RE: Men's Rights Movement
December 28, 2017 at 10:37 am
(This post was last modified: December 28, 2017 at 12:35 pm by vulcanlogician.)
So, if you haven't seen the movie mentioned in the OP, this video might fill you in on where the documentarian is coming from. A little bit chicken little, but she made a couple valid points. I don't see why changing her mind about MRAs caused her to renounce feminism though. Assuming that every single point made by the MRAs was correct, that's no reason to conclude that women have nothing to fight for in society. Her characterization of MRAs was as a movement not opposed to feminism. However, the result of MRAs gaining her sympathies was for her to discontinue her feminist activism. Odd...
What I see as compelling is what she had to say about "dehumanizing the enemy." I used to see conservatives as a collective of idiots. In my hometown (in rural Appalachia) there are a great deal of conservatives who are so set in their way of thinking, it would be beyond them to even consider a leftist position. When I would debate politics with them, I would always "tow the line." When they would mention public waste I would retort, "But there is corporate waste, too." What ever point they had to make, I made a counterpoint.
But around two years ago, I started taking a different approach. I would acknowledge that things like public waste were bad instead of just immediatly comparing it to corporate waste. And the weird thing is, once they felt they were being heard, they were more receptive to my points. Just by admitting they had a point about public waste (and they did) I was able to proceed in our discourse as someone who can find common ground them. Sometimes people just want to be heard. There's nothing wrong with that.
I should probably admit I'm a total hippie/peacenik, and I really get off on that kumbaya shit. So what I'm saying here may have more to do with respecting different points of view than feminism. Tizheruk said something about half of MRAs being addicted to their own anger, while the other half were crypto-antifeminists. Perhaps some are. But let's assume that a significant portion become activists taking the platform at face value. If we allow that MRAs have some valid points, it seems to be trivializing the anger of some because others in the movement have dubious intentions. The right does the same thing, trivializes the anger of BLM and feminists. Bad practice I think. Leads to less listening.
But then again, Thumpalumpacus had a good point:
A simple stroll through the history books proves that women were utterly disenfranchised since the birth of civilized society. It isn't a simple issue of changing a few laws to set it right; it is unearthing prejudices embedded deep within our culture.
But, just like feminists, some MRAs appear to be motivated to unwind the cultural fabric of traditional gender roles, so there is common ground between the two movements.
I'm going to double down on what I said before: any group ought to be able to advocate for the rights of its members. I think the real issue isn't MRAs, but antifeminism. If men want to fight societal norms that do not work in their favor, this should have no bearing on women trying to do the same. If you are a men's rights activist fighting for something like equal consideration in custody battles, they need not oppose women seeking equality in the professional arena etc.
Inasmuch as MRAs are advocating for the advancement of justice in arenas where it is lacking for men, I take no issue with it. If a movement feels the need to oppose the activism of marginalized people (feminists in this case), then they are just standing in the way of progress.
What I see as compelling is what she had to say about "dehumanizing the enemy." I used to see conservatives as a collective of idiots. In my hometown (in rural Appalachia) there are a great deal of conservatives who are so set in their way of thinking, it would be beyond them to even consider a leftist position. When I would debate politics with them, I would always "tow the line." When they would mention public waste I would retort, "But there is corporate waste, too." What ever point they had to make, I made a counterpoint.
But around two years ago, I started taking a different approach. I would acknowledge that things like public waste were bad instead of just immediatly comparing it to corporate waste. And the weird thing is, once they felt they were being heard, they were more receptive to my points. Just by admitting they had a point about public waste (and they did) I was able to proceed in our discourse as someone who can find common ground them. Sometimes people just want to be heard. There's nothing wrong with that.
I should probably admit I'm a total hippie/peacenik, and I really get off on that kumbaya shit. So what I'm saying here may have more to do with respecting different points of view than feminism. Tizheruk said something about half of MRAs being addicted to their own anger, while the other half were crypto-antifeminists. Perhaps some are. But let's assume that a significant portion become activists taking the platform at face value. If we allow that MRAs have some valid points, it seems to be trivializing the anger of some because others in the movement have dubious intentions. The right does the same thing, trivializes the anger of BLM and feminists. Bad practice I think. Leads to less listening.
But then again, Thumpalumpacus had a good point:
(December 28, 2017 at 12:37 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: That doesn't, however, mean that every cause is equal. Given the length and breadth of male social dominance, there seems to be a big mote/beam factor not being considered by MRA groups.
A simple stroll through the history books proves that women were utterly disenfranchised since the birth of civilized society. It isn't a simple issue of changing a few laws to set it right; it is unearthing prejudices embedded deep within our culture.
But, just like feminists, some MRAs appear to be motivated to unwind the cultural fabric of traditional gender roles, so there is common ground between the two movements.
I'm going to double down on what I said before: any group ought to be able to advocate for the rights of its members. I think the real issue isn't MRAs, but antifeminism. If men want to fight societal norms that do not work in their favor, this should have no bearing on women trying to do the same. If you are a men's rights activist fighting for something like equal consideration in custody battles, they need not oppose women seeking equality in the professional arena etc.
Inasmuch as MRAs are advocating for the advancement of justice in arenas where it is lacking for men, I take no issue with it. If a movement feels the need to oppose the activism of marginalized people (feminists in this case), then they are just standing in the way of progress.
