Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

I'm going to keep my stance on it brief. I think such a thing is necessary, but it needs a radical overhaul. In this society their are shitty things that happen to men.

Getting harsher sentences for crimes than women.
Bias in family and divorce courts
Male rape victims getting treated like jokes
Male victims of spousal abuse treated like jokes
etc etc etc

I agree those things do happen

But however i detest the current MRM, because it and its members seem to be less focused and fixing these issues and more focused on how its the fault of feminism, and how feminism is the cause of all their problems (which is bullshit by the way).

So where do you stand on the issue.

The MRM sounds like one of those things that had a legit reason for starting. But became corrupted and ruined by people in it with detestable agendas.

I don't doubt that Men face inequality issues in society. However the impression that the internet gives me in regards to MRM, is that it's some petty retaliatory movement against feminists fronted by neckbearded niceguys™ (who are known as "Red Pillers") who use the movement just to express their sexist viewpoints and their hatred of women caused by how poorly they understand them.

This is not to say the Mens Rights is a wrong cause. Just the current shape of MRM as we know it seems to be have been reduced to a complete parody of itself.

And that's a terrible loss for equality. There are men out there who are victims of sexism. But instead of hearing about them, I seem to hear more about stood-up prom rejects demanding retribution and making cringeworthy posts. The internet is clearly more interested in the latter.

I've watched a semi-sizable amount of videos on the subject, and have come to the conclusion that the MRM may just be one of the most misunderstood… things in existence.
I'm not going to go all long-winded, mostly because I need to go to bed, but one of the main things that people get wrong is the idea that most MRA's contempt for modern-day feminism originates in the belief that it fucked things over for them. This has been argued by some individuals to (in my opinion) varying degrees of success, but the real issue is that many people that identify as feminists treat MRAs as some sort of nightmarish boogeymen, as this Youtuber has pretty clearly demonstrated. Hell, just the other day I was defending a guy I watch in a comments argument over on that site, and the other person blocked me and called me an MRA out of fucking nowhere.
Want a more… widespread example? Well, there was the massive clusterfuck of a myth that "men's rights activist groups are boycotting the new Mad Max film" that spread ridiculously far despite the sole origin being a single article from single writer for a single, relatively unpopular website which has repeatedly asserted its lack of association with that identity. Not only that, but its contributors, in fact, frequently deride the movement for essentially not being extreme enough.

Men have problems, but it's a societal thing. Just like women.
Males, in our society, are looked at as stronger, have more authority, and smarter than their female counterpart.
That's when a lot of stereotypes play out. Men are stronger, thus that means they're more violent than women. Which is probably why men get harsher sentences than women and are treated as jokes when it comes to abuse or rape.You see a 6'2" man saying he's getting abused by his 5'7" wife and you'll probably laugh it off. He's a big man, he has the authority and strength to put her in her place, right? Well, as many of you know, hopefully, everyone is not the same. Yes, he may have the strength to act, but abuse can not always have to be physical. Also, since men are consider "stronger" than women, it's frowned upon for men to harm women. Really, abuse is more of mental mind game then simply physical assault. Any gender can do it.
Same thing goes for men and rape. Men, like women, can be raped at any age and by any gender. But, again, men are always shown to be stronger. So when you see an adult male say he got raped, like a woman, he's humiliated, probably even more so, since he's a man. If you got raped by another man, you were overpowered. If you were raped by a woman, again, you were overpowered. Since men in society are viewed as strong, anything that makes them look weak makes them look pathetic and less of a man.

As for family in divorce situation, it usually favors the women because society implanted the image of women always being the care taker of the house and children. Men are the bread earners while the women are the caretakers. Men are independent, while women are family oriented. This is a very old societal image, but still used to this day. As you know, both men and women can be the bread earner and the caretaker, in this day and age.

