Why are feminists so threatened by the MRA movement?

Isn't that the Reddit that those clowns from AVfM crayon all over? You know, the ones who instigate and bankroll illegally obtaining personal information about women who dare to speak out against them, put it all over the internet and encourage men to harm them? The ones who threaten women with rape and immolation should they want to see a female face on a banknote?

And you think there's no misogyny there? Are you huffing glue?

The reason you can't find an MRA site which wants to engage with feminists or even women who don't hate women is that there aren't any. MRAs are quite open in their hatred of feminists, women, men who don't want to kill women or anyone else that doesn't hate women.

I hope that clears some things up for you at long last.......

I doubt it will though.

@FloraFox LOL, fuck me "FEMINAZI STOLE MY ICECREAM, WWAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!"

it was worth saying twice linerunner!

Sorry I posted that twice, my mobile site is playing up.

I think that anti-feminist MRAs do feel their privilege, but just don't feel quite privileged enough.

Yep that's the problem Linerunner, they see all they white, privileged males and think "Waaahhhhhh, why don't I have that!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!" What they don't do is look to themselves as to why they don't have that. It may be due to personal circumstances, they're not smart enough, they have a mental illness/personality disorder, their mother didn't love them enough, their father was a poor male role model etc etc etc etc. Gosh the possibilities are endless!!!

Anti-feminist MRAs feel their privilege all right. They just don't feel quite privileged enough.

her final conclusion was 'we don’t yet know whether, on average, males and females are born differently predisposed to systemizing versus empathising'. On the evidence we do have, I would say that it is fairly clear that men and women have characteristically different brains, but Fine is quite right to point out that this is by no means proved yet.

It's clear where you're not getting this OP. She said "are born" not "have". It's almost like you've missed the whole point of Fine's work and thesis.

Ah, I love that one, FloraFox, thanks for posting it!

I'm sorry to be crude, but what the actual fuck was that website. You couldn't see the misogyny?! And that's one of the good ones? What's a bad MRA website if that is a good one?!

Gah, I've missed all this. Well done you lot for such patience and endurance in the face of so much raisin.

Did anyone post this yet?

I think that anti-feminist MRAs do feel their privilege, but just don't feel quite privileged enough.

Oh, and lots of threads about how Feminists are Doing Feminism Wrong. "If only they'd be more reasonable", these men opine, "we might actually listen to them!"

I like this quote: "Feminism is not the only cause of this illogical and sexist thinking that pervades the courts and society, but it is certainly one cause."

So, yes, a great site for feminists to go and visit, thanks, Voix!

LRD you're here! I'm so chuffed, I proper luffs you

OP can you please give an example of discrimination against men that would continue to occur if and when feminism achieves it's goal. Other than insurance. The point of my question is underline the fact that if these men wanted equality for men and women, they would be feminists and label themselves as such instead of creating a boys club.

i "respectfully debate" with people who have different views on a daily basis. i don't actually live inside the FWR section of MN. most of the rest of the internet and the RL world do not share my views

not sure why i should toddle off where the op tells me just because he thinks it would edumacate me

Are you joking, Voix? That site is vile!

"if you're interested in respectfully debating with people who have different views." I don't particularly find much value in 'debating' with people about my oppression, which they will never experience. It isn't up for debate.

Not sure what's "decent" about a forum with a self-proclaimed agenda of "discrediting feminist lies", but okay, I wish you luck.

I also don't see a single thread there about actually making things better for men beyond whining about "Women can get a boob job on the NHS, why can't I?", and "Why is it okay when women punch men?".

I don't understand how someone who is obviously educated as you are, can make such a fundamental error in believing MRA's are campaigning for equality too.
I hope you read and re-read some of the replies on this thread some of which are quite frankly beautiful.

Really, you can't see the misogyny?

Really?

Sorry to double post but from a personal perspective on why I'm not trying to work with the MRA (who describe my politics as hysteria) I have to say that I used to be much more at pains and committed to saying these things and to be clear that I think that patriarchy damages us all; we are all subject to it. But I hold my hands up to being more than a little fucked off that men only really seem to battle patriarchy when it disadvantages them in discrete ways. For example, those men concerned about their 'right' to have 50/50 residency with children post divorce won't seem to engage with the fact that residency is about continuity for the children post divorce, so if they really want parental residency they need to step up and look after their children pre divorce.

