaken identity? If so, wouldn't that preclude any case where the defendant is specifically named and known to the accuser?

Schadrach:
snip for space

Methodological problems are methodological problems.

I have considerable concerns with attempting to overly explain them in the absence of investigation because it is more likely to be an exercise in personal "spin".

Mr F.:
So recently this (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/myths-of-the-manosphere-lying-about-women) got posted to my facebook wall by the Anti-Lad (Before you think it is an "Anti-men" movement, it is just a group of people who hate Lad culture. Its a British thing that I could attempt to explain if you wish.) group I am part of. Essentially, It outlines that three of the main claims of MRA's are utter bullshit.

The first, one I have heard here, is that men are just as often victimised in sex crimes and abuse as women are. This is false. The second "fact" to be debunked is domestic violence is equal between the sexes, this is also false. The third "fact", although admittadly it is one that I have not heard too much here recently, is that up to 50% (or greater) of sexual assault/rape cases are falsified.

So, can we move on? I do have one friend who is more affiliated with the MRA movement than my own Feminism, we occasionally discuss issues. However, when we do discuss things he does attempt to stick to the facts.

This is a discussion that should be had. I just want the rhetoric to move away from falsified statistics (Or just utterly bullshit studies) and towards actual, structural, issues. Lets ditch the strawmen arguments, that all MRA's are misogynistic wankers and that all feminists are a branch of incredibly specific Tumblr feminists that are actually rather difficult to find.

The link is there if you want to read it strait from the Southern Poverty Law Center. Below I will spoiler the relevant bits.

Whilst that last one still shows there is a problem (A false rape charge can demolish you utterly as a human. Seriously.) the problem is not even close to the scale that is being indicated. That needs to change.

See, Feminists like myself (And the majority of us, seriously) see issues and do want them changed. False rape accusations should never happen. Women getting preferential treatment in child custody should not happen. The terms used in rape law within the UK should be changed (Words do matter). Patriarchy does a lot of damage to us men, it changes both how women and men are treated within society, we are molded to act in a certain way.

Now whilst I am at it I am going to put a counter argument to an incredibly common attack on Feminism. If anyone can come up with an argument, I will edit this post and spoiler my response.

Lets keep it civil guys (And gals). We all have important points to make, I just want us to start using data that is not falsified etc etc.

I'm not a part of any movement but men's right groups have a right to exist whether you like it or not.
You can't fix gender issues but focusing solely on the needs women. You need the other side of the argument.

Oirish_Martin:

If there is one question I would like an answer to (from anyone), it is the one I have kept coming back to -

There is some degree of assholery in both groups - why is feminism's level of assholery fine, but the MRM's means it has to entirely shut down? ... What makes feminism, the group you just happen to belong to, which is not short of its own assholery, the benchmark for all other assholery?

Again - how much is "too much", and why does this make it acceptable to expect a movement doing "too much" to not exist?

I'll take a stab at this. It's because it seems as if the only reason MRA's exist is to antagonize feminists, to counter them, to take up a position that is in direct opposition to feminism, etc.

If you say this is an unfair characterization, that MRA's actually do fight for men's rights issues and equality, then they need to take serious steps to SEEM like that is what they are about and not the former.

MRA's need to stop bringing up unfortunate anecdotes that happen to men and then blaming feminism for them. They need to focus on issues of equality for the sake of equality and nothing else.

For the sake of credibility MRA's need to steer clear of the impression of "we exist to be the polar opposite of you, and we are here to piss you off, so deal with it."

I'd like to see an MRA group not mention feminists or feminism for a year while and still exist and be doing things after that year.

I agree that some of the issues brought up by MRA's do need addressing, but I have a hard time marching under their specific banner when it seems to read "We hate feminists. Look at the problems feminism has caused", then in fine print it reads "Oh, and here are some issues we would like to work on once (while) we've dismantled the feminist movement."

You see I didn't even need to evoke "too much" to make my argument, and for the record I frequently find myself thinking that the whole of humanity needs to "not exist", nevermind various groups of humans.

Why is this such a big deal? Plenty of people through the course of decades (more than a century now) have insisted that feminism as a movement should not exist. People still today are thinking and saying it, but you are only outraged when someone thinks that of your precious group? Also, note that feminism continued to exist despite the opposition.

shadowuser10141:

Mr F.:
So recently this (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/myths-of-the-manosphere-lying-about-women) got posted to my facebook wall by the Anti-Lad (Before you think it is an "Anti-men" movement, it is just a group of people who hate Lad culture. Its a British thing that I could attempt to explain if you wish.) group I am part of. Essentially, It outlines that three of the main claims of MRA's are utter bullshit.

The first, one I have heard here, is that men are just as often victimised in sex crimes and abuse as women are. This is false. The second "fact" to be debunked is domestic violence is equal between the sexes, this is also false. The third "fact", although admittadly it is one that I have not heard too much here recently, is that up to 50% (or greater) of sexual assault/rape cases are falsified.

So, can we move on? I do have one friend who is more affiliated with the MRA movement than my own Feminism, we occasionally discuss issues. However, when we do discuss things he does attempt to stick to the facts.

This is a discussion that should be had. I just want the rhetoric to move away from falsified statistics (Or just utterly bullshit studies) and towards actual, structural, issues. Lets ditch the strawmen arguments, that all MRA's are misogynistic wankers and that all feminists are a branch of incredibly specific Tumblr feminists that are actually rather difficult to find.

The link is there if you want to read it strait from the Southern Poverty Law Center. Below I will spoiler the relevant bits.

Whilst that last one still shows there is a problem (A false rape charge can demolish you utterly as a human. Seriously.) the problem is not even close to the scale that is being indicated. That needs to change.

See, Feminists like myself (And the majority of us, seriously) see issues and do want them changed. False rape accusations should never happen. Women getting preferential treatment in child custody should not happen. The terms used in rape law within the UK should be changed (Words do matter). Patriarchy does a lot of damage to us men, it changes both how women and men are treated within society, we are molded to act in a certain way.

