I think one possible issue is that many feminists flip-flop on what feminism is
for. Is it an advocacy thing just for women, or is it about helping both genders? Some of them say it's for both genders when men-specific issues are brought up, so you can shut-the-fuck-up talking about any men's issues since feminism has you covered, but then ... they don't address those issues as part of feminism, in actuality, and
then feminism is all about advocating for just women.
You can actually read arguments "go make your own movement/advocacy/shelters/hotlines" thing when domestic abuse rates against males vs services/shelter availability for males is brought up. But then when men
do make those movements and advocacy it's shouted down. It's not a coherent position on the intersection of women's and men's issues.
It's the very fact that feminism has left a void in the discussion space that's allowed MRAs to even exist. Feminism doesn't allow a space for the discussion of the issues that MRAs bring up. If it did, there would be no dissonance. If feminism did in fact "have you covered" then they could say "we have you covered now here's the literature about how we're helping you" rather than "we have you covered now let's never talk about
your problems at all, we're too busy discussing
my problems".
e.g. the very high rate of male suicide. The feminist answer is merely to quip "well women
attempt suicide more often so shut the fuck up. Destroying the patriarchy will solve that. Like magically. Let's
never speak of it again". This is the exact response you'd get if you brought this up anywhere near feminists. It's not exactly
engaging the issue in any way shape or form, and the issue is provably a real issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights_movement#MovementThe modern men's rights movement emerged from the men's liberation movement, which appeared in the first half of the 1970s when some scholars began to study feminist ideas and politics. The men's liberation movement acknowledged men's institutional power while critically examining the costs of traditional masculinity. In the late 1970s, the men's liberation movement split into two separate strands with opposing views: the pro-feminist men's movement and the anti-feminist men's rights movement. Men's rights activists have rejected feminist principles and focused on areas in which they believe men are disadvantaged, oppressed, or discriminated against.
It's a victimhood cult based on the same social theories that radical feminism is based on. People might say they "rejected" feminism principles, but all the language and logic of the MRA is
based on the same type of social critiques that feminism is based on. It even shares the same parallel logic and coded language.
Maleness is defined as being part of a victim class, that's not traditional masculinity
at all, it's derived from post-modern marxist studies of gender as class. MRAs talk about the "feminazis" and institutionalized "misandry", radical feminists talk about "the patriarchy" and institutionalized "misogyny". Radfems talk about "not sleeping with the enemy" "political lesbianism", while MRAs talk about "men going their own way" etc. Both sides also talk a fair bit about intersectionality. Radfems and MRAs might be mirror images in a number of ways.
Author
Topic: Things that made you go "WTF?" today o_O (Read 14913507 times)