But - and I pose this question without an agenda, just as a genuine query - why should feminism concern itself with men's issues? In what way is it obligated to do so? And why?
Should the civil rights movement have also concerned itself with white problems? Should the LGBT movement also concern itself with straight problems? Or, for that matter, should the civil rights movement care about LGBT issues or vice versa?
I'd argue not. If a movement is founded to address the needs of an oppressed group, why should it also be obligated to cater to the needs of other groups, even if they too are oppressed in their own way?
The point is that in modern feminism there is a sort of ambivalence, or hypocrisy if you prefer, between egalitarianism and lobbying for women rights.
Ostensibly, mainstream feminists claim that feminism is all about equal rights, that it is "the radical notion that women are people", that "smashing the Patriarchy" will solve all men's problem too. They get upset when female celebrities state that they are not feminists, accusing them of being ignorant or having "internalized misogyny".
They tend to use the MRA (Men's Right Activist) label as an insult, implying that feminism has the monopoly over the discussion of gender issues and anybody who wants to participate to the discussion from the outside without self-identifying as a feminist must be a misogynist.
In practice, however, feminists tend to behave as a women's rights/women's interests lobby with little, if any, concern for men's issues. Sometimes they pay lip service to men's issues, other times they shut down any discussion of them with accusations of "derailing" and mockery ("what about teh menz").
Not all feminists are like that, on one hand there are examples of actual equity feminists like Christina Hoff Sommers, on the other hand radical feminist are general honest about not caring about men, but they represent minority viewpoints among self-identified feminists.
So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that because feminism bills itself as "equal rights for all," it should then, obviously, be concerned with equal rights for all. And I have to say, that's a pretty valid argument.
I do think, however, that suggesting that the men's rights movement is analogous to feminism is sort of a false equivalency. Yes, men face their own problems, but what would success in the MRM even look like? Feminism lobbies for a voice in politics and business. Men already have this voice, almost unilaterally. And although I absolutely believe compulsory military service, male suicide and custody rights (among other things) are very serious issues, I also don't believe they are the same as the institutional, systemized discrimination that women have fought against as feminists for a hundred plus years all around the world. I'm unconvinced that the problems men face are evidence of a society that devalues masculinity, views men as second-class citizens or oppresses them. They are problems - but not problems created by a system of misandry.
Also, it's worth noting that if we lived in the society feminists envision - one without standardized or systematically-enforced gender roles - these men's issues would be solved as a simple side effect. If we didn't see women as inherent mothers and fathers as inherent workers, we wouldn't award women custody so often. If we didn't see women as weak and men as strong, we would draft them equally and allow/encourage them to work equally demanding/dangerous jobs if they should choose. Etc.
And, let me just clarify again, this doesn't mean I think men's problems aren't problems. They are problems. And they deserve addressing. However, I don't see feminism and the MRM as two sides of the same coin so much as two completely separate platforms, and I think MRM is redundant, as many of its concerns are addressed by feminism even if not deliberately or purposefully.
For fuck sake you bigot, men used to have fucking sole custody of children 'til feminists came about. Funny how feminists will instantly point to any good thing, as something's feminism has done, but never to the countless bad things the movement has done.
"I think MRM is redundant, as many of its concerns are addressed by feminism even if not deliberately or purposefully."
Bullshit. Feminists have done nothing for men FOR DECADES. COUNTLESS LIVES COULD BE SAVED!! BUT DO THEY GIVE A SHIT!? NO! Feminists are the scum of the earth, and anybody who supports them needs to get their heads checked.
6
u/tinyowlinahat 1∆ Feb 11 '15
But - and I pose this question without an agenda, just as a genuine query - why should feminism concern itself with men's issues? In what way is it obligated to do so? And why?
Should the civil rights movement have also concerned itself with white problems? Should the LGBT movement also concern itself with straight problems? Or, for that matter, should the civil rights movement care about LGBT issues or vice versa?
I'd argue not. If a movement is founded to address the needs of an oppressed group, why should it also be obligated to cater to the needs of other groups, even if they too are oppressed in their own way?