We got to erase the image of men of being the strongest, having more authority, and being smarter. A man can't love the color pink, because it's a "feminine color". Even though, pink was a masculine color in the past. It's a fucking color in the light spectrum, let someone like it. Men can't take care of children. They're strong, independent, and are the bread earner. So are a woman. What a man can do, a woman can do. A woman can be your car mechanic and a man can be your children's daycare care taker. Yes, this is an odd image to some, but that's because society wants it to be the other way around. Women can be as rough as men and men can be as gentle as women. Not every single man is strong, have the authority, or the intelligence. Just like not every woman is weak, voiceless, and dumb. Jesus Christ, I rather have a woman mechanic, that knows what they're doing, than a society place man that's dumb as a brick. Same with a day care care taker, I don't want a woman who doesn't give two shits about my kids and was only able to work there, because society said this was her "calling". I don't care if the man in the daycare is covered in tattoos, muscle bound, bald and look like he can rip me in half. As long as he can take care of the children while I can't at the moment. At the end of the day, regardless of gender, I just want to get my car fixed by anyone and have my children taken care of by somebody.

We really need equality all across the board in our society. Race, Gender, Sexuality, whatever. No one is superior than the other.

I feel a lot of mrm's spend their time critiquing feminists, because feminists spend an inordinate amount of time critiquing them.

The two are just 2 rival hate fandoms whose focus is one another.

What we need is something beyond a men's rights movement and a women's rights movement. Frankly, I don't like how society thinks in this 'we must focus only on this one cause and no other' mentality. Racism applies to all races, sexism applies to all sexes, agism applies to all ages, stereotyping applies to all walks of life. There needs to be a movement, that promotes focusing on the most prominent problems, regardless of whether the issues are or aren't related to causes we already obsess over such as women's rights or racial inequality. That does not mean saying every cause is equal in its problems, I say ignore what cause it is entirely and just focus on the most prominent problems that are faced in general. The most prominent problems should be focused on the most, not the most prominent causes. There is far too much bias in relation to causes, there should be a focus instead on the problems themselves.

If there was to be a new movement, I'd say it should be focusing on problems in general, and lessening the focus on the parties/groups/causes surrounding the problems. The focus we currently have on the group mentalities surrounding these problems is why there is so much bias and hate surrounding issues that should be easy and logical to talk about.

I think the big issue with what the internet does to any ideology is that it turns said ideology from something productive that attempts to achieve a set of goals to something negative that seeks only to criticize something that creates tension against it. Erik Kain over at Forbes calls the people who do this "Outrage Warriors" and I think that term is an apt and appropriate replacement for "Social Justice Warriors."

Whether you're campaigning for women's rights, men's rights, or anything else, the outrage machine of the internet distracts you from what you're trying to accomplish and makes you mad at something so you can give others your precious, precious page views for ad revenues and quotas. If the men's rights guys focused only on the issues they want to solve, then I don't think anyone would have a problem with them: abuse of males in partnerships (I am told that men in same sex couples often suffer relationship abuse that is largely ignored, for example), the favoring of women over men in certain legal scenarios, and issues like that deserve attention.

MRM guys fall into the same trap as feminists, however, when rather than focusing on the real and present issues that they can act on they shift focus into detached ideological and theoretical critiques of "the feminist system" and make giant blanket statements based more in their perceptions of the world than how the world really acts. For example, "women are bitches." This sentiment might crop up because a man suffered genuine physical or emotional trauma at the hands of a woman. That trauma deserves to be acknowledged and validated; however, intellectualizing it and imagining that your personal experiences equal the sum total of reality for everyone everywhere is dangerous. "The woman who hurt me is a bitch" is a more understandable statement, because it doesn't presume absolute knowledge of everything.

The appeals to these broad statements that conflate personal experience with universal truth are another product of the hyper-egoistic and cocooned environment that internet culture creates. It's tragic for many reasons. A lack of humility and empathy feed into this worldview and are fed by it. A way of working against this kind of selfish and harmful thought is to remind yourself that your experience is valid, but not the only valid experience and then to humble yourself enough to know that the world can still surprise you in positive ways as much as it can in negative ways.

