Why isn't there a genuine 'Men's Movement'..?

Having read what you have posted there in a bit more detail, and seeing the video, rissepuc I'd think, as a fellow male I assume, you need to get better males in your life, and grow up a bit?

Is that video the best you can do? A bunch of people shouting at each other with no context and crappy sound? It's not possible to figure out anything that's going on.

Male suicide and prostate cancer are not caused by women and feminists do not abuse or ridicule groups set up to address those issues, such as Movember. The difference between a group genuinely trying to address a men's issue (like Movember) and an MRA group is that the genuine group gets the fuck on with it and doesn't try to reduce funding for women's health initiatives.

Most domestic violence organisations for women were set up by women volunteers, often using their own homes. They have lobbied for funding (now under threat for many) and the funding they get is based on their demonstrated need. Rather than setting up their own organisations and lobbying for additional funding, MRA groups want to use what the women have built and want to take the women's funding (which seems to be what was going on in the video, according to the caption).

You still haven't pointed out anything that relates to men's rights. Misandry isn't real. Please point to any law or social convention that has been adopted any place in the world at any time in history as a result of hatred of men?

and I say that as non-feminist male, fwiw.

rissepuc - there may be somethings you've just posted that carries some worthwhile comment, but it would appear that you wish to lie your anger at the door of 'some feminists' rather than look at the bigger picture, i.e. that just about all of the ills that men suffer can be ameliorated by themselves, and not look to women, or feminists, to do that for them.

What you are doing here, at least, is abrogating a sex/gender responsibility.

"People now see the concept of MRA as meaning 'bunch of misogynist wankers'. "

Mentioning things like male suicide or prostate cancer makes someone a "misogynist wanker"???

"It (UKIP) is an out and out, cards on the table group of misogynists. "

If they are anything like the BNP, I would have used the term racists. I really don't see how UKIP qualify as a men's rights group, do they ever mention things like prostate cancer funding?

"Misandry isn't a thing,"

If someone hates men/boys for no reason other than because they are male, that is misandry.

"we just don't prioritise men's problems over difficulties women face"

Your interest in men's problems is zero (and many feminists have openly said that), again that is why men's rights movements exist, they aren't expecting feminists to sort out their problems for them.

If feminism was about equality then it would be supported by both men and women and there would be no need for MRAs. But as it turns out, we have one side campaigning for women's rights only and another side campaigning for men's rights.

It seems to be a lose-lose for men. If they expect feminists to help with men's rights they get abuse and ridicule, but if they set up their own movements they also get abuse and ridicule.

"Men have all the power"

Really? And what "power" do typical everyday men who aren't world leaders or PMs have exactly?

" do you think it might have anything to do with MH funding"

I don't know what MH is, but it is true feminist NGOs get millions of government funding while men's groups get zero and get by on donations alone.

"Why is this a reason for men's rights groups to exist? Feminism exists to fight domination of women by men."

And meanwhile men are committing suicide, dying of the under-researched prostate cancer and going to prison. But hey, I guess men should just ignore these issues and join feminism instead. Trying to Find TV ads to write complaints about I guess is far more important.

"their main goal seems to be to get feminists to fight their battles for them "

No it isn't. I think they are all fully aware feminists are not on their side.

"No abuse, no allegations. "

I've seen feminists on various sites casually use words like "rapists" or "women beaters" to describe men with any interest in men's rights.

In Canada, a (offline) forum was set up for male victims of domestic violence. Do you know what feminists did? Instead of leaving them to it they appear screaming and shouting "women beaters". Video below.

ah, just googled them, thanks.

and what's PUA, and Red Pill, as I'd read on another thread, ta?

It's tricky isn't it? Why on earth should there be 'an authentic mens movement' when the actual power dynamic means that is campaigning to give up power? That's pretty much unknown in socio-political history.
I think I'm old and stupid enough to think that universal change comes around from the 'bottom rather than the top', and the messages given to girls and young women by the men in their lives is far more effective than having a liberal mens 'movement'.

And there are men's rights groups, the reason they exist is because feminism is only concerned with women's rights and feminists have made it clear men's rights isn't their concern or responsibility.

Why is this a reason for men's rights groups to exist? Feminism exists to fight domination of women by men. If men's rights groups exist because feminism is only concerned with women's rights, it must be to maintain male domination over women.

The reason they are not well organised is because their main goal seems to be to get feminists to fight their battles for them rather than to actually do anything productive around men's issues, unlike Movember.

Well empire I disagree with arse on that one. Using PUA strategies may lead to a person gaining more confidence resulting in more potential relationships but their main goal is casual sex.