Now whilst I am at it I am going to put a counter argument to an incredibly common attack on Feminism. If anyone can come up with an argument, I will edit this post and spoiler my response.

Lets keep it civil guys (And gals). We all have important points to make, I just want us to start using data that is not falsified etc etc.

I'm not a part of any movement but men's right groups have a right to exist whether you like it or not.
You can't fix gender issues but focusing solely on the needs women. You need the other side of the argument.

The 'other side' of the argument? That women should have no rights? Because that's the other side of the argument about what rights women should have.

Men's rights and women's rights are not in opposition. MRA groups != men's rights. Quite frankly they seem to have at least some who subscribe to gender role ideas that are sexist against men.

Jarimir:
I'll take a stab at this. It's because it seems as if the only reason MRA's exist is to antagonize feminists, to counter them, to take up a position that is in direct opposition to feminism, etc.

I've heard it phrased roughly thus: men's rights is a smaller and "younger" movement as as such a higher proportion of the membership is made up of people who have first-hand grievances - as opposed to feminism where a lot of feminists came into the movement not because they had a negative event in their lives that caused them to gain an interest in activism, but through a kind of political consensus.

Jarimir:
I'd like to see an MRA group not mention feminists or feminism for a year while and still exist and be doing things after that year.

Well, to be fair, a lot of the problems MRAs talk about are, in their view, manifestations of feminism going too far, or eroding men's rights, or endowing women with undue privilege. It's kind of analogous to how feminists tend to talk about patriarchy as a recurring theme.

Jarimir:
I'd like to see an MRA group not mention feminists or feminism for a year while and still exist and be doing things after that year.

Not that I'm a group in of myself, but it's extremely difficult to bring up for a lot of people without them responding with "feminism" of some kind. Just the mention that I'm an MRA sends a few foaming at the mouth. Then they get confused when I say I'm also a feminist.

I get your point about the blame though; I've been guilty of it myself. It's easy to pick a faceless ideology such as feminism or patriarchy over accepting that these are individual people making these choices and sadly creating unfortunate consequences for others in the process.

But I speak only for myself, as I have been both ejected from feminist and MRA circles for voicing dissenting opinion.

DevilWithaHalo:

I get your point about the blame though; I've been guilty of it myself. It's easy to pick a faceless ideology such as feminism or patriarchy over accepting that these are individual people making these choices and sadly creating unfortunate consequences for others in the process.

Uh what? Faceless ideology like patriarchy? I think your attempt to make a comparison falls rather flat when only one is an ideology.

The opposite of a patriarchy would be a matriarchy. Feminism does not call for a matriarchy to replace a patriarchy, it suggests that both sexes should have equal standing (not that it is possible to have a 50/50 split but in an egalitarian society things would not be so skewed to either sex). At the moment we live in (among other things) a patriarchy (a kyriarchy does exist because class, race and a lot of other issues contribute to the problem. but the patriarchy is a part of the kyriarchy.) That is just the reality. I don't see how anyone can look at the percentage of men vs women in our governments and see anything else. Or the percentage of male ceo's vs female ceo's. Or even that men are still considered the dominant partner in a relationship (to the point that homosexual couples still get asked who is the "man" and who is the "woman" in a relationship when someone wants to know who is the more dominant partner.) So while there are aspects of our society where women have more influence (careers centering around child care for instance) it's a drop in the bucket compared to the overall picture. Men as a group have more money and more political power. Even more influence when it comes to our religious institutions. And as hard as those men worked to receive that, it doesn't change the fact that for centuries women were barred from entering those positions, thus creating the inequality that we have today.

DevilWithaHalo:

Jarimir:
I'd like to see an MRA group not mention feminists or feminism for a year while and still exist and be doing things after that year.

Not that I'm a group in of myself, but it's extremely difficult to bring up for a lot of people without them responding with "feminism" of some kind. Just the mention that I'm an MRA sends a few foaming at the mouth. Then they get confused when I say I'm also a feminist.

I get your point about the blame though; I've been guilty of it myself. It's easy to pick a faceless ideology such as feminism or patriarchy over accepting that these are individual people making these choices and sadly creating unfortunate consequences for others in the process.

But I speak only for myself, as I have been both ejected from feminist and MRA circles for voicing dissenting opinion.

That's because you are giving mixed signals.
MRA's have gained a certain reputation, mostly through their own actions and speech, and by telling people you are of this group you get a certain amount of package to deal with you might not want to carry, but do need to deal with because you yourself decided to pick up the banner they come with.

And you could have just as well said that you support equal rights to both genders, and be done with it.

Also, feminism started in a time when women clearly were in lesser position in almost all walks of life, including lacking the right to vote in many places, and they were reviled for trying to fight for equal rights for themselves.
where as MRA's started in a time when, debatably, men still are in a position of power, and while there are inequalities (custody for example), most of the rhetoric from MRA's is concentrated not on inequalities and/or solutions, but the odd view that those equalities are somehow the fault of women or feminism.

mecegirl:
The opposite of a patriarchy would be a matriarchy. Feminism does not call for a matriarchy to replace a patriarchy, it suggests that both sexes should have equal standing (not that it is possible to have a 50/50 split but in an egalitarian society things would not be so skewed to either sex). At the moment we live in (among other things) a patriarchy (a kyriarchy does exist because class, race and a lot of other issues contribute to the problem. but the patriarchy is a part of the kyriarchy.) That is just the reality. I don't see how anyone can look at the percentage of men vs women in our governments and see anything else. Or the percentage of male ceo's vs female ceo's. Or even that men are still considered the dominant partner in a relationship (to the point that homosexual couples still get asked who is the "man" and who is the "woman" in a relationship when someone wants to know who is the more dominant partner.) So while there are aspects of our society where women have more influence (careers centering around child care for instance) it's a drop in the bucket compared to the overall picture. Men as a group have more money and more political power. Even more influence when it comes to our religious institutions. And as hard as those men worked to receive that, it doesn't change the fact that for centuries women were barred from entering those positions, thus creating the inequality that we have today.

