Feminist Activism vs MRM

I think the good-faith argument among feminists goes something like this:

Our society is so male-dominated, so replete with Male Privilege, that in order for women to gain an equal voice, we must first silence men for a time. In order for women to gain an equal standing, we must first erase men for a time.

Only after women have gained all the privileges to which they are entitled, can we afford to allow men to have--not the overabundant Male Privilege they previously enjoyed--but rather just the same privilege that women enjoy.

That is true equality, and women can only get there if men get out of the way for a while. Any man who refuses to get out of the way, any man who objects to being silenced, any man who objects to being erased, is by definition against equality for women. Obviously such men are horrible douchebags, and are exactly the reason that men need to be silenced and erased.

And since equality is not yet achieved, any example of women enjoying more privilege than men, or infringing on the rights of men, is not a problem with feminism, but rather just a step in the right direction. The sooner men stop complaining about these examples and start getting out of the way, the sooner the march to equality can be completed and the sooner men can get some (but not too much!) privilege back.
 
Last edited:
I've developed a slight antipathy toward both groups. Activists in both camps misuse science and statistics with impunity to forward their cause. For instance, in my field (software development) there is nearly a 2/1 ratio of men to women represented in the workforce. Feminist activists will say this is due to pervasive sexism resulting from sociological conditioning, and has nothing to do with biology. MRAs will point to studies showing differences in cognition between men and women, and claim that the difference is solely due to that. They are both simply wrong. The feminists for ignoring the possible biological causes that could lead to a disparity of representation, and the MRAs for ignoring the possible sociological causes. The studies referenced by the MRAs don't show there should be a 2/1 disparity in the field of software development, at best they show that we shouldn't be surprised if we find some unquantifiable disparity. Perhaps biology would naturally lead to a 5% or 10%, and indeed perhaps it would lead to the the disparity we see, but the studies done can't show that. The feminists meanwhile reject these studies, no matter how well done they are, because they don't conform to their idea that humans are blank slates, completely formed by their sociological conditions. It is just as wrong for them to ignore human nature as for the MRAs to ignore nurture. Honestly on this issue I lean more toward the feminist position. While I'm sure biological factors are at play, I am sure that plenty of the disparity we see is still the result of sociological forces such as sexism and stereotyping.
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
Except they don't. They won't accept the actual statistics that show to what extent men are affected by domestic violence and sexual assault. It's therefore meaningless for them to say they think it is a serious problem that often gets ignored while waving around statistics that ignore and marginalize male victims, and campaigning/supporting lobbying campaigns and domestic violence and rape organizations that exclude men by definition. The definition of rape used in the statistics literally does not allow men to be considered raped by women, if a woman forces a man to have sex, that's either not included in the statistics at all or it's considered "other sexual violence".
Click to expand...

I am referring to the people I know in person who identify as feminist, not some idiot on the internet.

It's my experience that most people that identify as feminists don't know what equality would even looks like. The only people that seem to understand what equality would look like are MRA's or feminists like Christina Hoff Sommers. Everyone else you can easily demonstrate is not about equaloty
Click to expand...

Maybe you need to meet more people in real life and not look for the most radical feminists on the internet.
 
Fizil said:
I've developed a slight antipathy toward both groups. Activists in both camps misuse science and statistics with impunity to forward their cause. For instance, in my field (software development) there is nearly a 2/1 ratio of men to women represented in the workforce. Feminist activists will say this is due to pervasive sexism resulting from sociological conditioning, and has nothing to do with biology. MRAs will point to studies showing differences in cognition between men and women, and claim that the difference is solely due to that. They are both simply wrong. The feminists for ignoring the possible biological causes that could lead to a disparity of representation, and the MRAs for ignoring the possible sociological causes. The studies referenced by the MRAs don't show there should be a 2/1 disparity in the field of software development, at best they show that we shouldn't be surprised if we find some unquantifiable disparity. Perhaps biology would naturally lead to a 5% or 10%, and indeed perhaps it would lead to the the disparity we see, but the studies done can't show that. The feminists meanwhile reject these studies, no matter how well done they are, because they don't conform to their idea that humans are blank slates, completely formed by their sociological conditions. It is just as wrong for them to ignore human nature as for the MRAs to ignore nurture. Honestly on this issue I lean more toward the feminist position. While I'm sure biological factors are at play, I am sure that plenty of the disparity we see is still the result of sociological forces such as sexism and stereotyping.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of this kind of feminism assumes that women want to be software developers at the same rate as men, or would want to if society didn't encourage them otherwise.
 
Wildy said:
I think the suggestion of sarcasm arises from encounters with feminists who either claim it's not a "serious" problem, see it as some kind of "revenge", somewhat dismiss it as "the patriarchy hurting men too", or claim that it's solely a feminist issue and imply people who aren't feminists aren't allowed to touch it.
Click to expand...

The patriarchy thing hurting men is one I do run into but of course I find that definition of patriarchy to be a bit broad.
 
ponderingturtle said:
I am referring to the people I know in person who identify as feminist, not some idiot on the internet.
Click to expand...

So? What feminist myths do they believe? None? I find that rather hard to believe, but even if they are of the Christina Hoff Sommers school of thought, that would make them a fringe minority. The ignorant casual "feminists" aren't the one's you see on TV, in politics, managing domestic violence organizations, in social studies, in academia, lobbying governments, organising protests. ie. The ones doing anything. They are however the ones sitting back and being okay with the label despite all the harm they cause, much of which they are too ignorant to know is even harmful or wrong.

Maybe you need to meet more people in real life and not look for the most radical feminists on the internet.
Click to expand...

I know various people in real life that refer to themselves as feminists. My gf, 2 of her female friends, my sister. My point still stands.
 
Last edited:
THe MRM might have a point here or there..particulary in regards to child custody battles,where the courts still often have a heavy bias toward the mother,but for the most part the MRM's is not about Male Equality,but about putting women back in their place.
 
dudalb said:
THe MRM might have a point here or there..particulary in regards to child custody battles,where the courts still often have a heavy bias toward the mother,but for the most part the MRM's is not about Male Equality,but about putting women back in their place.
Click to expand...

Evidence? In reality that's just your feelings, it always is, I have never seen anyone back this up at all. Most don't even try to. The MRM is mostly all about getting away from traditionalism because they can see how damaging it is to men, the MGTOW's even more so, so it really doesn't make sense that they would want women to "get back in their place" now does it? I repeat, I realise you really, really, feel it is, but your feelings don't necessarily equal reality.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
THe MRM might have a point here or there..particulary in regards to child custody battles,where the courts still often have a heavy bias toward the mother,but for the most part the MRM's is not about Male Equality,but about putting women back in their place.
Click to expand...

That is a prevailing assumption. It is hard to say how true or not that is. I have heard statistics that say that a significant portion of men who fight for custody get it, ie more than 50%. Of course that doesn't mean that it isn't the case because it is taken as a given that the woman should get the kids that the fathers don't fight for custody.

The gendered language in all(or nearly all) domestic abuse literature is a much easier way to show the issue. We have an industry set up to show women what an abusive relationship looks like, and they speak primarily to women.
 
dudalb said:
THe MRM might have a point here or there..particulary in regards to child custody battles,where the courts still often have a heavy bias toward the mother,but for the most part the MRM's is not about Male Equality,but about putting women back in their place.
Click to expand...

It depends on how you define "MRM".

If I object to misanthropic rhetoric tweeted by academics under the hashtag #killallmen, as being clearly offensive to the principle that men are human beings with rights, does that make me part of a movement that "is not about Male Equality,but about putting women back in their place"?
 
dudalb said:
THe MRM might have a point here or there..particulary in regards to child custody battles,where the courts still often have a heavy bias toward the mother,but for the most part the MRM's is not about Male Equality,but about putting women back in their place.
Click to expand...

Really? I thought it was about acknowledging that there are areas where men are disadvantaged, and finding ways to get help.
 
theprestige said:
It depends on how you define "MRM".

If I object to misanthropic rhetoric tweeted by academics under the hashtag #killallmen, as being clearly offensive to the principle that men are human beings with rights, does that make me part of a movement that "is not about Male Equality,but about putting women back in their place"?
Click to expand...

OF course not.

Not if you want a example of a someone who main agenda is putting women back in their placeL

http://www.returnofkings.com

I would say this guy has major issues with women
And yes, this is the guy who made headlines with his advocacy of legalizing rape under certain circumstances.
 
dudalb said:
OF course not.

Not if you want a example of a someone who main agenda is putting women back in their placeL

http://www.returnofkings.com

I would say this guy has major issues with women
And yes, this is the guy who made headlines with his advocacy of legalizing rape under certain circumstances.
Click to expand...

Not an MRA. Try again. :rolleyes:

Just because you're a man and against feminism doesn't mean you're an MRA. And if you're going to shout No True Scotsman, the guy has explicitly said he is not an MRA. In fact he's an ANTI-mra. He's more of a PUA traditionalist.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
OF course not.

Not if you want a example of a someone who main agenda is putting women back in their placeL

http://www.returnofkings.com
Click to expand...
Edx said:
Not an MRA. Try again. :rolleyes:

Just because you're a man and against feminism doesn't mean you're an MRA. And if you're going to shout No True Scotsman, the guy has explicitly said he is not an MRA. In fact he's an ANTI-mra. He's more of a PUA traditionalist.
Click to expand...


Which neatly illustrates my point about conflation between MRA, MGTOW, and PUA. These three things are not the same.
 
theprestige said:
I think a lot of this kind of feminism assumes that women want to be software developers at the same rate as men, or would want to if society didn't encourage them otherwise.
Click to expand...

Right, and while I agree that women might not want to be software developers at the same rate as men, even after excluding sociological pressures, that does not mean that women in our society are going into the field at their "natural" rate. We don't know what rate we should expect to see women going into the field at. Furthermore, we know there are sociological pressures that could be lowering the rate women enter the field, and should work to correct those. My problem with many MRAs is that they latch onto the biological explanation for the difference, and just decide that is the only reason, without the evidence to back that up.

I hear it all the time when things like the wage gap, or STEM representation gaps come up. "Sexual Dimorphism, Sexual Dimorphism!!" I am sure biological factors do play a part in these things, and saying they do not is disingenuous. However simply saying "sexual dimorphism" and washing your hands of the matter is equally disingenuous until we've determined what portion of these disparities are due to biological differences. Even then, the existence of biological differences doesn't mean we should be a slave to them. Perhaps, with no social pressure, women will tend to go into STEM fields at a significantly lower rate than men. Does that mean applying social pressure to overcome that biological tendency is necessarily harmful? Biology doesn't necessarily give us the impetus to maximize our happiness, so the assumption that we should simply follow our natural biological inclinations is wrong as well. Even if the 2/1 ratio of men to women in software development was perfectly natural, that doesn't mean that applying social pressure to reduce the gap would lead to a bunch of women in IT less happy than they would be otherwise.

This is my problem. I think these issues are all complex problems of sociology and biology, and feminists and MRAs seem to insist on them being simple issues of one or the other. You can't solve these issues if you refuse to see half the picture!
 
Last edited:
Fizil said:
You can't solve these issues if you refuse to see half the picture!
Click to expand...


Inherent in your statement is the assertion that there are actual issues that need to be solved. That in itself is a debatable matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom