Some male sexual assault victims feel left behind by #MeToo - Sensationalist Headlines

Do you not see the fucking hypocrisy in what you're doing right now?

arguing semantics is boring but saying you're an egalitarian is ultimately ineffective and toothless. It's a philosophy, not a movement. It's the idea that everyone should be equal, which is all well and good and I agree. But... how? If I said all groups have problems, well, I'm correct but it doesn't really mean anything. It's again like saying "All Lives Matter!". Yes, they do, duh, but how does that help? What do we do? Feminism is egalitarian because it pushes for equality of both men and women via raising up women to be equal to men. Whether you disagree with the idea that women are more oppressed or not, the fact that feminism's goal is for equality between genders makes it egalitarian.

I just said most groups (that I've seen). Not mra as a movement

Okay, well I don't agree that male issues can be solved by elevating women. This is literally trickle-down equality. "If we just lump all our focus into helping one group of people, I guess some will splash onto the other group or something."

Sure does seem like you just told me that; "Most MRA seems to exist as an antithesis of feminism, and doesn't really try to get anything done but tear down feminists" So, no. You're a hypocrite. I don't know how you don't see this.

Great, that's their goal. But that doesn't actually mean that it accomplishes equality in practice. You yourself have been arguing that all of men's problems can be fixed through feminism, and yet now you're saying that feminism doesn't actually try to address men's problems.

There's a number of issues that currently, can't be brought up for men and we have literally no advocates because if someone self declares as an MRA, they're destroyed, and no public feminist faces or organizations are willing to go to bat for these issues on behalf of men. So I believe feminism is a valuable, important and indispensable philosophy, but I don't think it's egalitarian.

MOST MRA GROUPS, is not mra as a whole

But you were deriding people for saying this exact same thing about feminism earlier

But you just got finished telling Geel he can't talk about "Most feminists" So you can talk about "Most MRAs" and say whatever and squeak by saying "I SAID MOST!" but you're going to tell him to be specific and individualize his complaints against segments of feminism?

99.99999999% of feminists want to crush men into pills and eat them. Edit: wtf 99.99999999 OF FEMINISTS, is not feminists as a whole

...no, feminism is not feminist groups, is not feminists. I was literally talking from my own experience of those groups

and no public feminist faces or organizations are willing to go to bat for these issues on behalf of men. the link I provided way back gives many examples, and I'll repeat that it was a feminist group that changed the definition of rape to include male victims. I'm done discussing this, at least in part because it feels like the rest of this thread is just gonna be everyone repeating the 'not all feminists/MRAs' point, which is a shame.

It was also feminist groups that fought against that change, so you can see where people might get the idea that feminism isn't the best bet for solving male issues.

honestly, you need to just read what you said, and pretend you were on the receiving end of it, and work out the logical fallacies. I can point them out to you, but like bringing a horse to water, no one can make it drink. You told Geel in response to this post: To talk about specific groups of feminists, not feminism as a whole. You then replied to me; So, you literally just say "Most MRA". So, you can say "MOST MRA" but Geel can't talk about the subset of specific feminists he's referencing without going to great pains to state he's talking about that subset? As geel elaborated in his post a few minutes ago, you've only talked about feminism in generalities in positive tones. You only talk about MRA's in generalities in negative tones. I don't think you understand what you're saying to be honest.

I never said anything about feminist groups except for one post I made to counter his anecdote. After that I only mentioned that you can't really call out the entire idea of the feminist movement based on groups/individuals. The same goes for MRA. The difference I was showing was that while (it seems to me that) most feminist groups don't try to tear down mens issues, most big MRA groups try to tear down feminism as a whole in relation to the vocal minority

You didn't say groups. You, as has been quoted numerous times, states "Most MRA". I think the issue of negative bias that was brought up before in regards to the worst elements of feminism selling the most clicks/stories is relevant here. Are they really that representive of the whole? How big are these groups? Who's behind them? Are they genuine? There's issues with the perception of MRA as a very concept as a whole so yes, I'm sure the perception is skewed heavily for someone like yourself. You speak in generalities, you ask someone else not to. That's literally all we're pointing out, and you refuse to see it.