Here's the problem though. Patriarchy means many things nowadays. But according to its initial meaning what you describe is not a patriarchy. A patriarchal political system would be one where women are not allowed to participate. And for households as far as i know most have divided or egalitarian power structures. Patriarchal and matriarchal households form a minority. The days in which the dad would tell the son "when i'm gone you'll be the man of the household and take care of it" are gone since quite a few decades. (Which is what a patriarchal household would do: passing power from man to man)

The statistical reality is irrelevant to the existence of a patriarchy if you ask me. Because if it is than the word has truly lost all its meaning and we might as well call it "wobble". A patriarchy is supposed to describe a system not a statistical reality.

Master of the Skies:

I'm not a part of any movement but men's right groups have a right to exist whether you like it or not.
You can't fix gender issues but focusing solely on the needs women. You need the other side of the argument.

The 'other side' of the argument? That women should have no rights? Because that's the other side of the argument about what rights women should have.

Men's rights and women's rights are not in opposition. MRA groups != men's rights. Quite frankly they seem to have at least some who subscribe to gender role ideas that are sexist against men.[/quote]

The problem is not people advocating rights for men, the problem is that these same people like to shift focus and blame, and even when they do not, resources are being diverted from women to men.
We have limited resources, limited state-hearing time, limited court-time, limited attention-time. I prefer to put these resources where they are most needed, on women, to level the playing-field. This means that 'men's problems' will get addressed less, and give less priority, for the moment than women's. And I'm fine with that to, because we can't have ultimate equality right now, not when we don't have unlimited resources.
It's called positive discrimination, and I'm quite fine with that too, since the end justifies the means.

generals3:

Here's the problem though. Patriarchy means many things nowadays. But according to its initial meaning what you describe is not a patriarchy. A patriarchal political system would be one where women are not allowed to participate. And for households as far as i know most have divided or egalitarian power structures. Patriarchal and matriarchal households form a minority. The days in which the dad would tell the son "when i'm gone you'll be the man of the household and take care of it" are gone since quite a few decades. (Which is what a patriarchal household would do: passing power from man to man)

The statistical reality is irrelevant to the existence of a patriarchy if you ask me. Because if it is than the word has truly lost all its meaning and we might as well call it "wobble". A patriarchy is supposed to describe a system not a statistical reality.

Sure it does, but that's not unlike other words that have different meanings depending on context. Patriarchy has one meaning in anthropology (a society controlled by men) and one in gender studies (a social system designed to benefit men, to simplify a bit). It is quite simple to understand how the two meanings of patriarchy are similar and how they differ if you just spend an hour or two studying the topic.

The "statistical reality" mecegirl refers to is the evidence for the existence of patriarchal structures (gender studies definition of the word) within contemporary westerns society. Saying it is irrelevant is like saying that shell casings on the scene of a gunshot murder is irrelevant, because these statistics (the disproportionate representation of men in all higher positions in all walks of life, the disproportionate amount of time women spend doing household chores etc.) all point towards a system that favors men over women. That this system is implicit does not make it less true, it only makes it harder to adequately identify, measure and deal with. Just like the shell casings can help identify the gun used by the shooter, so can these statistics help us see the implicit, hidden systems that creates different expectations and opportunities for people based on their gender.

Realitycrash:

The problem is not people advocating rights for men, the problem is that these same people like to shift focus and blame, and even when they do not, resources are being diverted from women to men.
We have limited resources, limited state-hearing time, limited court-time, limited attention-time. I prefer to put these resources where they are most needed, on women, to level the playing-field. This means that 'men's problems' will get addressed less, and give less priority, for the moment than women's. And I'm fine with that to, because we can't have ultimate equality right now, not when we don't have unlimited resources.
It's called positive discrimination, and I'm quite fine with that too, since the end justifies the means.

There is a problem with this line of thinking though. Often this line of thinking is backed up with statistics. But something a lot of people tend to forget is that these statistics take into account the reality of past generations as well. My parents are part of the statistics and some young adult's grand parents even. So we have positive discrimination being applied to this young generation based on numbers which actually do not reflect their reality. And the worst part is that these policies will affect them the most by far. Take self imposed diversity policies. Whether or not companies will try extra hard to hire women will barely affect my parents generation because they have already been through the recruitment process decades ago and they've evolved inside the company under passed policies. Who is being affected by it? People like me. People who have been raised and growing up in a far less gendered reality (at least when it comes to employment). When people talk about male privilege and the advantage of being a man in the work place all I can think of is "What advantage? The one of being put on the lower priority list because of self-imposed quotas?".

I'm sorry but I'm not fine with paying for mistakes of the older generations. And this is what feminist agendas ultimately result in. The younger generation of men being disadvantaged because their grandparents did the opposite.

generals3:

Realitycrash:

The problem is not people advocating rights for men, the problem is that these same people like to shift focus and blame, and even when they do not, resources are being diverted from women to men.
We have limited resources, limited state-hearing time, limited court-time, limited attention-time. I prefer to put these resources where they are most needed, on women, to level the playing-field. This means that 'men's problems' will get addressed less, and give less priority, for the moment than women's. And I'm fine with that to, because we can't have ultimate equality right now, not when we don't have unlimited resources.
It's called positive discrimination, and I'm quite fine with that too, since the end justifies the means.

There is a problem with this line of thinking though. Often this line of thinking is backed up with statistics. But something a lot of people tend to forget is that these statistics take into account the reality of past generations as well. My parents are part of the statistics and some young adult's grand parents even. So we have positive discrimination being applied to this young generation based on numbers which actually do not reflect their reality. And the worst part is that these policies will affect them the most by far. Take self imposed diversity policies. Whether or not companies will try extra hard to hire women will barely affect my parents generation because they have already been through the recruitment process decades ago and they've evolved inside the company under passed policies. Who is being affected by it? People like me. People who have been raised and growing up in a far less gendered reality (at least when it comes to employment). When people talk about male privilege and the advantage of being a man in the work place all I can think of is "What advantage? The one of being put on the lower priority list because of self-imposed quotas?".