In short, there's a degree of immediacy that needs to return, immediacy both temporal and spacial. We need to remind ourselves that what hurts us doesn't hurt the whole world and that what is felt here and now will not be that way for all time and for all people.

I'm posting this video, because it's excellent and relevant.

I thoroughly recommend this person if you wish to get a sort of a MRA perspective (though he doesn't consider himself one- I don't either, and I'd imagine for similar reasons).

The MRM runs into the same problem as the group who sees white genocide: the common enemy's issues are irrelevant and in opposition to the narrative. The MRM doesn't like that the law favors women in some cases? Plz let me tell you about affirmative action. Minorities being chosen over whites, or women being chosen over men, is to make up for their historic oppression (which is always solely the responsibility of white males, don't forget). "Equality" has never been society's goal, that's why male abuse victims don't get acknowledged and politicians have to apologize for saying all lives matter.

MRM suffers from the same issues that Feminism does, because they are two sides of the same coin. Both are trying to argue that it's not fair that the other gender has advantages over theirs, but actual examples get glossed over and arguments often devolve into shit-flinging.

The difference is that Feminism is on the "right" side of history, which is why they have more support at the moment. It may shift at some point, but that's just how it is right now.

Can we seriously just start the egalitarian movement already? I have no idea how these people (feminists and the MRM) honestly think they are going to achieve gender equality by focusing solely on one side, while fighting the other side.

I think MRAs would argue that because feminism exists (and- let's be real here- is a pretty pervasive ideology), the MRM is absolutely necessary for balance.

Here's the thing: this is probably going to happen eventually. It definitely should happen, and it's a step up from feminism/masculinism movements. A bias in favor of everyone being equal in every aspect is a good start, but I believe it should progressively evolve into focusing on the most glaring issues that cause intense problems for many people, rather than maintaining that a small problem for one group is equal to a large problem for another group. Some problems are larger than others. That is my personal view, but if it was a choice between sticking with feminism/masculinism or having egalitarianism, egalitarianism is an easy winner. Although I hope egalitarianism can gain a better public view, as the IDEA channel once voiced a very questionable view on it which it has since, apologized for. (Not a solid outright "I'm sorry for what I said" but instead a long-winded explanation sort of apologizing.) Also, The Legend of Korra had equalists, and that was basically an explanation of the dangers of egalitarianism. It was saying an egalitarianism based on taking away from people (their bending) to make them equal to people that don't have something (non-benders) would be a bad idea.

Ugh, the whole thing about men's rights and women's right has become such a mess. If only there was some sort of movement or word or something that worked for both. I mean, yeah, sure egalitarianism and feminism both fit the bill (depending on who you ask) but the former isn't specific enough and not technically accurate (like breast feeding issues don't exactly directly apply to men) and the latter has been bogged down with polarization.

If I could invent it, I'd call it who-the-frick-cares-about-which-reproductive-organs-you-do-or-do-not-have-in-general-society. Or WTFCAWROYDODNHIGS for short. Maybe WTF CAW ROY DOD NHI GS.

(It would also cover a lot of lgbt rights, too, accidentally, since denying a man the right to marry a man when a woman could marry a man would be bad under this mindset, for example.)

@Roy G. Biv

"the former isn’t specific enough and not technically accurate (like breast feeding issues don’t exactly directly apply to men)"

Uh… what? What exactly do you think egalitarianism is? I have no idea where you got this idea that an egalitarian doesn't believe that there are issues that uniquely affect one specific gender.

Well, I only know the definition that I learned of from wikipedia: "It is defined either as a political doctrine that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights."

Now, while I agree with this idea in general, a couple of issues pop up when you get to specifics.

The example I mentioned was breastfeeding, but if I'm allowed to be more specific, let me quote something from Wikipedia:
"Lactation rooms are primarily established under Section 4207 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and amended Fair Labor Standards Act, which require employers to provide a private room to lactating mothers, other than a bathroom or locker room. "

Now let's go back to the definition. If we truly treated men and women as equals, in a literal sense, so there was absolutely no difference, then either men would be given their own lactation rooms or women wouldn't be given lactation rooms.

