Why are feminists so threatened by the MRA movement?

[LaVoixDeLaRaison]

When I was at university, the Gender Equality society (of which I was a member) chose to rename itself the Feminist society, arguing that the only way equality could be achieved was by focusing on women's issues. This led some other students to set up an MRA group, which was met with some resistance from the feminists. On this very board I see commenters angrily referring to MRAs as if they are all members of an evil homogeneous group.

Isn't it possible that men and women both suffer oppression from society in different ways? That the levels of this oppression are not necessarily equal, but are still important if we are to achieve equality? I often see feminists agreeing with certain 'male issues' (e.g. media stereotypes, elevated male suicide rate), but suggesting that feminism has other priorities, and if they want to do something about these issues then they should make their own groups. Why do they get criticized when they do exactly that? Better still, wouldn't feminism be better off if it didn't alienate so many men (and women, focused on a wider range of issues, and stopped pitting the sexes against one another?

wazedak's post can be summarised as "spot on, sir!"

Here's a thought. We've discussed a few issues that negatively affect men. But have you considered that not one of those issues actually advantages women?

Yes, girls tend to outperform boys at primary level. But it's not as if that translates into better career prospects or higher earning potential for women.

Perhaps more women than men are entering higher education. But this is not because women are being actively selected over men. And see my point above for how this does translate into an advantage post-education.

Some of these issues actually affect women more negatively than they do men.

Men do often get a raw deal in custody disputes in terms of access to children. But the women are the ones who are then left with the huge negative impact on earning potential and logistical nightmare that is single parenthood. Women do not choose this because it's better for them, they do it because it's better for their children and the court (composed mostly of men), agrees.

And finally, yes, hypermasculinity and men not being "allowed" to express emotion in a healthy way may translate into more men successfully committing suicide than women. But a man experiencing frustration at the burden patriarchy puts on him will turn his hand against his partner and children more often than he will turn it against himself.

"-The achievement gap between boys and girls at school
-The higher number of women than men in higher education"

So what? How is this actually disadvantaging men in real terms? I'm all for education and I think everyone should be able to have access to the best education they can but it isn't actually harming men. They still have the vast majority of wealth, status and power. The only 'danger' is that they may have to share that with women. Welcome to equality. That's what it looks like. Men giving up some of their power wealth and status. Plus as part of the whole picture, one of the key reasons boys aren't doing as well at school (and that is presumably a follow on to why not as many go to university) is because of...guess what...yes...gender stereotypes. Imagine my surprise!

Yes Positive discrimination is a problem...for women. Men have gained an advantage from it for centuries and continue to do so. It's about time women got a slice of that pie.

Male suicide rates. Yeah men need to get on top of that and sort it out.

Earlier average age of death for men. Look after yourselves and stop killing each other.

x-post with Annie there.

"But a man experiencing frustration at the burden patriarchy puts on him will turn his hand against his partner and children more often than he will turn it against himself." That is so true. Men do tend to express their anger outwards whereas women turn it inwards e.g. self-harming, eating disrders

Just marking my place as I suspect this will be amusing, then depressing.

You're rather late to the party, LRD.

I haven't read every post but I've read a lot and followed links and found it very interesting and educational to me as a feminist so thank you for those who have posted brilliant points and links.

PetulaGordino re "I bet you have - it's been purely for your benefit and no one else's"

It's beneficial to others reading, honest. I know most of what you are saying is all very obvious but for some of us feminists who don't read as much as we should it is very helpful to get all these links and read loads of helpful stuff.

Please do not feel postings are in vein because others are reading and learning all the time, especially salonmeblowy Feminists are not responsible for educating men

And wazedak re Any evidence of this? I know you're going to reply with that banknote woman we keep hearing about but any other examples?

Anita Sarkeesian.

I know.

My head was turned by feminine delights like having a life.

I am wondering why 'homogeneous' is such an insult, though? I don't think MRAs are homogeneous. I just don't give much of a fuck about getting to know their cute little differences.

that's a relief italian (though i'm not sure my own contributions have been that helpful to lurkers!)

i forgot that the audience isn't just goaders rubbing their hands together at the idea of diverting feminists from discussing male violence and other issues

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

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.

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.

PetulaGordino
StevesBollocksAnalogy
BuffyBotRebooted
Just for my own benefit? Not at all! Yes I came here to challenge my views. One poster helpfully pointed out that F4J have done some pretty stupid things, so my opinion of them was changed. Other posters have explained to me why they personally don't choose to focus on men's issues, and I understand their reasons for doing so. At least one other poster has found the discussion useful because it showed her/him new statistics and arguments. I hope that there are some lurkers who have found it useful too.

Steves I'm sorry if you felt I used too many words and was not succinct enough, but I feel that what I had to say was useful. I told you which academics' works I had read so you might have an idea of which arguments I was already familiar with. I tried to briefly summarize why I felt the nature/nurture debate was relevant for this discussion, lest I be accused of irrelevancy.

salonmeblowy
My grievance with Fine's work was that she was (I felt) distorting the science to suit her political agenda. She had some valid criticisms of the methodologies used in certain experiments on the issue (particularly Baron-Cohen's work) but even still 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. Despite this, her work is used (perhaps by others more than herself) to push forward an extreme 'nurture' position, which I believe is not only scientifically inaccurate, but harmful to society when applied to politics.

To all those asking me to provide an example of a decent online MRA forum, I've done a brief (by no means exhaustive search online) and come across www.reddit.com/r/mensrights . I don't agree with everything that's posted there, but I've not seen the abuse/misogyny that ruins other forums. I'll be posting there, and I'd invite you to do the same too, if you're interested in respectfully debating with people who have different views.

Really, you can't see the misogyny?

Really?

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.

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?".

"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.

Are you joking, Voix? That site is vile!

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

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!

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