Male problems only ever come up as a counter-argument

[Secondhand Revenant]

the very point you call it "toxic" shows how biased and degrading the opinion about men is.

No, there is a bias against the way men are "supposed" to be.

EDIT: Not least because the idea that there is one, and only one, acceptable way for men to be is harmful.

So, out of curiosity, is there such a thing as Toxic Femininity?

I don't believe anyone has coined that term. It's not like they grow out in the wild. What exactly would it entail?

I would assume a feminine version of whatever Toxic Masculinity is. I'm afraid I don't know much about the term, my first and only exposure to it was when Anita Sarkeesian basically linked it to a shooting awhile ago.

Well I'm not sure what the defining bit of toxic masculinity is.

If it's harm towards others I'm not sure you'd find an equivalent since I don't think women are similarly pressured towards violence socially.

If it's just that the gender role aspect is harmful then I'd think it would be things such as body image stuff, amongst other things. Body image stuff being the first thing that comes to mind, not trying to be comprehensive here. Not female so not sure what comes up as much for them. Edit: pretty much the stuff rahkshi said for this

 

[Animyr]

So, out of curiosity, is there such a thing as Toxic Femininity?

There is, yes, and it's something that feminism have been fighting against for decades.

Care to provide me an example? The only thing I can think of is the foot binding thing in China.

Offhand, I'd say the women who support a return to gender inequality--women are supposed to be subservient to men, there is no greater honor a woman can achieve then loyally serve a man, they're incapable of being equal or better anyway, and futile attempts to assert themselves as such are doomed to disaster.

In my experience, this sentiment is usually accompanied by "I'm not like those entitled bitches!" or something of that nature, as well as imploring other women to accept the danger their natural incompetence poses.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The term "MRA" is used as an insult despite being a generic designation referring to anyone supporting the rights of men.

It's not a generic term, it refers to someone that has self-identified as a member of the Men's Rights Movement. You have other similar groups that aren't made up of MRAs, because they identify differently.

(Not to mention feminists that support the rights of men without being MRAs)

I would assume a feminine version of whatever Toxic Masculinity is. I'm afraid I don't know much about the term, my first and only exposure to it was when Anita Sarkeesian basically linked it to a shooting awhile ago.

I think she was the one that coined that term. People have been talking about the harms caused by rigid gender roles, arbitrary ways people are forced to be feminine or masculine, but the phrase was popularised because if you twist what she said, you can sorta make it look like feminists hate men or whatever.

 

[the December King]

But you're right. It's a tough mental shift to make. And there are no "Men Only" classes for those who have a hard time making it. It's that old double standard. Unfortunately, though, that impetus to change our thinking is on us menfolk.

But why is the impetus on us to change how we think in this instance- why not have actual, male-only venues? And, why were you paired with an expert, if you were a beginner- never mind the genders? This often seems like it's just set up to force some sort of humility narrative on men, and empower the women, and aside from possibly, potentially getting better and able to hold your own against your better opponent, which you apparently did do, and assuming that that opponent isn't also improving as well or, worse, holds back at some points to make you feel better, then you do become a bit of a joke, right?

See, this is how my mind works when presented with a story like this, especially seeing as how Muai Thai is even more like an actual full-on fight than BJJ (EDIT: Or seems to be more like an actual fight- I know nothing of the rules, this is just me spouting here, and I am aware of this.)

I don't know if this is going to work for me... I don't want to just be some feel-good story for women about kicking men's asses. I want to be a feel good story for me, and that kind of humiliation might be too much for me to overcome.

If you look at the world of female-only venues, they're historically begun and maintained by females. I think the answer to your question is that as guys, we haven't done the same thing. Maybe it's because there aren't enough who want to, maybe cultural or social pressures, or maybe women need to make shelters and classes and we as guys mostly just have the rest of society. I mean, if you're a man who wants to just go it alone with men, most countries and religions have had priesthoods, monks, and other orders. You could still run your life and have political power that way, unlike a nun or their equivalents who were basically tools.