I'm sorry but I'm not fine with paying for mistakes of the older generations. And this is what feminist agendas ultimately result in. The younger generation of men being disadvantaged because their grandparents did the opposite.

So adjust the statistics to properly show the situation? That is a material problem, not an ideological problem. Women still get the shit end of the stick. Maybe not slightly as much as ten years ago, or twenty, but still by a far. So sorry, but the world isn't gender-neutral. It's not even close. And the struggle goes on. If you think that it is, and we are just using 'old statistics', then..Well, wow, I have no idea what to say then.

And please, no 'feminist agenda'. As a personal favor to me, just don't. Whenever someone talks about 'Liberal agendas' or 'gay agendas' or 'conservative agendas' I have a hard time taking them seriously, because it often ends up with lumping every single person who might share an attribute with the agenda-name into a pigeon-hole for easy sorting.

Gethsemani:

Sure it does, but that's not unlike other words that have different meanings depending on context. Patriarchy has one meaning in anthropology (a society controlled by men) and one in gender studies (a social system designed to benefit men, to simplify a bit). It is quite simple to understand how the two meanings of patriarchy are similar and how they differ if you just spend an hour or two studying the topic.

The "statistical reality" mecegirl refers to is the evidence for the existence of patriarchal structures (gender studies definition of the word) within contemporary westerns society. Saying it is irrelevant is like saying that shell casings on the scene of a gunshot murder is irrelevant, because these statistics (the disproportionate representation of men in all higher positions in all walks of life, the disproportionate amount of time women spend doing household chores etc.) all point towards a system that favors men over women. That this system is implicit does not make it less true, it only makes it harder to adequately identify, measure and deal with. Just like the shell casings can help identify the gun used by the shooter, so can these statistics help us see the implicit, hidden systems that creates different expectations and opportunities for people based on their gender.

While I guess i went too far by saying "irrelevant". It is only relevant if a causal link has been proven. And as i just mentioned in my reply to reality what people forget is that the statistics also contain data from previous generations which grew up in a different system. And this creates a lot of noise, noise that is often being used as significant data because it serves the purpose of those using said numbers. For instance the percentage of people in the upper tier managament right now does not reflect the reality of our current societal values. Because the people there have been mostly affected by the ideas and policies of 20-50 years ago. Trying to determine the issues of our society now by using data which tells little about the current policies and ideas is dishonest and will probably lead to policies which affect the wrong people being implemented.

Realitycrash:

So adjust the statistics to properly show the situation? That is a material problem, not an ideological problem. Women still get the shit end of the stick. Maybe not slightly as much as ten years ago, or twenty, but still by a far. So sorry, but the world isn't gender-neutral. It's not even close. And the struggle goes on. If you think that it is, and we are just using 'old statistics', then..Well, wow, I have no idea what to say then.

But when statistics are adjusted it is blatantly being overlooked. Take the wage gap for instance. It is actually minimal among the young generation and it increases with age. It could be interpreted in three ways: "glass ceiling", "wage discrimination has become almost inexistant" or "remnant of past discrimination". I personally believe it's mainly the two latter (though the first one could still have an impact as well since many on the top or old and may be affected by the values under which they were raised). But that's not what people fighting for gender equality usually push forward. They tend to overlook the possibility wage discrimination has decreased to a marginal level and the numbers may be a result of past discrimination. They still try to pretend as if the wage policies are extremely sexist. Why the idea that the wage gap is primarily an effect of past policies seems so impossible is beyond me. For instance a woman who was denied a promotion 20 years ago because "she was a woman" will still feel its effect now even if the company has moved past these biases. And forcing a quota onto the company will actually not restore "justice" but probably discriminate against a man who is now competing with the woman over the same promotion. He will basically be paying for the "privilege" guys had 20 years ago.

If we want to know what is truly wrong with our current society we need to look at what is happening to 20-30 years old people.

generals3:

Realitycrash:

So adjust the statistics to properly show the situation? That is a material problem, not an ideological problem. Women still get the shit end of the stick. Maybe not slightly as much as ten years ago, or twenty, but still by a far. So sorry, but the world isn't gender-neutral. It's not even close. And the struggle goes on. If you think that it is, and we are just using 'old statistics', then..Well, wow, I have no idea what to say then.

But when statistics are adjusted it is blatantly being overlooked. Take the wage gap for instance. It is actually minimal among the young generation and it increases with age. It could be interpreted in three ways: "glass ceiling", "wage discrimination has become almost inexistant" or both. I personally believe it's both but that's not what people fighting for gender equality usually push forward. They tend to overlook the possibility wage discrimination has decreased to a marginal level and still try to pretend as if the wage policies are still extremely sexist. Why the idea that the wage gap is primarily an effect of past policies seems so impossible is beyond me. For instance a woman who was denied a promotion 20 years ago because "she was a woman" will still feel its effect now even if the company has moved past these biases. And forcing a quota onto the company will actually not restore "justice" but probably discriminate against a man who is now competing with the woman over the same promotion. He will basically be paying for the "privilege" guys had 20 years ago.

If we want to know what is truly wrong with our current society we need to look at what is happening to 20-30 years old people.

Like I said: Statistics need to be adjusted. There is an inherit problem in statistics as it is, sadly, and it won't go away.
Yet discrimination still exist. There are still few female bosses, women DO make less in certain professions (like lawyer, or doctor), they are extremely underrepresented in politics and in several other male-dominated areas in the work-field. This is a problem. It continues to be a problem. It hasn't gone away. And if you honestly think so, then I have no idea what to tell you.
I'm a man too. I get "discriminated" against by the same policies. Yet we can't have an equal society without someone having to, temporarily, be made disadvantaged.

Realitycrash:

Like I said: Statistics need to be adjusted. There is an inherit problem in statistics as it is, sadly, and it won't go away.
Yet discrimination still exist. There are still few female bosses, women DO make less in certain professions (like lawyer, or doctor), they are extremely underrepresented in politics and in several other male-dominated areas in the work-field. This is a problem. It continues to be a problem. It hasn't gone away. And if you honestly think so, then I have no idea what to tell you.
I'm a man too. I get "discriminated" against by the same policies. Yet we can't have an equal society without someone having to, temporarily, be made disadvantaged.

