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?

I don't know Buffy. I know I was once naive and nice FWR women helped me out. So I do try to give people who appear naive the benefit of the doubt.

But I am rapidly losing the will to live.

Voix, you think we're all wrong. Good for you. Thanks for you input. We'll take it under consideration.

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

Every feminist I know personally, recognizes F-on-M domestic abuse exists, and finds it abhorrent.

However, it's for men themselves to take up the issue, it's not for women to do that for them. That's something else my brother believes most strongly about.

I don't understand why MRAs can't choose to do childcare like women and loads of other men do. Is there a special MRA contract they have to sign?

Because, Buffy, I'm ashamed to say that once I was that clown. I even came on here and had much the same argument with the FWR crowd of the time. I did actually come to the FWR board to tell the feminists how they were Doing Feminism Wrong. They patiently discussed with me what an idiot I was being how things actually are, and I was saw the light. I am always optimistic it could happen again.

This post is addressed to the women here.

I cannot for the life of me understand why men seeking to end patriarchy would address themselves to women. I mean, what an utter waste of time. Any man who can see that the current set up is unfair must surely be able to see that the people/structures/power holders/occupiers of the mechanisms for change, are male.

Why then would one waste one's time in haranguing the people who are least able to bring about the change one wants? Gee, gosh, I cannot think

TessOfTheFurbyvilles
Surely women who commit domestic violence are more 'privileged' than men who commit domestic violence, because it's more likely that their abuse will not be taken seriously by the police and by friends/relatives? Obviously all acts of domestic abuse are despicable, and services should be in place for anyone who suffers it, regardless of gender.

BuffyBotRebooted
Congratulations for campaigning for men's issues as well. What's wrong with calling that men's rights activism, given that that's exactly what it is? And what disgusting ideas exactly am I promulgating?

I actually think when a woman does the whole "but why can't we work with the lovely kind men who only want the best for us?" that they're really on the verge of having their eyes opened. Because the next step is "Oh, but they don't really want the best for us, do they?"

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

Statistics have been posted already, but which do you think is more accurately recorded - femicide and death through prostitution, or death through conscription?

Men already have all the rights, what more rights do they want?
The right to do childcare...
The right to be SAHDs?
These rights are already theirs.

Beachcomber do you honestly subscribe that women are the least able to do something about it?

Depends what power model you subscribe to I suppose. I see power as cyclic. All oppressors are overthrown eventually.

TessOfTheFurbyvilles
I'm curious, why exactly does your brother think that only men should campaign against female-on-male domestic violence? Obviously he has more experience with the issue than me, but this just seems divisive and harmful to me.

Annie I remember you in your pre-reform days!

When I saw you come onto a thread I used to twitch not any more!

This board also helped me coalesce how I felt about things and give it a name - radical feminism - thank you Dittany

Anyway i digress...

Petula, the two arn't comparable. Femicide is a very broad church. I'm not arguing that more woman arent killed then men, they are. I'm saying conscription which is a single tool of violence is more destructive as an individual mechanism. It was in response to an example of female privilage.

All oppressors are overthrown eventually.

Oh my word, there are none so blind as those who will not see.
How long have women been oppressed and where in the world have men been overthrown?

LaVoix out of interest why do MRAs always focus on female on male DV / sexual violence and never (IME) mention male on male DV / sexual violence?

"Surely women who commit domestic violence are more 'privileged' than men who commit domestic violence, because it's more likely that their abuse will not be taken seriously by the police and by friends/relatives?"

You think females get taken seriously when they report incidents of DV / sexual violence to the police?

Hahahahahahhahahaahhaha

So you don't even watch the news and yet we must all listen carefully to your logical words of evidenced reasonableness.

BuffyBotRebooted
cailindana
AnnieLobeseder

No one is forcing you to reply. If you think you've presented your argument as clearly as you can and it's still failing to win me over, then of course you do not have to waste any more of your energy on it. Please don't resort to name-calling though. It's childish, and weakens your position.

Peter is that in any way a serious question?

Who do I think is more able to change a violent system of control and power; those that control the system and benefit from it, or those that are controlled and subjugated by it? Tricky one. Not.

Where is this conscription happening?
In the old days when men and not women were conscripted it was not female privilege that prevented women being sent to war but men's idea that women were to be protected and kept at home with the children and keeping the home fires burning for when they returned victorious.

Or indeed to friends and relatives.

I mean, FFS. Head in sand much. Or is it blinkers. Maybe both.

I have been lurking and tbh have found this thread very amusing OP. Taking me back to the 1990s debating society. (Oh to be young and a fresher again)

I feel the responses on the thread have more than answered your questions in a logical and factual manner and posters have tried to inform and assist you.

I am sure you will not agree with this or more importantly I don't feel you wish to learn from the very learned women on this thread. That is your choice but in my opinion also displays one of the inherent issues in your argument.

Exactly. What are MRAs going to do about male violence (as has already been asked on this thread)?

It is exactly the same question as is asked of feminists re female violence

LaVoix - but the reality is, you're talking about such a small percentage of women, it's not really gender privilege. My definition of gender privilege, is when privilege benefits a significant majority of that gender, or indeed all members of it.

I am concerned with F on M intimate violence, however, given that 100 women have already been killed this year by men, 3 of them having been beheaded, you'll understand why I'm a little more preoccupied by M on F violence.

Men used to pay more for insurance because of actuarial tables. That men are now paying the same as women has skewed the tables and raised everyone insurance premiums.

Germicide is a discrete notion, especially in cultures where women's lives are values less than men's, so, like, everywhere.

Feminists don't hate men, MRAs really hate women. Some of them want us all to die in a fire. A few of them want to rape us to death with an iron bar.

Has a Klown Klaxon gone off somewhere on Reddit or something?