In that light, it's easy to see why we as guys tend less to try and carve out micro-societies, and just outright change the whole society. Until recently, that wasn't an option for anyone except men in most places, so women had to act separately and on smaller scales. If we want to catch up, then we need to do the same things they did, and work on our own.

That is a really good point, if men have historically seen all of society as 'ours', then why would seperate groups be needed? Well at least until now, I guess.

Are men allowed to start men-only venues?

 

[the December King]

But you're right. It's a tough mental shift to make. And there are no "Men Only" classes for those who have a hard time making it. It's that old double standard. Unfortunately, though, that impetus to change our thinking is on us menfolk.

But why is the impetus on us to change how we think in this instance- why not have actual, male-only venues?

Well I imagine because you'd usually be talking to someone who thinks the thought process in question is not a reasonable way to think. And you don't cater to unreasonable ideas, you tell people to stop thinking that way. If someone thinks the floor is lava you don't develop a way to avoid the floor, you expect them to get over that idea.

Or, I suppose, the impetus is on me to look into and possibly be the change I want- if I want a male-only venue, I should see if there are others interested in such an idea. My way of thinking might not actually be an outlier after all.

 

[Ariseishirou]

Because most of the time, I find, the people bringing those issues up don't actually give a shit about them (or worse, actually _support_ them, as a way of "toughening men up" or "just how men are," often with the insinuation that this is just some aspect, albeit unfortunate, of what makes them superior to - *cough* I mean "different from" - women).

Just once, when I've asked a male commenter what he'd done to help fight against those issues men face when he brought them out as what I'd assumed was the usually dog-and-pony-show of "men have problems too, so women aren't allowed to complain about theirs, feminist hag!" did the guy actually say he did and have evidence to show for it. He'd fought to get a battered women's shelter in his area to accept abused men, and won, and now volunteered there. I checked it out and everything.

Once. Ever. In literally hundreds of discussions. And by the way, after becoming massively disillisioned with the inertia in his own camp, and after working with the women at the shelter, he now identifies not as an MRA, but a male feminist.

So... yeah.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

But you're right. It's a tough mental shift to make. And there are no "Men Only" classes for those who have a hard time making it. It's that old double standard. Unfortunately, though, that impetus to change our thinking is on us menfolk.

But why is the impetus on us to change how we think in this instance- why not have actual, male-only venues?

Well I imagine because you'd usually be talking to someone who thinks the thought process in question is not a reasonable way to think. And you don't cater to unreasonable ideas, you tell people to stop thinking that way. If someone thinks the floor is lava you don't develop a way to avoid the floor, you expect them to get over that idea.

Or, I suppose, the impetus is on me to look into and possibly be the change I want- if I want a male-only venue, I should see if there are others interested in such an idea. My way of thinking might not actually be an outlier after all.

I'm not sure why you'd want to preserve that way of thinking. In all honesty it looks sexist.

 

[the December King]

But you're right. It's a tough mental shift to make. And there are no "Men Only" classes for those who have a hard time making it. It's that old double standard. Unfortunately, though, that impetus to change our thinking is on us menfolk.

But why is the impetus on us to change how we think in this instance- why not have actual, male-only venues?

Well I imagine because you'd usually be talking to someone who thinks the thought process in question is not a reasonable way to think. And you don't cater to unreasonable ideas, you tell people to stop thinking that way. If someone thinks the floor is lava you don't develop a way to avoid the floor, you expect them to get over that idea.

Or, I suppose, the impetus is on me to look into and possibly be the change I want- if I want a male-only venue, I should see if there are others interested in such an idea. My way of thinking might not actually be an outlier after all.

I'm not sure why you'd want to preserve that way of thinking. In all honesty it looks sexist.

That I don't want to get beaten up by women, that looks sexist to you? And why can't men have their own spaces, if women have their own spaces?

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

But you're right. It's a tough mental shift to make. And there are no "Men Only" classes for those who have a hard time making it. It's that old double standard. Unfortunately, though, that impetus to change our thinking is on us menfolk.

But why is the impetus on us to change how we think in this instance- why not have actual, male-only venues?

Well I imagine because you'd usually be talking to someone who thinks the thought process in question is not a reasonable way to think. And you don't cater to unreasonable ideas, you tell people to stop thinking that way. If someone thinks the floor is lava you don't develop a way to avoid the floor, you expect them to get over that idea.

Or, I suppose, the impetus is on me to look into and possibly be the change I want- if I want a male-only venue, I should see if there are others interested in such an idea. My way of thinking might not actually be an outlier after all.

I'm not sure why you'd want to preserve that way of thinking. In all honesty it looks sexist.

That I don't want to get beaten up by women, that looks sexist to you?

Pfft, do you really think trying to frame it so dishonestly will convince anyone? I was trying not to be dismissive but it's hard when you pull nonsense like that

It's sexist that you don't mind 'losing' to men but you do when it's women. So yeah when you don't try to pretend the issue is getting 'beaten up' and acknowledge your issue is the gender of who is doing it.

And why can't men have their own spaces, if women have their own spaces?

I'm criticizing the given reason for it, not the idea of there ever possibly being a space for men.

 

[Animyr]

Because when we get in a group and try to discuss our rights the group is rapidly demonized as some sort of bigot organization bent on oppressing women.

That's because much (not all) of it is.

As several other people (including the OP) have alluded to, many supposed "MRAs" only bring up men's problems in response to women's issues, and as part of an effort to silence a discussion of them.

It doesn't help that some prominent "MRAs" have admitted that their primary purpose is criticizing and "stopping" feminists, not helping other men.

It also doesn't help that many of the "rights" men lack are rights they took from themselves (child care, etc).

 

[the December King]

Pfft, do you really think trying to frame it so dishonestly will convince anyone? I was trying not to be dismissive but it's hard when you pull nonsense like that

It's sexist that you don't mind 'losing' to men but you do when it's women. So yeah when you don't try to pretend the issue is getting 'beaten up' and acknowledge your issue is the gender of who is doing it.

I'm not being dishonest.

It is, it is absolutely about being beaten up by a woman, in a physical context that has traditionally been the domain of men, and add to that the likelihood of it being a more experienced woman, instead of an equally inexperienced sparring partner who would likely be male, when I'm beginning to learn something, and am not particularly physical, and yes, maybe I do have an ego that can be damaged. I mean, which is it, should I shut up and 'grow some balls' and then get my ass kicked in a rigged fight, and get looked down on from then on, or can I at least try to explain my fears?

But, maybe you weren't following my thread of trying to explain why I think the way I do, instead of just admonishing me for thinking that way.

 

[1981]

That is a really good point, if men have historically seen all of society as 'ours', then why would seperate groups be needed? Well at least until now, I guess.

Are men allowed to start men-only venues?

I don't see why not. There are some support groups (for lack of a better term) for men around here.

I didn't make this personal, you literally did. I wouldn't bring up someone's personal issues because they don't matter for good or ill. You felt the need to bring out your personal story as a tool in a debate. It would be very hypocritical to turn that around on me, thanks.

No, what I asked was why do you single me out and tell me my input doesn't matter? So far no one's been excluded. The only thing anyone can do is share their personal experiences. Even when talking about something they've seen or heard, it's still their own experience.

 

[Aesir23]

There is a group called MRA. People don't take it serious. People call it sexist. People call it misogynystic. People make fun of it.
It fights for man's rights. It tries to point out the problems.

I think it's pretty clear. With 3rd wave feminists putting the blame of pretty much anything of white males, any attempt of fighting for men's rights will be a fast way of getting yourself labeled as worse than a genocidal maniac.

To be fair, a lot of the self-proclaimed MRAs that people likely run into are basically the male oriented equivalent of the extreme feminists that you mention. They're likely the ones that come to mind when people think about others only bringing up men's issues as a counter-argument because it's pretty clear that those particular individuals don't actually care about men's issues. The ones I've had the misfortune of running into care more about keeping or returning to rigid gender roles for men and women alike. The "de-pussification of America" as a few of those individuals have so eloquently proclaimed.

Are there good MRA people out there? I don't doubt that, just like not every feminist is a raving maniac who hates men. Unfortunately, much like extreme feminists those individuals are the loudest and the most aggravating so they get the most attention and become what people commonly think of when that group is brought up. As a result, you'll often get people jumping the gun and assuming you fall in with the worst of whatever "controversial" crowd you happen to name.

 

[Lightknight]

The term "MRA" is used as an insult despite being a generic designation referring to anyone supporting the rights of men.

It's not a generic term, it refers to someone that has self-identified as a member of the Men's Rights Movement. You have other similar groups that aren't made up of MRAs, because they identify differently.

(Not to mention feminists that support the rights of men without being MRAs)

MRA is a designation you can apply to any organization concerned with men's rights. It is a nebulous term without any unifying theme except the focus on men's rights. Unless you're reading a different Wikipedia article than I am. It's one of several groups making up men's movement but this one is far broader than the rest.

It once meant a thing but nearly no one talks about Men's Movement or Men's liberation anymore. Linguistic drift has made the term "MRA" the catch all.

It's troublesome because MRA did come out of the anti-feminist portion of the Men's Movement. But nowadays being anti-feminism isn't the same as it was back then when feminism was primarily just a call for equality.

This statement on MRA's perspective on feminism, "Men's rights activists have said that they believe that feminism has overshot its objective and harmed men." is not anti-feminism in the way people like to think. It's pro-equality with a claim that men have been harmed by the movement in some areas and they absolutely have been. We've seen the numbers and know that to be the case in some areas.

 

[wulf3n]

I would assume a feminine version of whatever Toxic Masculinity is. I'm afraid I don't know much about the term, my first and only exposure to it was when Anita Sarkeesian basically linked it to a shooting awhile ago.

I think she was the one that coined that term. People have been talking about the harms caused by rigid gender roles, arbitrary ways people are forced to be feminine or masculine, but the phrase was popularised because if you twist what she said, you can sorta make it look like feminists hate men or whatever.

It begs the question if the term refers to the rigid gender roles of both genders why toxic masculinity? Why not toxic femininity? or the non-sexist version toxic gender roles?

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Pfft, do you really think trying to frame it so dishonestly will convince anyone? I was trying not to be dismissive but it's hard when you pull nonsense like that

It's sexist that you don't mind 'losing' to men but you do when it's women. So yeah when you don't try to pretend the issue is getting 'beaten up' and acknowledge your issue is the gender of who is doing it.

I'm not being dishonest.

When you just say it like that of course it looks bad because no one wants to get *beaten up*. But that's not the issue here now is it? That presentation, where the obvious first response is 'No' because people don't like getting beaten up when the actual issue is the gender of who is doing it is what I call dishonest.

It is, it is absolutely about being beaten up by a woman, in a physical context that has traditionally been the domain of men, and add to that the likelihood of it being a more experienced woman, instead of an equally inexperienced sparring partner who would likely be male, when I'm beginning to learn something, and am not particularly physical, and yes, maybe I do have an ego that can be damaged. I mean, which is it, should I shut up and 'grow some balls' and then get my ass kicked in a rigged fight, and get looked down on from then on, or can I at least try to explain my fears?

But, maybe you weren't following my thread of trying to explain why I think the way I do, instead of just admonishing me for thinking that way.

See, that nonsense about traditionally being the domain of men... that really just makes it more explicitly sexist. And I say nonsense not because it isn't traditional, but because tradition in no way makes it not sexist. Tradition has often been incredibly sexist and following it is just as much so.