Discrimination probably does still exist. What i doubt however is that it is as one sides and severe as some people tend to present it. (mainly because they rely on data which contain a lot of noise and they tend to overlook a lot of that "noise")

But take doctors for instance. I remember once talking to a female medic student and she talked about what she wanted to become later. She told me she didn't want to become a doctor with very harsh hours because she wanted to have kids. That's something I never heard any of the male medic students tell me (and i hang out with a lot of them). These type of choices can affect salary a lot because a doctor who has to work a lot during night will probably be compensated for it. Is that sexist? Now I don't know about lawyers but I know that men tend to work more hours than women and i know a lawyer who earns a buttload... well let's just say his work is his life. Working like a mad man does tend to help a lot wage wise in fields like lawyers. So the explanation may very well be "working hours" and not "sexism". (or these explanations can at least explain a part of the gap, which would still make reality much less "sexist" than it may look like)

Now i'm not saying it is impossible that there is sexism but I think we rely too much on data containing a lot of noise and we need to look at the relevant one. For instance do male lawyers who work 40 hours a week earn more than female lawyers who work 40 hours a week?

mecegirl:
Men as a group have more money and more political power.

I'm not sure "men as a group" is a useful concept. "Men" aren't a separate, privileged group existing outside of mainstream society - that's a "group" of 3.5 billion individuals you just described. Surely it's more useful to ask which men hold the majority of wealth and power.

And as hard as those men worked to receive that, it doesn't change the fact that for centuries women were barred from entering those positions, thus creating the inequality that we have today.

I don't see the connection between the two. There's no reason gender inequality couldn't be erased within a generation - it's not something self-perpetuating like class inequality that takes decades and decades to fix.

Batou667:

mecegirl:
Men as a group have more money and more political power.

I'm not sure "men as a group" is a useful concept. "Men" aren't a separate, privileged group existing outside of mainstream society - that's a "group" of 3.5 billion individuals you just described. Surely it's more useful to ask which men hold the majority of wealth and power.

Yes and no. It is absolutely true that being male doesn't prevent a person from being oppressed because of your ethnicity, religion, class, disability, sexuality or anything else. However, that person still has male privilege, which is particularly noticeable when compared to someone else sharing all those other factors who isn't male.

Batou667:
There's no reason gender inequality couldn't be erased within a generation - it's not something self-perpetuating like class inequality that takes decades and decades to fix.

I don't see how that could work. You mean due to poor people being born in poor families, whereas women usually have parents of both genders? While that is true, that's far from the whole problem.

In theory, gender inequality could be fixed in one generation.
But that would require everyone to buy into it, and quite a lot of people are quite happy with a world with inequality (for various reasons), and quite a lot of people are unwilling to accept it exists (both groups overlap, but people can be in one group without the being in the other).

In practice, it would require brainwashing in global scale, not going to happen anytime soon.

thaluikhain:
Yes and no. It is absolutely true that being male doesn't prevent a person from being oppressed because of your ethnicity, religion, class, disability, sexuality or anything else. However, that person still has male privilege, which is particularly noticeable when compared to someone else sharing all those other factors who isn't male.

I'm male, so I accept that makes me less likely to notice male privilege - however, with that said, I'm unconvinced that being a male gives an advantage in all contexts. The only times when I've noticed that I got preferential treatment has been in situations where men are a minority, working in education for example.

thaluikhain:
I don't see how that could work. You mean due to poor people being born in poor families, whereas women usually have parents of both genders? While that is true, that's far from the whole problem.

Yeah, exactly. The reason I eventually came around to the idea of affirmative action, at least in theory, is that just saying sorry and pledging to have a level playing ground from now on doesn't help people who are part of historically underprivileged group and who are therefore stuck in a system which continues to disadvantage them. Inner-city and working-class black people in the US, for example. I don't think being a woman in 21st Century Western society carries anywhere near the same kind of systemic disadvantage. Women have equal access to education (and actually routinely outperform their male counterparts), there are grants and incentives to try to get more women into STEM subjects, and sexual equality laws are in place in the workplace. Many large companies offer creche facilities or childcare vouchers to allow single mothers to work. If there are barriers to workplace equality its either a) lingering sexism, which should hopefully die out as the conservative old farts retire or b) perceived exclusion that doesn't truly exist.

For example, I have some friends who work in the STEM sector and they tell me about the pains their companies and departments go to to try to attract females - outreach programs in primary and secondary schools, open days, educational visits, measures to ensure inclusiveness and equality within the faculty, and so on. But come enrollment day, 95% of the applicants are male. If the girls and women aren't interested in these subjects and these careers, what the hell can they do? Perhaps we could say that society as a whole is to blame for not providing girls with enough diversity of role models (catch 22: not enough role models means few girls enter the field, meaning the sector remains male-dominated, meaning few female role models to inspire the next generation of girls). I get a little upset when people simplistically try to say that the industry is "sexist" or "excludes women" - quite the opposite, many male-dominated fields are bending over backwards these days to accommodate women but the interest just isn't there.

An educated woman in 21st century Western society can become a CEO, an astronaut, a head of state, a businesswoman, a film star, a director - anything. I don't accept the argument that women are excluded (at least not enough for this to be a meaningful, universal rule - sexists still exist) as there are examples of fantastically successful women wherever you look.

Batou667:

An educated woman in 21st century Western society can become a CEO, an astronaut, a head of state, a businesswoman, a film star, a director - anything. I don't accept the argument that women are excluded (at least not enough for this to be a meaningful, universal rule - sexists still exist) as there are examples of fantastically successful women wherever you look.

But an educated man has it easier to become any of those things. The statistics speak for themselves in this regard, of all the examples you listed not one is close to achieving anything that can even remotely resemble parity in gender. Norway is an interesting example in that it actually passed laws demanding that at least 40% of all members in company boards be women and the result was that the formal and actual competence in those boards increased a lot, because instead of choosing their friends and acquaintances (other men) the men on the boards had to start selecting women based on merit.