If you go beyond gender, then things like wheelchair access, kid's meals, interviews that don't soley rely on random chance, among technically lots of other things break the strict definition of egalitarianism.

I realize that I'm probably overlooking the spirit of egalitarianism by being anal about the definition, but my point is, while treating people equally sounds great, it's not logical to apply it everywhere. More competent people are better off doing their job than less competent people, all other things equal. Biological differences, such as age, gender, and disabilities result in different needs and abilities. Equality applied indescriminately is not just.

tl;dr Differences in people occasionally justify unequal treatment in regards to political, economic, social, and civil rights. Tht's why there are different levels of scrutiny applied in different court cases (racial discrimination means strict scrutiny since race plays a minimal role in one's abilities and needs, wnile gender discrimination means intermediate scrutiny since it plays a larger role in one's abilities and needs than race) and why the right for someone to engage in intercourse with an adult with said adult partner not automatically breaking any laws is defined by age (i.e. not given to minors, but given to non-minors under the condition of mutual consent, barring special circumstances)

@Roy G. Biv

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be operating under the assumption that the concept of treating everyone equally and desiring that all individuals be treated essentially as equals under the law is somehow equivalent to the believe that all people are literally equal under the strictest definition of the word. This is not the case. Indeed, the reason why most egalitarians support the enforcement of equality, but not equity, is that the latter forces an absurd level of manipulation (assuming it's even possible) to cancel out the natural fact of reality that people are, by their very nature, different.

No you're not wrong, it's just that I'm a math major and I like things exact and well-defined so I'm not really comfortable just leaving things up to the spirit of the law (or definition) when there is room for abuse in the letter of the law (or definition). If there's a source that you could point me to that provides a definition that is closer to the spirit of egalitarianism that you believe in, then I would sincerely be glad if you shared it, because then it would put to rest one more quandry buzzing about in my brain. I mean, sure, such obsessive technicality and precision is probably unnecessary, but I'm the type of person who doesn't like agreeing to something if I feel that any extreme cases don't apply, even if they aren't significant. I mean sure, I'll say I agree with egalitarianism in principle the same way as I agree with freedom of speech in principle. But until I can find a definition of either I like, I'm not going to formally endorse nor condemn the idea.

But yeah, if you can find a definition that I could cite or a similar idea that fits the criteria we seek, and if I end up learning that a majority of people who claim to endorse this idea actually conciously and voluntarily use this specific definition that does not room for potental abuse (even if such potential is insignificant) then I'll be happy to fully embrace it. Otherwise, I'm afraid I will have to remain neutral on the subject for fears (probably irrational in nature) that it could end up a polarized term like feminism.

I don't think it's needed. In my opinion, men are not discriminated against at all. Most MRA's, to me, are pretty much assholes. Also i think the male rape victim thing is a bit hypocritical, as to most MRAs rape's okay when the girls hot.

Are you being serious? I'd just like to point out that this thread is in Serious Debate.

1/10 Troll harder

If this is in fact serious, I'd like to point out the male sexual assault or domestic abuse victims are either treated as a joke or nonexistent.

Everything listed in the OP could be analyzed and explained through feminism. Men's Rights Activism sounds nice, because surely it's good to be active for promoting the rights of men, who undoubtedly deserve rights, but that's not what the Men's Rights Movement is. Male rape is treated as a joke? Clearly it's because women hate men and not because masculinity is defined by dominance or because the law was written under the presumption that women needed more protection. Bias in courts? Must be activist judges, not an archaic system that punishes whoever has more financial power. Men are usually the ones that die in wars? I totally remember when women decided that only men should die, it was never the case that there was a single society that decided that women be delegated to roles outside of warfare!

