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 was referencing this sentence, which seemed to imply you see yourself as a feminist but lament being called a "feminazi".

You do realize that this is why we get called 'feminazis' right?

If it helps, I don't think you're coming across as a feminist so you probably won't get called a feminazi. You can relax.

The interesting thing is that it would be better for men, young men especially, if they reduced their rates of serious car accidents.

That would reduce untold amounts of pain, grief, young lives damaged and so on.

But no. That wasn't the focus. The focus was "well STATISTICALLY men should pay more than women but snoffair cos WAAAH and anyway women can't drive for toffee I don't care what the stats say" and that was the end up that.

Laws which were brought in to protect minority/oppressed groups from being discriminated against were used by the group with the privilege to improve their own lot at the cost of the group with less money/power.

So, you know. Same old same old.

And it's not just feminist women who take issue with MRA. This article makes me grin from ear to ear because this is a man pointing out to other men just how ridiculous a plea for more rights for men really is.
www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/08/robert-webb-roll-roll-see-man-talking-about-feminism-what-could-possibly-go-wrong

PenguinsIsSleepDeprived
No, I'm not saying whether I'm female or male. Again, I don't think it makes my argument any more or less correct, so it's irrelevant.

LineRunner
People who use insults like that our childish, regardless of gender. I assume that most of you are female, but I've got no way of knowing that. What I do know is that the poster tried to insult me by suggesting I wear a fedora and refer to myself as an 'epic gent'. That's childish, plain and simple. Fortunately, some of the posters in this thread have been more mature, and not stooped to the level of name-calling, even though they strongly disagreed with what I have to say. In an adult world, that's how discussion works.

I don't mind the insurance thing.

The annuity thing is economically more meaningful, IMO.

What have I actually seen MRA's do?

Threaten feminists. Try and stop a women only swimming session in Camden used by a lot of South Asian women because it is "sexist". Complain that violent men are only getting supervised access to their children.

I wonder why I don't take what MRAs say seriously?

Winifred I was just thinking about that - that the gender directive meant they shot themselves in the foot with annuities.

But then, the latest budget (UK obv) has just changed the rules so that people are no longer compelled to purchase annuities.

I hadn't thought to link the 2, but it's maybe not a coincidence at all.

Car insurance is of course compulsory.

What were your thoughts Winifred?

And if I were wearing a fedora and identify as an 'epic gent', would it make my arguments any more or less valid?

Yes, obviously, because it would mean you were a mortifying dickhead.

LAVOIX WHAT ARE YOU PERSONALLY DOING TO HELP RID THE WORLD OF THE OPPRESSION OF MEN AND/OR WOMEN?

I have read this whole arsing thread and you are yet to say anything of substance, back your opinion up with facts or give any robust examples. It is very frustrating to read and I can scarcely believe the patience of those who have been talking to you. Please answer my question clearly and straightforwardly so we can move this argument discussion forward.

In an adult world, that's how discussion works.

Spoken like a true teenager.

BuffyBotRebooted
I'm not trying to bring my own lived experiences here. Rather, I've read the experiences of many men who believe they have suffered oppression, just as I've read the experiences of many women who have suffered oppression. I do not disregard any of them unless I believe the poster is trying to be deliberately dishonest. What some of the posters here were saying was contradicting some of the lived experiences (which I believe are genuine) that I've read.

Ah yes, that's me told then. It is not relevant, by your terms of reference and we must all bow to your mighty (male or female) view.

You know what, you are dull. Why is that people who genuinely want to learn about feminism, or even discuss shortcomings of feminism rarely come on and say:

"I believe X. Now convince me that X isn't right. No, not like that. That's the wrong way of arguing. You are doing your discussion wrong. Convince me that X isn't right. I am the logical one..."

You didn't even care enough to check the insurance thing before using it as one of your feeble examples (it's been all over the bloody news. Really, you care about equality and it had passed you by that that deeply important battle was won).

You really aren't worthy of the time of any of these well educated, well informed (mostly) women. I wouldn't class myself with them, but at least I ask because I genuinely want to learn.

Do you believe the posters who've told you they've received rape threats from men identifying as MRAs, then?

"Yes, obviously, because it would mean you were a mortifying dickhead."

"I believe X. Now convince me that X isn't right. No, not like that. That's the wrong way of arguing. You are doing your discussion wrong. Convince me that X isn't right. I am the logical one..."

Hahaha!

gincamparidryvermouth

Yes, but whether or not I am a mortifying dickhead, my argument (as detailed by my posts in this thread) would be exactly the same. Attack the argument, not the person making the argument. Have you heard of ad hominem? It's a lazy debating strategy, and I'm going to call it out where I see it. If you want to carry on insulting my character that's absolutely fine, but it also means I won't take what you have to say seriously.

WowardHolowitz

Why does it matter? I'm not trying to avoid the question (although I know that's what it must seem like), I'm still yet to hear why I should justify myself. As above, my argument (as detailed by my posts in this thread) would be exactly the same regardless of my level of activism. Therefore, I think it's irrelevant to the discussion, and I won't be answering it.

Ok, I think the insurance decision was morally right.

It might well be if we collected information on crashes by eye colour, or religion, or sexuality, there would be a statistical difference. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be discriminatory to price on that basis.

Re annuities - I assume some other EU countries still require them, and they may become required here again at some point in due course. So I think it's a good thing that these are now sex neutral too.

Attack the argument? What argument? You haven't made one. Just wafted around some words you think sound clever and dismissed all attempts to engage with your question in any meaningful way.

It's like trying to nail jelly to a wall.

Winifred - Don't they still price based on age though?

Mmm, jelly...

Is the jelly orange flavoured?