The problem is that as long as the selection process is mostly performed by men they tend to choose other men. It doesn't matter if it choosing a new CEO, deciding which film scripts to green light or choosing a new department head. Women have the chances too, but they arguably have to work hard than men to get them. Is this sexism? Not on a conscious level, I think. But the institutional sexism is still there, ideas like "women are sooner or later going to choose family over career" or "she could go on maternal leave any second" or "men are much better at dealing with conflicts and crisis".

I was in the army as a part-time soldier just a few months ago. Despite all the work the Swedish military is pouring into appealing to women I was still taken back by just how much "boys locker room" talk there was, with comments being dropped about the asses of female officers, in depth discussion about the perfect breast size and rating of actresses fuckability. I've no doubt that they discussed my ass and rated my fuckability too when I wasn't around, which is one of the reasons that I quit. This isn't really a problem with sexism, but rather a problem with gender roles in general and hegemonic masculinity in particular and as long as it remains it is only natural that women hesitate to join fields in which men are overwhelmingly dominant and normative.

thaluikhain:

Yes and no. It is absolutely true that being male doesn't prevent a person from being oppressed because of your ethnicity, religion, class, disability, sexuality or anything else. However, that person still has male privilege, which is particularly noticeable when compared to someone else sharing all those other factors who isn't male.

I honestly see women getting more privilege than any men do. People get more upset over women getting hurt or demeaned far more than men. Any statistic that shows how much a bad thing happens to a woman is always seen as awful even when that statistic is lower than the one for men. Guys in relationships are expected to please the woman at a detriment to themselves. One of my co-workers, his girlfriend actually smashed his 360 and he just "sucked it up" in spite of how much the things cost (And our job isn't the kind where you're rolling in money either).

If I may alter a famous quote. "A woman's death is a tragedy, a man's death, a statistic."

Gethsemani:

But an educated man has it easier to become any of those things. The statistics speak for themselves in this regard, of all the examples you listed not one is close to achieving anything that can even remotely resemble parity in gender.

So this means we should also be addressing the issue of education where more men are dropping out of college and highschool, yes? This also includes how many teachers are male and female too right? The education system seems to favor women teaching rather than men as well and by a far greater margin than it does with those being taught so we should try and make schools more inclusive towards men, right?

Gethsemani:
But an educated man has it easier to become any of those things. The statistics speak for themselves in this regard, of all the examples you listed not one is close to achieving anything that can even remotely resemble parity in gender. Norway is an interesting example in that it actually passed laws demanding that at least 40% of all members in company boards be women and the result was that the formal and actual competence in those boards increased a lot, because instead of choosing their friends and acquaintances (other men) the men on the boards had to start selecting women based on merit.

I acknowledge that there isn't parity yet, but to conclude that men must have it easier is perhaps an overgeneralisation. It'd be interesting to see exactly why women typically don't progress to the top ranks, and at what stage the drop-out tends to happen. We'd also have to take into account the fact that although there are more female graduates, they're overrepresented in less vocational subjects, and the way women collectively tend to shun STEM subjects (subjects that tend to attract introverted and shy males - certainly not the hegemonic masculinity you mentioned!).

And even if it is provably more difficult for a woman to achieve - that's a reflection of macro society, not necessarily applicable to the individual. People achieve their goals despite being a single parent, or a carer, or epilepsy, or being in a wheelchair. Even if statistically being a woman is a disadvantage in the workplace it'd be a terrible message to send out that "Girls; you're going to have a few more difficulties. You may as well not even try."

Gethsemani:
The problem is that as long as the selection process is mostly performed by men they tend to choose other men. It doesn't matter if it choosing a new CEO, deciding which film scripts to green light or choosing a new department head. Women have the chances too, but they arguably have to work hard than men to get them. Is this sexism? Not on a conscious level, I think. But the institutional sexism is still there, ideas like "women are sooner or later going to choose family over career" or "she could go on maternal leave any second" or "men are much better at dealing with conflicts and crisis".

Yeah, that's a problem.

Gethsemani:
I was in the army as a part-time soldier just a few months ago. Despite all the work the Swedish military is pouring into appealing to women I was still taken back by just how much "boys locker room" talk there was, with comments being dropped about the asses of female officers, in depth discussion about the perfect breast size and rating of actresses fuckability. I've no doubt that they discussed my ass and rated my fuckability too when I wasn't around, which is one of the reasons that I quit. This isn't really a problem with sexism, but rather a problem with gender roles in general and hegemonic masculinity in particular and as long as it remains it is only natural that women hesitate to join fields in which men are overwhelmingly dominant and normative.

Yeah, I didn't mention the military in my last post because that's a trickier nut to crack. What's the solution? Sensitivity training for all new recruits, leading to a "soft" military? Only recruit women who are brash and tough enough to join in with the males' pissing contests and burping competitions? Or have segregated women's battalions? None of them are particularly good solutions. Perhaps there are some jobs that just require a certain kind of masculinity to thrive in - and I say that as a softly-spoken long-haired fop who wouldn't last ten seconds in the army, despite my "male privilege".

Specter Von Baren:

thaluikhain:

Yes and no. It is absolutely true that being male doesn't prevent a person from being oppressed because of your ethnicity, religion, class, disability, sexuality or anything else. However, that person still has male privilege, which is particularly noticeable when compared to someone else sharing all those other factors who isn't male.

I honestly see women getting more privilege than any men do. People get more upset over women getting hurt or demeaned far more than men. Any statistic that shows how much a bad thing happens to a woman is always seen as awful even when that statistic is lower than the one for men. Guys in relationships are expected to please the woman at a detriment to themselves. One of my co-workers, his girlfriend actually smashed his 360 and he just "sucked it up" in spite of how much the things cost (And our job isn't the kind where you're rolling in money either).

If I may alter a famous quote. "A woman's death is a tragedy, a man's death, a statistic."

That would seem to be "benevolent sexism", treating women as fragile and delicate. While this might sometimes seem like a good thing, ultimately it comes from the same attitude that sees women as less capable, with all sorts of obvious problems.