I meant groups/individuals

Ignoring the meta-argument here for a minute, I grant that there are bad actors under the "MRA" label that attempt to shut down feminism. Those people should not be doing that and should be called out for it. On the other hand, I can also see how some can reach the conclusion of "the only way forward for us is to shut the others down". When your movement's largest opponent seems to be solely feminists, do you not see how some would think that the only way they'll be able to progress is by shutting down those who are shutting them down? This is, of course, a flawed conclusion -- and even if it were correct, it's not a war that can be won -- but hopefully it provides some perspective into why "MRA"s seem to have a chip on their shoulder.

I'm not surprised. Movements like these always end up infested with so many of those shitlords that don't actually want equality and think men can't be assaulted in this way that the original goal gets lost in translation. It's a large part of why I seldom take them seriously, they have noble goals but survive a couple of weeks at most before getting corrupted and ruined.

Another in the states lost everything from feminist lobby groups and committed suicide.

You know who you're responding to, right?

I responded with a correction, an important correction that changed a lot he was arguing against

In part, feminism is important. However their biggest focus when it comes to gender norms is and their removal gas been on the feminine side. As well, with the infestation of TERFs and RadFems in academia, much of the literature focuses more on fighting an undefined mess of vague rules known as the patriarchy. Many feminist policy changes and cultural shifts significantly helped women but when asked what men should do they were told different answers and often insults. This has snowballed into a landscape where women gabe recourse to redefine themselves but men do not and and often times its women who enforce those unspoken cultural norms. This has swirled into a toxic mess where the male suicide rate of younger men is spiking toward the horrifying numbers in older men. Young men are dropping iut of high school or not even bothering to gain a higher education to a point where the arguement about diplomas and sexes won't mean anything because mear 85% of grads will be women. Men make up most of the homelessness. Young boys up to old men area hurting bad and for a movement designed to combat inequality. The stats alone that men suffer from is a terrible score card. For many men, feminism doesn't mean a movement meant to help them. Its meant to demonize them because they have shit PR skills. Its not 'we only focus on the negative' when any time they get called put even the moderates rush to defend.

This logic is silly. What use is there in this all-or-none thinking, especially when you've spent half the thread complaining about people perpetuating the same problematic logic for MRAs?

The issue is with stating that an entire group of people are represented by individual bad actors. I have stated numerous times that the issue is not with feminism itself but people who use feminism and are shielded by it under the guise of protecting women and feminism. Feminism is important, but feminism also shields people who attempt to shut down "Meninism" (not referring to any actual organization here), and so feminism has been an issue for that. Does that mean that all of feminism is bad? No. I have not once said "Most feminists...". The person I am responding to did.

Building strawmans of either side really doesn't do justice to the painful complexities of both sides.

Feminism isn't inherently focused on elevating women. Ideally, what we should be focused on doing is tackling societal issues, which will end up elevating women (and men) in the long-term. Gender relations are not a zero-sum game. That makes much more sense to me. Thanks for clarifying. I will say that I think that the reason MRAs are treated with a lot less serious consideration is that they're seen as a reaction to feminism, not as their own good-faith movement. This perception is obvious and reinforced in very visible, loud groups like MGTOW and the like. I have that intuition to some extent as well, but I'm interested and open to suggestions to the contrary.

I feel like a lot of the very legitimate problems that dudes face today (such as struggling to deal with emotions or pain) do come down to patriarchal systems and gender roles that were put in place by men of yesteryear.

I get where this comes from but I feel as if that removes the responsibilities of gender type enforcement off women. It just doesn't seem fair that only one group would continue to push gender stereotypes, especailly considering some of our artistic/musical/spiritual greats of the last 30 years have been men pushing against gender norms. It just doesn't click with me that we are, somehow, still doing this to ourselves alone even though in large part new trends and norms are set by women, whether its language or cultural rules.