First of all why are you all mentioning UKIP as if it's a "men's" movement? I thought it was a BNP-like political party concerned with immigration? What does it have to do with men's rights specifically??

It is an out and out, cards on the table group of misogynists. I'm surprised anyone has failed to notice, well, anyone with an ounce of sense.

And there are men's rights groups, the reason they exist is because feminism is only concerned with women's rights and feminists have made it clear men's rights isn't their concern or responsibility.

No, not true, we just don't prioritise men's problems over difficulties women face, this makes a certain type of man sad, so they have a tanrtum and demand sammiches. Men have all the power, if they really wanted to sort out their problems, they have all the tools at their disposal to do so, but they don't, they want women to sort them for them.

They are still in early stages and aren't as organised as feminist rights yet but they are continually gaining in popularity- a few years ago few people knew what MRA or misandry meant now those words are much more well known for example.

Men's rights groups have been around since at least the 60's, so, about as long as second wave feminism. Misandry isn't a thing, it's a made up word used only by people who think that women should just shut up now and go back in the kitchen.

Unfortunately feminists are throwing abuse and making horrible allegations at them around the clock, feminists think men are "privileged" and have no issues so how dare they talk about something that isn't specifically about women (or should I say "the womenz"?)

No abuse, no allegations. Men do have inherent privilege, they do have issues, but are more than capable of sorting them out if they want to, what might be a better question to ask is why men in power don't give enough of a shit about men not in power to want to stop them committing suicide at the rates they do, do you think it might have anything to do with MH funding???? Men are welcome to talk about whatever they like, they just need to be able to tell the difference between truth and fiction, and sadly, the 'leaders' of the present MRE groups aren't capable of doing that.

HTH

PUAs are not about relationships they are about casual sex. Which is why some men who are not really good with women seek advice from men who are.

When it comes to casual sex it is mainly based on snap judgements so they can pretend to be someone they aren't for a night. Most PUAs are mainly about teaching confidence with a bit of smooth lines and being able to read a situation.

Also the MC woman is still more likely to be a victim of rape or DV than the WC man

First of all why are you all mentioning UKIP as if it's a "men's" movement? I thought it was a BNP-like political party concerned with immigration? What does it have to do with men's rights specifically??

And there are men's rights groups, the reason they exist is because feminism is only concerned with women's rights and feminists have made it clear men's rights isn't their concern or responsibility.

They are still in early stages and aren't as organised as feminist rights yet but they are continually gaining in popularity- a few years ago few people knew what MRA or misandry meant now those words are much more well known for example.

Unfortunately feminists are throwing abuse and making horrible allegations at them around the clock, feminists think men are "privileged" and have no issues so how dare they talk about something that isn't specifically about women (or should I say "the womenz"?)

It is indeed a very shallow way to look at the world. You see it when people say that someone is in/out of another person's "league". Because an attractive person could never find things attractive about others aside from their appearance, of course

Shocker, the man in that picture is fully clothed and the woman is naked.

And - it's completely within each person's control (acknowledge the influence of society) what it takes to make a relationship fit. If one person has one criteria and another several - so what?!?

Bertie PUA types don't care about women's personalities. arsenal didn't even mention women's personalities in his post, it's all about getting the best looking woman possible. I saw this picture on twitter a few weeks ago, posted by a man as an illustration of women's privilege. Where do you even begin? Maybe if PUA types cared a little about women's personalities and less about playing a game, they wouldn't find themselves 10 years down the line sitting on the County Court roof dressed as Del Boy Superman.

The thing is if you act fake, you attract someone looking for that fake persona, ie someone who's interested in playing the game. They're putting up a fake persona too for the "game" and so you bounce off each other like that. Everything is working fine, you progress to sex etc. But after the fake game playing facade wears off you might have absolutely nothing in common. And then people get upset because they reckon that the things they don't like about the other person are "wrong" and need to be "fixed".

If you just looked for someone who you actually get on with in the first place you avoid all of that

Either he won the lottery Bertie or he settled, according to arse

I agree MEOD social mobility is practically non-existent now and it's getting worse in many ways. I'm mulling over whether I think well off women have more power than poor men. I think it's true in an economic sense but not sure about politically or socially. If a MC woman ran against a WC man for a party nomination as an MP, for example, I think the WC man would have the advantage but maybe not always and it probably depends on the political stance of the party.

I hate the notion of social mobility since it assumes a WC person should become MC or want to become MC when what a lot of people want is just a decent job and more money, not to "climb a ladder". However I'd be a hypocrite not to be in favour of measures that improve social mobility since I have benefited from them myself.