EDIT: The quote marks around "benevolent sexism" are important, that's what it's called, but no sexism is actually benevolent.

thaluikhain:

Specter Von Baren:

thaluikhain:

Yes and no. It is absolutely true that being male doesn't prevent a person from being oppressed because of your ethnicity, religion, class, disability, sexuality or anything else. However, that person still has male privilege, which is particularly noticeable when compared to someone else sharing all those other factors who isn't male.

I honestly see women getting more privilege than any men do. People get more upset over women getting hurt or demeaned far more than men. Any statistic that shows how much a bad thing happens to a woman is always seen as awful even when that statistic is lower than the one for men. Guys in relationships are expected to please the woman at a detriment to themselves. One of my co-workers, his girlfriend actually smashed his 360 and he just "sucked it up" in spite of how much the things cost (And our job isn't the kind where you're rolling in money either).

If I may alter a famous quote. "A woman's death is a tragedy, a man's death, a statistic."

That would seem to be "benevolent sexism", treating women as fragile and delicate. While this might sometimes seem like a good thing, ultimately it comes from the same attitude that sees women as less capable, with all sorts of obvious problems.

EDIT: The quote marks around "benevolent sexism" are important, that's what it's called, but no sexism is actually benevolent.

Then I ask this, who's perpetuating this benevolent sexism? Cui bono? Is it the men that are often the ones that lose out in such situations? Or is it the women who gain from them?

It's interesting too that when a man benefits, it's an undue privilege but when a woman benefits, it's just more sexism.

Batou667:
Yeah, I didn't mention the military in my last post because that's a trickier nut to crack. What's the solution? Sensitivity training for all new recruits, leading to a "soft" military? Only recruit women who are brash and tough enough to join in with the males' pissing contests and burping competitions? Or have segregated women's battalions? None of them are particularly good solutions. Perhaps there are some jobs that just require a certain kind of masculinity to thrive in - and I say that as a softly-spoken long-haired fop who wouldn't last ten seconds in the army, despite my "male privilege".

You've just demonstrated the fact that men do have it easier, and that it is because of sexist attitudes. You equated masculinity, "male-ness" with commenting on female CO's asses, implying that the only solutions are to emasculate men with sensitivity training (with the further implication that demanding basic levels of professionalism weakens a military's strength and makes them "soft") or to only accept women who are willing and able to solve an institutionalized problem with their own personal assertiveness. Men do not have this extra hurdle to jump through. Even with homosexuals integrated into the military, there is not wide-spread gossiping about COs as sex-objects, because it's understood that that is unacceptable. Your CO could in theory be giving you commands that have life-or-death consequences for you and others. It is not a male trait, a powerful or strong trait, to disrespect that CO and treat them like an object for your personal pleasure just because they are a woman. That's the very definition of privilege. Men are allowed to get away with something simply because they are men, and being male and engaging in those unprofessional behaviors is associated in the public mind with strength, power, and effectiveness even as those unprofessional behaviors undermine the chain of command and disrupt the military.

Specter Von Baren:

thaluikhain:

Specter Von Baren:

I honestly see women getting more privilege than any men do. People get more upset over women getting hurt or demeaned far more than men. Any statistic that shows how much a bad thing happens to a woman is always seen as awful even when that statistic is lower than the one for men. Guys in relationships are expected to please the woman at a detriment to themselves. One of my co-workers, his girlfriend actually smashed his 360 and he just "sucked it up" in spite of how much the things cost (And our job isn't the kind where you're rolling in money either).

If I may alter a famous quote. "A woman's death is a tragedy, a man's death, a statistic."

That would seem to be "benevolent sexism", treating women as fragile and delicate. While this might sometimes seem like a good thing, ultimately it comes from the same attitude that sees women as less capable, with all sorts of obvious problems.

EDIT: The quote marks around "benevolent sexism" are important, that's what it's called, but no sexism is actually benevolent.

Then I ask this, who's perpetuating this benevolent sexism? Cui bono? Is it the men that are often the ones that lose out in such situations? Or is it the women who gain from them?

It's interesting too that when a man benefits, it's an undue privilege but when a woman benefits, it's just more sexism.

It does stem a lot from the concept of property though. A man killing another man is a stastictic because it's a murder. Someone killing a woman was both murder and vandalism.

But in this day and age it does come as feminism getting to eat its cake and have it too. With men being to blame for everything.

nyysjan:

DevilWithaHalo:

Jarimir:
I'd like to see an MRA group not mention feminists or feminism for a year while and still exist and be doing things after that year.

Not that I'm a group in of myself, but it's extremely difficult to bring up for a lot of people without them responding with "feminism" of some kind. Just the mention that I'm an MRA sends a few foaming at the mouth. Then they get confused when I say I'm also a feminist.

I get your point about the blame though; I've been guilty of it myself. It's easy to pick a faceless ideology such as feminism or patriarchy over accepting that these are individual people making these choices and sadly creating unfortunate consequences for others in the process.

But I speak only for myself, as I have been both ejected from feminist and MRA circles for voicing dissenting opinion.

That's because you are giving mixed signals.
MRA's have gained a certain reputation, mostly through their own actions and speech, and by telling people you are of this group you get a certain amount of package to deal with you might not want to carry, but do need to deal with because you yourself decided to pick up the banner they come with.

And you could have just as well said that you support equal rights to both genders, and be done with it.

Also, feminism started in a time when women clearly were in lesser position in almost all walks of life, including lacking the right to vote in many places, and they were reviled for trying to fight for equal rights for themselves.
where as MRA's started in a time when, debatably, men still are in a position of power, and while there are inequalities (custody for example), most of the rhetoric from MRA's is concentrated not on inequalities and/or solutions, but the odd view that those equalities are somehow the fault of women or feminism.

I won't disagree that there is a lot of if out there. But I will say that painting it with such a broad brush at this point serves no purpose.

