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?

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.

Actually, it is very easy to deconstruct ignorance

I don't think you know what deconstruct means.

"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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

"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.

This dude is boring.

No we don't have conscription.
I'm not sure where does.
Some places have National Service still e.g. switzerland, israel. I think women do it there to though? They do in Israel anyway.

These data may be inaccurate, Peter, but:

Estimates of ""Lives deliberately extinguished by politically motivated carnage"
War Dead: 87,500,000
Military war dead:
33,500,000
Civilian war dead:
54,000,000 (note that this will include significant numbers of women)

An estimated 100,000,000 women are estimated to have been eliminated from the planet by femicide.

It's a horrible comparison, but women are being killed faster than men.

Thanks for that Annie, I wouldn't have known where to look for those figures!

Tess, thank you for your post. Very articulate.

-Female-on-male violence is typically seen as less serious than male-on-female violence
By whom? You do realise women get longer and harsher sentences for violent crimes than men? Also when you actually look at the statistics, female-on-male violence actually is less serious. According to the office of national statistics : "Women were far more likely than men to be killed by partners/ex-partners." If you look here you will see that the vast vast majority of killings of both men and women are carried out by men.
-Women are typically seen as better caregivers than men, which seems to be reflected in custody disputes
Wrong. Women are expected to look after children, therefore are more likely to be SAHMs or the primary caregiver, therefore are given custody in disputes. Also, in the vast majority of cases where there is a dispute over custody, the man has either been absent or violent. The cases in which women are absent or violent are practically non-existent.
-Men may have to pay higher insurance than women
-No they don't.

Is femicide a discreet notion though like military deaths? That's just male deaths during war. Which looks a little low to me so is appreciate a link.

AnnieLobeseder
I don't want to stray too far from the original discussion in this thread, so I won't address those points in too much depth (although I'm happy to do so elsewhere). I know the EU laws changed, and sadly I think insurance companies were the only ones to benefit from this. Your comments about stereotypes are valid, but I think if feminists are 'already fighting this battle', then they need to show increased recognition of female-on-male domestic abuse, and not leave this to MRAs (and of course MRAs should support legislation to protect women from domestic abuse too).

I found your comments on custody laws more strange though. In a patriarchy, the man is expected to be the breadwinner and work longer hours (in their job) than women. Therefore, the division of labour in patriarchal societies typically sees women assume more of the childcare responsibilities. Obviously feminists are fighting to stop this from being the case, but the fight is not yet won. Should men be punished for not being more involved in childcare when they didn't really have any other choice?

From the Urban Dictionary.......*An MRA is a troglodyte that writes “women’s rights --- ROFLOL!“ and “a woman is the useless skin around the vagina” on Urban Dictionary.

An MRA thinks that a woman should be locked in the kitchen and “slammed and beaten” (a quote). They are scared shitless that one day women might become truly equal and try to use all kinds of defamations and con artistry to keep women down*

Says it all - Tossers!! Nothing here about equality!!

Thank you Line Runner - there's a first time for everything!

if feminists are 'already fighting this battle', then they need to show increased recognition of female-on-male domestic abuse.

No, see, we don't. We don't need to show men anything. This is a point you're consistently confused on. What benefit would there be to us?

Should men be punished for not being more involved in childcare when they didn't really have any other choice?

Of course they have a choice. They just choose not to take it. Every man at any time, especially with new parental leave laws, can take career breaks, flexible hours etc. But they choose not to. Because patriarchy. You know, the thing feminists are fighting against.

As I have frequently pointed out to you, many men will benefit from the changes feminists are fighting for. But we don't need men to be onside. It would be easier for everyone if they were to step aside and let us work. Even better if they join it. But certainly not essential.

Who is punishing men for not being involved in childcare and what form is this punishment taking?

Sorry, who's punishing men for "not having a choice" but to go out and earn themselves money and develop a career while women stayed at home and had no money or career and did the thankless endless task of raising their children?