If Men's Rights Activism was a movement that tried to work toward fixing these issues by challenging social norms, that would be great! Instead it's a bunch of creeps that believe that Lesbians are a conspiracy to deny them sex.

I see it as a vicious cycle of reactionaries and radicals propping up. One side: radfems (I'm talking Femtheist-tier "kill all men" feminists, not Anita Sarkeesian and her fandom), the other side: MRAs and red-pillers. The existence of one side becomes a reason for the other side to exist and vice versa, Almost like a chicken and egg scenario

As for why the MRAs as they are ahppened in the first place? well I think paranoia; you know the slippery slop fallacy conservatives use to argue against gay marriage ("If Gay marriage is legalized, then everybody would be forced to be gay!") I think their thought process is something similar, they think that if women are equal to men, then they would be forced to become pussies with tiny dicks.

basically they think feminists see all masculinity as inherently toxic want to get rid of the concept, well that and the incel mentality.

okay look my previous post might have been a bit too general: The general idea of mens rights is sound. The idea of helping male rape victims is great.

It's just that a lot of people who currently stand for it are, in my opinion, misogynists who love hating feminism. Look at /r/mensrights or /r/theredpill as examples.

If most MRAs could not hate feminism in a eternal slapfight and they could work together to achieve there similar goals, that would be great.

@TripleCon4800

1. r/theredpill does not appear to be MRM-associated, but rather much more PUA and MGTOW, and particularly the more extreme side of the latter, which can indeed get very misogynistic.
2. Where are you seeing misogyny on r/mensrights? From a cursory glance, I don't- in fact, what I do see is a popular post praising a woman for an explanation she made in a recent video.
3. You are aware that opposing feminism ≠ sexism/misogyny, correct?

3. Yes i do, but most times they go pretty much hand-in-hand

Are you sure? How do you know that?

mainly personal experience

Well, what if I told you that one of the top five most iconic and respected MRAs and anti-feminists was a woman? Would that make you consider rethinking your personal experiences?

Everything listed in the OP could be analyzed and explained through feminism.

That wouldn't make the feminist explanations automatically correct. They make plenty of mistakes as is.

Of course not, but that isn't my point. If they are really the correct explanations doesn't matter, their existence and commonality is evidence that, contrary to the bleating otherwise, "feminism" isn't the anti-male crusade that the more extremist parts of the MRM and the memers like to say it is and these issues are hardly ignored in the feminist movement.

Well here's the problem we come across- feminism is not just one thing. To be quite frank, it's a bit of a clusterfuck, as you could argue will always end up happening with a movement/ideology that lasts for so long. But to say that there isn't a particular "strain" of feminism that is distinctly misandrist is, from where I stand, patently false.

Anecdotal evidence does little to support a general sentiment.

1. Complain that male rape victims aren't being taken seriously and call feminists hypocrites.
2. Make "don't drop the soap" jokes.
3. Pass Dudebroism 101 with flying colours.

I think you might need to look this over.

In my opinion, MRM fails for the same reason Feminism fails – it doesn't target the root problem.

Let's take out all of the people involved and face the philosophy of both. In short, both movements believe that social standards cause one to be oppressed. This is true (ironically, for both groups in different ways). However, what actually causes that oppression?

Most people leave the answer at "society" but this isn't really satisfactory, especially since as Feminism and women's rights activists have made major advancements in women's rights in the last few years, exposing issues in men's rights. If one group of people are supposedly oppressed because they're considered less valuable, then why is the other group still facing problems?

This is why I don't embrace either movement – they don't address the fundemental problem, which has nothing to do with either sex but rather how we interpret genders socially – through gender roles.

Gender roles end up harming individuals and exist from a bygone era in which such roles were a matter of survival. They uphold standards of how people should be based on their sex – however, unlike stereotypes, these are expecations, not trends. When people fail on those expectations, they are punished by society, which can not only damage their mental health but can even lead to restrictions on employment and other forms of social interaction.

This has been extensively written about for decades, although gender-based activism hasn't really embraced the issue in this way. It really bothers me.