The Men's Rights Movement: I Just Don't Get It.

[Esquilax]

I do see the regular feminists advocating for and supporting particular subgroups of men, such as homosexuals, I'll grant you that. Not that those aren't issues, but mind showing a few examples of regular feminism* doing anything for the issues that members on this forum have suggested are other legitimate complaints that men more broadly have, such as education or custody?

It's built into the premise, really; properly executed feminism basically is egalitarianism with a view to redressing some of the more obvious gender equality issues in a more visible manner. The ultimate aim of the movement- and not the weird, cartoon version of it some would have us see it as- is equality for both sexes, and the gender roles being reinforced even by ostensibly female-advantaged things like custody arrangements still run counter to that. After all, a big part of this has been making it so that women aren't necessarily tied to raising a family; having themselves advantaged during custody disputes provides exactly the wrong kind of message.

It's one thing to say that it's for those things, actually doing something, devoting some resources to it, that's another. Quite frankly I don't see it, I think its mostly egalitarians who are in the middle doing the work of both groups, with the regular feminists being closer to (but by no means at) the centre than the radical feminists. But then, what would be the opposite of a regular feminist?

I tend to think of feminism as a specific subgroup of egalitarianism, devoted to this one particular imbalance that needs to be redressed. They've got a focus on female equality, sure, but that doesn't imply a lack of interest in equality in general, since this isn't an all or nothing proposition. That's sort of the weirdest part of men's rights activism, to me; the way it sprung up as an accusation that feminism isn't focusing on advancing the equality of men, and that's a bad thing. One type of equality follows on from the other; many of the grievances that men's rights talks about are part and parcel with a patriarchal system with certain incorrect views about gender. Women get custody more because women should be raising the children, women get lesser jail times for crimes because they're somehow less responsible for their actions, sexual assault by women is less serious because women are weak and not in charge of their sexuality, so it can't be a real thing, etc etc. The idea that an actual egalitarian feminist would want those condescending attitudes to continue informing the social and legal structure is absurd.

*are equity feminism and individualist feminists part of, and a major part of, regular feminism? If so you may have a point. It's my understanding they are mavericks who argue that mainstream feminists aren't doing this stuff.

Then again, maybe I've been poisoned by exposure to feminism at uni, some of those people are completely nuts and hysterical (gettit?).

It's always the loudest ones who get the most attention, I agree. The radicals make the better headline, unfortunately.