It is precisely the baggage that comes along with the titles why I utilize them over someone who merely says they are for equal rights. I've successfully gotten people to look beyond titles into the reasons for them, which makes all the difference to the discussion. It also helps me separate those interested in learning from those who merely wish to talk.

MRA's and Feminists alike have earned various ire from others for their actions; often for legitimate reasons. It's too often people implement solutions without considering additional problems they may cause by doing so.

DANGER- MUST SILENCE:

Batou667:
Yeah, I didn't mention the military in my last post because that's a trickier nut to crack. What's the solution? Sensitivity training for all new recruits, leading to a "soft" military? Only recruit women who are brash and tough enough to join in with the males' pissing contests and burping competitions? Or have segregated women's battalions? None of them are particularly good solutions. Perhaps there are some jobs that just require a certain kind of masculinity to thrive in - and I say that as a softly-spoken long-haired fop who wouldn't last ten seconds in the army, despite my "male privilege".

You've just demonstrated the fact that men do have it easier, and that it is because of sexist attitudes. You equated masculinity, "male-ness" with commenting on female CO's asses, implying that the only solutions are to emasculate men with sensitivity training (with the further implication that demanding basic levels of professionalism weakens a military's strength and makes them "soft") or to only accept women who are willing and able to solve an institutionalized problem with their own personal assertiveness. Men do not have this extra hurdle to jump through. Even with homosexuals integrated into the military, there is not wide-spread gossiping about COs as sex-objects, because it's understood that that is unacceptable. Your CO could in theory be giving you commands that have life-or-death consequences for you and others. It is not a male trait, a powerful or strong trait, to disrespect that CO and treat them like an object for your personal pleasure just because they are a woman. That's the very definition of privilege. Men are allowed to get away with something simply because they are men, and being male and engaging in those unprofessional behaviors is associated in the public mind with strength, power, and effectiveness even as those unprofessional behaviors undermine the chain of command and disrupt the military.

The thing to remember is that the army does try to hammer in the idea that you respect the rank, even if you do not respect the person.

This creates a unique disconnect when professionalism is demanded. Let's be honest here, the military while attempting to be the most professional organization is also an organization that performs in the most unprofessional manner of any organization. It is a profession of extremes. Long hours of boredom with seconds of incredible intensity.

Being a "boy's club" and women who wish to be grunts needing to essentially become "one of the boys" is just going to have to be a fact of life until women prove themselves capable of not being the minority of riflemen (riflepeople?) or whatever term we're using to describe your basic front-line combatant. To expect the baseline military dynamic that has been prevalent for CENTURIES to have a sudden paradigm shift is both unreasonable and absurd. It may happen, it may not happen, but the point is moot because women are unwilling and/or unable to sign up in the numbers that men are... and you don't attempt to force change on your military for an unproven benefit that is unlikely to even become necessary.

DevilWithaHalo:

nyysjan:

DevilWithaHalo:

Not that I'm a group in of myself, but it's extremely difficult to bring up for a lot of people without them responding with "feminism" of some kind. Just the mention that I'm an MRA sends a few foaming at the mouth. Then they get confused when I say I'm also a feminist.

I get your point about the blame though; I've been guilty of it myself. It's easy to pick a faceless ideology such as feminism or patriarchy over accepting that these are individual people making these choices and sadly creating unfortunate consequences for others in the process.

But I speak only for myself, as I have been both ejected from feminist and MRA circles for voicing dissenting opinion.

That's because you are giving mixed signals.
MRA's have gained a certain reputation, mostly through their own actions and speech, and by telling people you are of this group you get a certain amount of package to deal with you might not want to carry, but do need to deal with because you yourself decided to pick up the banner they come with.

And you could have just as well said that you support equal rights to both genders, and be done with it.

Also, feminism started in a time when women clearly were in lesser position in almost all walks of life, including lacking the right to vote in many places, and they were reviled for trying to fight for equal rights for themselves.
where as MRA's started in a time when, debatably, men still are in a position of power, and while there are inequalities (custody for example), most of the rhetoric from MRA's is concentrated not on inequalities and/or solutions, but the odd view that those equalities are somehow the fault of women or feminism.

I won't disagree that there is a lot of if out there. But I will say that painting it with such a broad brush at this point serves no purpose.

It is precisely the baggage that comes along with the titles why I utilize them over someone who merely says they are for equal rights. I've successfully gotten people to look beyond titles into the reasons for them, which makes all the difference to the discussion. It also helps me separate those interested in learning from those who merely wish to talk.

MRA's and Feminists alike have earned various ire from others for their actions; often for legitimate reasons. It's too often people implement solutions without considering additional problems they may cause by doing so.

What have feminists done to deserve ire out of people who are not opposed to equal rights or simply uninformed about feminism?
Sure, there have been individuals with overblown rhetoric, and probably some fringe groups, but feminism can draw on roots that started out with goals that almost nobody would disagree with (out loud), have brought positive change (like voting rights), MRA's do not have that past to point for what they are for and what they have worked at.

MRA's, in contrast, are almost purely about anti feminism, should the movement be defined by the sane and sensible minority, or the majority of the people who follow it?
It's like calling yourself pro life, and then being confused why people think you want to stop people from having abortions (protip: people who want to leave the choice to other people are more accurately called pro choice).

This happens in lot of situations, religion, politics, people pick what to call themselves not on what they actually believe in, but what sounds good to them (Fiscal Conservative, Pro Life, Bible Literalist (the fucking eternal agnostic/atheist debate)), while not actually following through on the things those labels denote, or even knowing what they would mean.

Like Pro Life, Male Rights Activist has meaning beyond the literal definition of the words use, and using it as a label and being upset for being lumped in with 90% of other people using the same label, is rather somewhat silly.

nyysjan:

What have feminists done to deserve ire out of people who are not opposed to equal rights or simply uninformed about feminism?

Fascinating question! Might I give an example from the mouth of another in this particular case?

If Feminists are actively keeping the voices of those advocating for men's rights from being heard... why wouldn't MRA's be so concerned with the Feminist movement? If something is actively preventing you from doing anything and actively paints you as being bad, seems rather prudent to talk about what they are doing.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked