Why are feminists so threatened by the MRA movement?

This dude is boring.

"Two good examples in prostitution and femicide"

Gosh thanks!

" but I'd still argue (pointlessly) that conscription and death in service outstrips other sexists constructs significantly."

No surprise there then. You're wrong, obviously. It doesn't.

Even if you want to focus on men you'd find far higher casualty rates due to sexist notions of hypermasculinity brought to an extreme in certain areas with high poverty levels. For example. That's gang violence, by the way.

OP - while I agree that female-on-male violence isn't taken as seriously as male-on-female violence, it's hardly female privilege is it?

As I said on another thread earlier, my brother was a victim of F-on-M domestic abuse (including very severe violence), and is now an advocate for men in such situations. He believes strongly that support services for male victims are not adequate.

However he is the first person who will correct anyone who tries to use this disparity, as somehow meaning women who are experiencing domestic abuse and who often have widespread support available, are in some way privileged.

As he would say to you, 'how is being more likely to experience domestic abuse a position of privilege?'

NB: The issue of F-on-M violence not being taken as seriously, or indeed inadequate support for men in that situation, is the fault of authorities. It is not the doing of female victims.

Do we still have conscription in his country?
British women are sent to front line battle zones too now you know, they asked for this right.
Do you think more conscripted men die in battle than women are murdered by men every year?

If that's what you choose to define the MRA movement as, then you are quite right to feel threatened by them. That bears very little resemblance to what they actually are, however

No true Scotsman garbage.

OP, the thing that is being patiently explained to you is that men as a class already have more rights and are considered as fuller citizens than women. The world over. Globally. Everywhere.

That is not to say that things are always fair for all men, everywhere. But it is to say that we live in a system that treats men better than women. And within that system men's status as higher is dependent on women's status as lower. If men want to question that system and make it better and fair for all, that is a good thing - but in achieving that aim men will have to relinquish unearned male privilege if they want true fairness for all. Basically men have things to gain but in order to gain them, they will have to accept/embrace certain losses. If men (MRAs) want all of the gains and none of the losses then they are a threat to the Women's Rights Movement.

The act of calling a movement of sexually privileged people a "(sex) rights movement" is a threat in and of itself.

If what MRAs really want is sexual equality and an end to patriarchy, they need a moniker that communicates that. The current one does not.

HTH.

children growing up without their fathers, and can cause estranged fathers to commit suicide

Can you link to a news article relating to a real-life incident to illustrate this?

"I daresay that MRAs aren't typically concerned about the global epidemic of sexual violence "

Right.
You see plenty of non-MRA men are concerned about the global epidemic of sexual violence. So. Right.
Additionally the idea that MRAs might get on board with being a bit worried about sexual violence if I can only bring myself to be concerned about the terrible situation with insurance premiums (addressed for many products via the Gender Directive a couple of years back) is revolting quite frankly.

incidentally the only comments I have seen around sexual violence from MRAs is about women sexually assaulting men. And attempts to say that this is as prevalent as male sexual violence against women and children. They are usually strangely silent on the fact of male sexual violence against men.

Actually, it is very easy to deconstruct ignorance

I don't think you know what deconstruct means.

Instead of saying 'you're woefully lacking in the knowledge (and the skills) for this argument', you should attempt to deconstruct my argument

Very keen on telling women what to do, I see.

I do think conscription is an issue that requires attention from both genders. As war is a feminist issue with violence against women it creates.

Two good examples in prostitution and femicide but I'd still argue (pointlessly) that conscription and death in service outstrips other sexists constructs significantly.

the eu outlawed gender discrimination in insurance costs in 2012

Female-on-male violence is typically seen as less serious than male-on-female violence

Because women are universally seen to be weaker, and men, under the patriarchy, are supposed to be big and tough and able to take it. Feminism fights to dismantle artificial gender constructs, which would eliminate this problem. So, this is an issue we are already tackling. No need to thank us.

-Women are typically seen as better caregivers than men, which seems to be reflected in custody disputes
Custody is given to the primary caregiver, not the woman because she is assumed to be so. Men are getting better at caring for their own children and this is reflected in the fact that more and more parents share residency 50/50. But in cases where a man was quite happy to abdicate childrearing to his partner as "women's work" while he happily continued his career can't then start crying that he suddenly want to step up and be a full-time day when the marriage breaks down. If you want to make sure you get fair access to your children, make sure you as much your child's primary carer as the mother for the child's entire life.

-Men may have to pay higher insurance than women
If you're talking about car insurance, not any more. This law has been changed. And if men weren't so keen on injuring and killing themselves and each other, this would not be true. Male aggression (resulting in higher injury rates) is also a results of artificial gender constructs which don't allow men to express emotions in a positive and healthy way. See point A for how feminists are already fighting this battle. Again, no need to thank us.

a blog about it there is plenty more on google

Ah but my dear OP, one can't deconstruct ignorance.

Peter

What about femicide? Especially in Asia. 100s of millions missing / killed.

It's true isn't it? Men fear women laughing at them. Women fear men killing them.

And somehow this gets twisted into into some bizarre comparable oppression.

OMFG.

I can't believe anyone would look at the world and think that those were the main problems when it came to equality of any type.

Incidentally, all of those things have been discussed at length and multiple times on this board.

Thereyouarepeter - so do you expect women to campaign for men to stop sending other men to kill even more men? Yes, conscription is fucking stupid. So how about you men stop doing it?

Typically 'seen' by whom? Your mates?

Peter - perhaps the prostitution of women?