hentropy said:
Gorrath said:
I don't think it's right or fair to lump all anti-feminists as MRAs though as they are two distinct things.
That's... precisely what I was saying at he beginning of this conversation. The MRM, as it is currently situated and judging by the issues that they focus on, is mostly a product of internet age, in my opinion. There have been past movements which have also been reactionary, but it's hard to call them the same, even the MLM and MRM in the 70s-90s was markedly different in some ways. You see them as essentially the same movement that has evolved over that time which is... also legitimate. And now you know why I didn't want to get into this debate about who gets called what when and what counts as what when.
I can agree with that. MRM has evolved along with the times, though many of the core complaints are still there because of the distinct lack of progress. I don't want to get into a debate about what to call who when either. What I would take exception to is lumping people together so that someone can pretend like they're all the same. More on that below.
As for men's issues being viewed as lesser problems, that's exactly the issue. How does anyone claim to want equality when they treat one sex's issues as being lesser.
It's less "this one is lesser" and more "women's issues are so monumentally more challenging that men's rights can wait". And as I said, during the second wave there weren't a whole lot of men who were on their side. Early MRAs then got pissed off because women weren't being on their side with their issues. It's a self-replicated cycle, and as I said, I think it's time to end it. Everyone has an interest in tearing down traditional gender roles.
I can't say how many men were on who's side in second wave feminism, but it seems there were plenty enough to get laws changed and ideas about society shifted. In a male-dominated government of the 60's, there seem to have been enough men on board with equality to get the civil rights act passed. Now I"m not saying that there weren't lots of men opposed to these things but the MRM was decidedly on the side of feminism's core beliefs considering they adopted them. We both agree that the fighting needs to stop and that equality is what's important. That trumps everything to me, and so I'd call you friend and ally even though we may (or may not, I can't even tell, lol) disagree on some things.
I will say that the idea that "Men's rights can wait" is absurd. How can you have equality if one sex is waiting for... what exactly? I agree that at points in the past we can most certainly and fairly assert that women's issues, especially when it came to codified, legal rights, far outstripped the needs of men's rights. But today? When a good chunk of feminism is preoccupied with calling specific depictions of female characters in video games oppression or fighting for easy access (not the right to) abortion clinics (both issues I understand are important mind you) is there still no room for work on the systemic sexism of men in the judicial system?
As you say below, NOW is big, influential, has power and yet not a single blurb on their front page about a single men's rights issue. Why? Because feminism is still primarily and almost completely occupied with women's issues. Sure they pay lipservice to the idea that men have rights issues driven by traditional gender roles and maybe, kinda, sorta something that looks like sexism (but it's men so, like, not the SAME kind of sexism) but then NOW turns around and lobbies against legislation to help those issues. (They did, in some cases, have good reasons to oppose provisions in those laws, but they sure as shit didn't lobby for any new or better conceived legislation to take their place either.)
As for overlap between MRA/MRM and Return of Kings, I don't see how this is the case when Return of Kings have articles like this: http://www.returnofkings.com/7877/the-mens-rights-movement-is-no-place-for-men
Communists and anarcho-collectivists also don't like democratic socialists, but that doesn't mean they're a mile away from each other. Female supremacists often don't like feminists, but they still get lumped in with us. When people talk about overlap, people talk more about an overlap of ideas. Just because one person says they are not that doesn't mean they aren't that. For example, in that article one of the first things is a vile rant about women in the military, and how "MRAs" are all for it. From my perspective, I've often heard self-described MRAs oppose women in the military and women in combat roles. Some support it more tepidly, but he makes it sound like they're wholeheartedly embracing it as a group. I wish, but no. He may have a weird idea of MRAs and what they believe, but that doesn't actually mean he's as far as he thinks from them. He is much more unabashed and fringe with his beliefs, but to say he has absolutely nothing to do with the MRM and that there's no ideological adjacency is a bit wrong in my view.
Female supremacists do get lumped in with feminists, and it's just as vacuous. Female supremecists are not feminist adjacent. The whole core of feminism is equality, which is precisely what female supremacists don't agree with. They're so not adjacent that they couldn't be further apart. That said, female supremacists may say a lot of things that sound like things some feminists say. Lumping the two together based on that is still absurd. I've heard self-proclaimed feminists who fight against traditional gender roles (women's roles anyway) claim that men are heartless brutes who are naturally violent. Finding MRAs who say dumb shit is no different than finding feminists who say dumb shit.
Also, what he says sounds weird because he is talking about what a lot of activist MRAs actually do believe, which is so far away from what people claim MRAs believe that it's almost impossible to reconcile the two. He's not MRA for the same reason female supremacists aren't feminists; his ideas directly contradict the core values of MRM. He's all for traditional gender roles for both sexes, which is completely incompatible with MRMs value of men and women being social equals. Some shit he says might be seen as being like what some MRAs say but just like my feminist/female supremacist example above, this does not in any way make him adjacent.
In the article you linked, the author calls RoK "MRA adjacent" in order to try and split the difference on the mistake. That kind of intellectual dishonesty is worthy of scorn. RoK is decideddly against MRA so trying to conflate the two is obnoxious (Not you, the article's author.) Now I"m not claiming that no MRA anywhere supported the boycott, but the article banging on about Mad Max that caused the whole shitstorm is decidedly not MRA, is not by an MRA author, was like so many things erroneously conflated to MRA because people want so associate MRA with things like that whenever they can even when it isn't true. It's that kind of rampant dishonesty about the movement from outside that leads so many to dismiss it outright.
The original article [http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/05/12/furious-about-furiosa-misogynists-are-losing-it-over-charlize-therons-starring-role-in-mad-max-fury-road/] on WHtM on Mad Max didn't mention MRAs at all. As stated above, I don't think it's unfair to call RoK "adjacent" to MRAs seeing as they share a lot of the same ideas (even if the person writing RoK doesn't think MRM goes far enough) The article is just stating that while AVFM may not be officially leading any boycott (something he never asserted), there seemed to be some anti-Mad Max sentiment throughout AVFM, which was counter to what the owner of the site kept saying.
The question is whether or not there's some anti-Mad Max sentiment in the MRM, and the answer is yes, even if they're not actively boycotting or hating on the film as much as RoK.
But as you pointed out yourself, there's a sex-negative undercurrent to some feminists and they didn't like 50 Shades of Grey. If a female supremacist wrote a scathing article about how 50 Shades of Grey was shit and should be banned because it's anti-woman, and some feminists agreed, does that mean female supremacists and femanists are adjacent? No, because their core ideollogy is compeltely incompatible. MRM has a ton of ancillary stuff and sub-groups that think all sorts of crap. So does feminism. Neither movement should be dismissed because of that. You have issues with 3rd wave internet feminism, so do I, and I don't think either of us would throw the movement under the bus because of that. I believe the same should be true of MRM, that's all.
And as you point out, feminism has the same sort of folks. The diffference is lots of people are willing to dismiss crazy internet feminists as crazy internet people whilst pretending that crazy internet MRAs are a totally accurate dipiction of that movement. It's a vapid position based on special pleading where we're expected to look past feminism's issues and embrace the core idea of equality while damning MRM for every nutjob that comes out of the woodwork, even if said nutjob explicitly states that he's against the MRM!
I suppose the problem there is that there's no very big or influential "good" MRA site or group that calls itself MRA and upholds the principles you want to champion. Whenever I ask an MRA what site actually seems to advocate for men's rights without all the bullshit I usually don't get an answer, or someone points me to AVFM as the most moderate, which is not a good sign. If you don't define yourself then others will define you, or you'll be defined only by your most extreme. Feminism has the benefit of having actually accomplished significant things that many women are at least partially grateful for. Organizations like NOW are able to set the mainstream agenda without it getting too wacky, even if you or I may not always agree with them on everything. The National Coalition for Men is a pretty decent organization, but I rarely hear MRAs talk about it despite also being adjacent.
The problem with AVFM is that it's a mix of all sorts of ideas in the MRM, some good, some bad. A lot of people point to Jezebel as an excellent feminist blogging site, which is arguably no better and perhaps worse than AVFM. But there's a self-fulfilling prophecy here too. Feminism is accepted, given lots of money, given space in the academic world and has appologists everywhere. NOW gets to set agendas and make progress because people listen. MRM gets defined as its fringe (I mean christ, the SPLC website lists r/redpill as representative of the MRM for fucks sake) and no one listens except to hear what they want to hear. There's no big or influential group because as soon as you mention that you're an MRA, no one takes anything you have to say seriously no matter what it is. And apparently, no matter what you do actually do or profess to believe, a guy who's not even an MRA somehow gets labelled as MRA and so people can point and laugh at those silly MRAs and their backward ideas.
A group that isn't listened to, strawmanned to death, misrepresented, misunderstood and has the same problems as feminism with regards to gender politics, egos, batshit ideas and an even lack of positive media coverage is somehow supposed to be influential? I like a good chunk of what the NCFM does and says and yet the media ( the HUff Post for example) still publishes dismissive articles about it and has little or nothing to say about any good they do.
Lastly I want to say thanks. Thanks for being awesome. Thanks for talking with me and thanks for listening and reading. I appreciate your viewpoint and it's been a real pleasure talking with you. Our conversation is getting a bit long, which is fine by me but whether you chose to reply to some or all of what I've said here, know that I respect your opinion, time and thought put into all of this.