If the problem is a rigged fight then the complaint would be about instructors pitting the inexperienced against the experienced and not about the gender of the more experienced person. If it were really about experience then you don't need a male only area to fix that. (The experience thing is still bunk anyways, you presumably go against someone more experienced to learn. It's not about winning so it's not supposed to be a fair match. A fair match is to see who is better. This is learning not competition though.) The reason it's sexist is not because you dislike going against someone more experienced, it's that you mind that it's a woman specifically

 

[the December King]

It's sexist that you don't mind 'losing' to men but you do when it's women. So yeah when you don't try to pretend the issue is getting 'beaten up' and acknowledge your issue is the gender of who is doing it.

Okay, looks like I owe Secondhand Revenant an apology.

It was a knee-jerk reaction to being called an 'ism', and you are in fact, correct.

It is sexist of me to not want to be beaten by a woman.

Your aggressive use of language made me instantly confrontational, and I leapt to, before thinking about what you said.

But it can't change on a dime, that sort of thinking. I can't just accept that sort of change just because reasons. I'll need some time to come to terms with it, if ever, because I still see the actual event, getting bested in a physical altrercation by a woman, as unacceptable.

I would like to note that it is the only way I see things like this- as an illustrator, for example, I met and worked with many brilliant artists, successful artists, men and women, many who had vastly more talent than me, and aside from perhaps a little envy, I was happy to acknowledge their skill. Perhaps this is because the area of illustration hasn't got the same gender stigma?

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

It's sexist that you don't mind 'losing' to men but you do when it's women. So yeah when you don't try to pretend the issue is getting 'beaten up' and acknowledge your issue is the gender of who is doing it.

Okay, looks like I owe Secondhand Revenant an apology.

It was a knee-jerk reaction to being called an 'ism', and you are in fact, correct.

It is sexist of me to not want to be beaten by a woman.

Your aggressive use of language made me instantly confrontational, and I leapt to, before thinking about what you said.

But it can't change on a dime, that sort of thinking. I can't just accept that sort of change just because reasons. I'll need some time to come to terms with it, if ever, because I still see the actual event, getting bested in a physical altrercation by a woman, as unacceptable.

I would like to note that it is the only way I see things like this- as an illustrator, for example, I met and worked with many brilliant artists, successful artists, men and women, many who had vastly more talent than me, and aside from perhaps a little envy, I was happy to acknowledge their skill. Perhaps this is because the area of illustration hasn't got the same gender stigma?

Well when I first said it I tried to he as non-hostile as I could. Thus the 'in all honesty' in front of it. Was a bit reluctant to say it then.

And I don't blame you for not being able to change on a dime. I'm just saying that trying to have men only spaces for that only helps to preserve that idea. An idea that I think we should work to be rid of instead by removing the stigma.

And I'd agree it's most likely due to the extra stigma that society places on it. And that's a problem I would like to see fixed.

 

[Lightknight]

Because when we get in a group and try to discuss our rights the group is rapidly demonized as some sort of bigot organization bent on oppressing women.

That's because much (not all) of it is.

As several other people (including the OP) have alluded to, many supposed "MRAs" only bring up men's problems in response to women's issues, and as part of an effort to silence a discussion of them.

It doesn't help that some prominent "MRAs" have admitted that their primary purpose is criticizing and "stopping" feminists, not helping other men.

It also doesn't help that many of the "rights" men lack are rights they took from themselves (child care, etc).

Stereotyping is fun. Seeing as MRA is the prevailing term and all you need to think to qualify as an MRA is that Feminism has overshot its goals in some areas in a way that harms men and actual equality then it isn't hard to fall into this category if you care about men's rights and equality in general. For example, why should women be hired at a 2:1 ratio in STEM related areas just because they're women? The goal should be a 1:1 ratio because that's not sexist. Why should single women under the age of 30 make more money than single men under the age of 30? Isn't that an overshooting of the wage gap to cause the same sexist problem but the other way?