And I hear your argument about 'being the breadwinner' OP but I am the main breadwinner in our family, my earning power is currently about four times my partner's but you know what? I took time out of my career to stay at home with my children, I have returned to working on PT contracts (which is where I am currently earning all the money for rent, bills, food and spending money - DP earns a small amount which he keeps in addition to the spending money I give him), I have negotiated, reorganised and managed my career to be there for my children when they are young, working alongside male colleagues who have not blinked in career terms, when their kids were born. Men could do what I do but don't, and then start arguing that feminists have prevented them having 50/50 residency orders. What's more, I have done all this negotiating and compromising to raise my AND MY PARTNER'S children, and no one has congratulated me as they would do had a man made similar reasonable adjustments. Instead these choices are reflected back to me as life style choices I have made (I regard being a parent as somewhat more complex and meaningful to society than that) which mean I should STFU about the pay disparity and career disadvantage that I now experience because of them.

My direct answer to the OP is that IME the MRA movement is specifically and avowedly anti-feminist. So whether I feel or perceive myself to be directly threatened is neither here nor there; that movement is a de facto threat to feminists specifically (examples given above including the dismissive reference to Caroline Criado Perez who hasn't just been hassled on Twitter but directly threatened in her home. For asking for pictures of women on banknotes??????) and generally (MRA see feminists as responsible for courts and family justice which does NOT discriminate on behalf of women but on behalf of children). I've seen the OP's responses that NAMRALT but since this hasn't been backed up with any links or references to or examples of the friendly MRA that the OP describes then I'm not really convinced. Just look at F4J, who demand 50/50 residency as a right rather than working through what might be best for their children ie. continuity, and actively oppose feminist campaigning against violence sexual violence against women and children (which they describe as 'hysteria'. I can't believe this isn't a satire).

I am actually quite concerned with the effects of patriarchy on men and boys, not least because I have a son. But the examples that the OP has given are to my mind not examples of female privilege but of male disadvantage which arise out of an overall system of privilege.

For example, WRT male victims of dv. Men in this situation are disadvantaged by a lack of support and understanding, this is very clear. And women in this situation are more supported and understood inasmuch as there are DV services which assume female users etc. But you can't call the female situation here a privilege because what it reflects is a much higher incidence of male violence against women in domestic situations. This is not evidence of a privilege. Further the prevalence of male violence is tied to the way that masculinity is constructed as a form of agency: in patriarchy men are supposed to be stronger and socialised this way (for example, through 'male' supporting activities, social value given to bodily power and agency, and through conversational and discourse styles which cultivate a sense of doing rather than a sense of negotiating in discussion). Women correlatively are socialise to be relatively passive (through more delicate bodily styles cultivated in sport and feminine craft activities, through social value given to thin - and let's face it - weak bodies, through conversation and discourse styles of deference and deferment, negotiation and consensus seeking rather than declarative and decisive. These lists are examples and not meant to be exhaustive). So the agent (strong, decisive) construction of men and the passive (weak, accommodating) construction of women which is what part of what privileges male access to power (because decisiveness and strength etc. is a way of achieving social and political power) and privileges men overall but at the same time produces pockets of disadvantage like less access to support for DV for men, specifically because men are supposed to be strong and to physically overpower and dominate women. To observe that disadvantage to DV support in no way means that the system of privilege which produces it is not a system which privileges men; in fact if you think of it systemically this particular disadvantage underscores the gendered, hierarchical construction of power and agency which undeniably disadvantages women as a class in relation to men as a class when it comes to access to power, discourse, wealth and social value.

So because of this, I do perceive myself to be working on behalf of male victims of domestic violence because as a feminist I am committed to opposing and dissolving of that construction of agency in our society which makes agency harder for women to achieve in both discursive and physical fields; and because as a feminist I am trying to engage with and challenge constructions of masculinity which mean that male violence (in both discursive and physical senses) is cultivated rather than curtailed. Does anyone remember this article? Part four looks at a broader range of issues where men experience disadvantage in the context of an overall system of privilege.

The audience is very wide, it is the WORLD wide web y' know!