Your sentiment here is exactly why it's such a problem for men to voice concern. The moment we start talking about the concept that modern feminists have overshot in certain areas then instantly we're designated as anti-feminist which carries the notion of being anti-equality and anti-women's rights which doesn't necessarily follow.

What's more is any time anyone says anything which a feminist disagrees with, then it is automatically placed in the misogyny category even though it may just be a difference of opinion, difference of philosophy, or even just plain ol' ignorance on a topic.

This means it is not safe to for this group to be able to voice their concerns openly. The idiots who are bigots run their mouths because they already don't care and the sane people stay silent. But holy hell dude, the same thing happens in other rights groups. The people we hear from are the crazies. When we hear about animal rights organizations it isn't that X group saved whales from whomever, it's that some crazy group stole a puppy from a homeless man or blew up some factory that people were in. Feminism had some great victories where we got to hear about anti-discrimination and equal access and that was great. But more recently we've instead begun to hear more and more of the fringe elements that shame the average feminist and are counter to the original principles of pursuing equality.

You forget the vast sea of people who you don't hear from unless you're engaging them in direct conversation. The person who just wants equality and thinks the agenda of established groups are currently using their prior success to press ahead beyond equality into superiority. This is something that many self proclaimed feminists would agree is an issue if it were safe to do so without putting feminism's remaining legitimate goals at risk of being grouped in with and thrown out with the dirty bath water so to speak.

It's just one big cluster fuck of posturing and slander. It's a great social study though. But the term MRA has been drifting from its inception and now it's the one associated with any men's rights organization. It is honestly already being automatically assumed that they are MRA so that's now the term regardless of their actual opinion on whether or not feminism has overshot in some areas or not.

 

[Darkmantle]

In fact, "Feminism" often stands squarely in the way of equality for men.

This is an interesting observation. While the stereotypical "MRA" only really brings up legitimate male issues as a counter-argument, I find that many feminists have the exact same attitude. When someone accuses feminism of "ignoring male issues", the common response is a reluctant acknowledgement of male issues before returning to the same aggressive shouting they were doing before. The most frustrating thing to me is that most discussions about the problems that men face ultimately end up being about women. "MRA"s make it about "feminism trying to repress masculinity", and feminists make it about "if we address the problems women face, male problems will disappear as a result".

For once I'd like a discussion about these things without mentioning women. Because let's face it, most of the problems men face are caused by other men.

I find it interesting that you consider the stereotypical MRA to be one who only brings up men's issues in the context of women's issues. I know of plenty of men's rights organizations that open support groups / support lines, hold conferences to discuss issues, and raise money for specific men's rights causes. But then again, most of those kind of people don't go on to the twitter to argue with the feminists, or generally get reported on.

Like many on this thread mentioned, it usually goes like this: MRA group forms, they get harassed and attacked by radfems, they get angry and defensive, people turn around and use the defensiveness as "proof" that said group is misogynistic and thus the original harassment was justified after the fact.

Personally, my issue is domestic violence against men. A close friend was affected, and I realized that he had nowhere to turn. I'd like to change that, but I found my efforts opposed by (to my surprise at the time)feminists. That's why you'll see me arguing with and about feminism pretty regularly.

I want more men's shelters opened, and for male victims of domestic violence (who make up about 40% of the victims this decade) to be taken seriously. It doesn't have to be about feminism, but it becomes about feminism when they stand in my way and spread misinformation about the subject.

-----------------

Just thought of this too, a lot of time when Men's issues are used "as a counter-argument", it's in situations where a gender discriminatory solution to an issue has been proposed. I find this happens a lot with rape issues. Someone will propose a solution like "make men guilty until proven innocent in rape cases" (overly simplified I know) and in an attempt to have the proposer take a step back and gain some perspective male rape victims are brought up. Now this is immediately dismissed as using male issues as a stick to prevent feminists from "solving" rape, but it's an important consideration, especially if the proposed solution (such as in this example) would further demonize men and make it even harder for male victims to be taken seriously.