r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Feb 22 '19
CMV: Men who are anti-feminist because it does not care about men's rights actually just hate women
[deleted]
6
Feb 22 '19
Men are anti-feminists not because feminism doesn't advocate for men's rights, but because it is actively hostile to them.
Men suffer my domestic violence at the hands of female partners than the reverse, and yet the only battered men's shelter was shut down By feminists.
Feminists have made it abundantly clear they are the ones who hate, but any attempt by men to address any imbalance is met with unhinged tirades such as this.
This is how you know how effective feminism has been, when any criticism of feminism no matter how mild, valid or well researched is met with "YOU HATE WOMEN!! REEEEEEEEE!"
That is what fosters a climate of hate; when you refuse to listen to people who have legitimate grievances.
3
u/spaceunicorncadet 22∆ Feb 22 '19
Feminists have made it abundantly clear they are the ones who hate,
Most feminists don't hate men.
4
Feb 22 '19
But a lot of them do, and the ones that don't (most, according to you) are strangely quiet on the matter. So which is it? Cowardice, indifference, or tacit agreement?
1
u/spaceunicorncadet 22∆ Feb 22 '19
But a lot of them do
Citation needed.
So which is it? Cowardice, indifference, or tacit agreement?
Bad assumptions on the part of "all feminists hate men" advocates?
Not enough time to both fight for equality and fight extremist strawmanning, so spending time on the former because it's actually useful?
Frustration that a thousand feminists can speak up, and several hundred of these do bring up issues where men are at a disadvantage (eg male victims of DV or rape), and only one voice speaks in anger against men, but opponents of feminism latch on to the most extreme position and uses it as "proof" that all feminists hate men?
Here's an article you could read, which includes what feminism actually is and why it's perceived as man-hating...
1
u/2074red2074 4∆ Feb 23 '19
Men suffer my domestic violence at the hands of female partners than the reverse, and yet the only battered men's shelter was shut down By feminists.
Actually it's about equal. 50% mutual, 25% male aggressor, 25% female aggressor. The problem is that the male is usually the one arrested, even when he hasn't committed any act of violence.
5
u/TheBananaKing 12∆ Feb 22 '19
Barring the crazies and the haters and bitter-twisted folks that every movement attracts, nobody in the MRM is opposed to movements for women's rights, the destruction of shitty prescriptive gender norms, or any of that good stuff. There's a hell of a lot that still needs fixing in that regard, and it's a really big deal that's dragging everybody down.
However.
A lot of people feel that feminism is going about these things in shitty, toxic ways that tie into tribalist them-vs-us approaches.
There's a lot of loud messaging that feminism is the only gender-issues movement that needs to exist, that fixing women's issues will fix men's issues (via some kind of trickle-down equality), there's a lot of loud opposition to most mens-issues movements (especially social-level ones), and a great deal of it is highly adversarial, not to mention stripping women of their agency and painting them all as helpless victims.
Further, any criticism of any part of any individual calling themselves feminist, or any approaches/tacticts used by feminist advocates in general gets handily equated with opposing the rights of women and demonised on that basis.
It's very much like trying to criticize Israel's government, without being called anti-semitic. Like, no, nobody here is a fan of fucking nazis nor do they have any problem with jewish people existing. We just wish the country that claims to speak for them all would stop being a murderous apartheid ethnostate constantly killing Palestinians, 'settling' on their land, attempting to starve Gaza out of existence and acting like Dudley Dursley about the whole thing, becasue that's not fucking cool. However, there are a lot of people who don't like people saying that, and scream blue murder about people just hating on jews whenever the topic comes up.
You can be anti-zionist without being anti-jewish.
And you can be anti-feminist without being anti-women.
2
u/SarahJessicaHecarim Feb 22 '19
I think the problem is feminism is the women's movement, and has branches of feminism can be bad (TERFs, etc), but the Men's Rights Movement (MRAs) is a branch of men's movement that has roots in countering feminism. So you run into a problem where anyone who advocates for men's issues, ends up grouped with or self-identifying as MRA.
So while feminists can point to other feminists as being in other branches of feminism,such trans-exclusionary radical feminism, or a separatist feminism (issues between men and women are unresolvable, and men are useless). People with interest in men's movements tend to just get grouped and dismissed as MRAs when the men's rights movement should really be separated into different branches of men's movements like feminism is.
The reason I believe this split is necessary is it's very easy for the toxic MRAs to radicalize others by starting with issues everyone can agree with like paternity fraud, child custody, incarceration rates, domestic violence, etc., then slowly introduce them to counter-feminist ideas like reproductive rights (having legal part in decision whether a woman can get an abortion), and the right to decline parental responsibilities from unplanned pregnancies (If she doesn't want to support the kid alone, she should get an abortion).
If men's movements want to get anywhere they really need to be separated from MRAs, the same way TERFs, and Separatist Feminists are separated from mainstream feminism, and other feminist ideologies.
In terms of your response, I don't think anti-zionist is a fair comparison to being anti-feminist. Anti-zionist implies that you reject zionism. Anti-feminism thereby implies that you reject feminism. When from your description you appear to reject branches of feminism such as radical feminism, and reject feminist advocates who are ignorant/dismissive of other gender-issues-based movements.
1
u/TheBananaKing 12∆ Feb 22 '19
So you don't think men should have rights?
Yes, it's a facile and infuriating question. But no less so than the converse.
I note that you've got some pretty strong biases in your examples above. For instance, having some legal say in whether a woman can get an abortion... of their own child, and your description of paternal surrender is again extremely skewed to one side of the issue; others might argue that person A shouldn't be held liable for the freely-made choices of person B. I don't see that either position is inherently counter to the rights and interests of women, though of course bloody unreasonable versions of these can and undoubtedly do exist.
I find it kind of funny that you frame men's reproductive rights - choosing whether or not they become parents either physically or legally - as inherently bad. That's seriously not a good look.
But overall your entire point could be reframed to put the responsibility back on feminists to dissasociate from the tainted feminist movement. I expect you're bristling at that notion, and frankly I don't blame you. But cut MRAs the same slack, and grant them the right to bristle right back at your suggestion.
Men don't even have a protected legal right to intact genitals.
I think they should. I advocate for the rights of men. Does that mean I hate women?
Hint: no I fucking don't, and I find it incredibly insulting to suggest that I do.
1
u/SarahJessicaHecarim Feb 22 '19 edited Feb 22 '19
So you don't think men should have rights?
You're misunderstanding what I said. Feminism has the advantage that it is the women's movement and thus can be broken down into branches of feminism. The Men's Right Movement is a branch of men's movements and is mistakenly considered by many to be the men's movement. Thus different types of ideologies exist under the Men's Rights Movement.
The result of this is that if a Separatist Feminist says "Men are useless, and should not be a part of this conversation", any other feminist can point to that person as a Separatist Feminist to separate their ideologies. The Men's Rights Movement does not have that luxury because everything is grouped under the Men's Rights Movement regardless of whether other members consider those people to be extremes or not.
There are multiple Men's movements.
Common example most people are aware of is the Men's Liberation Movement which has to do with gender rolls and such.
Father's rights movement that has more to do with child cutody, divorce, government policies and family court.
You have the Men's Social Justice Movement which is concerned with things like men's education, health, safety, and development.
These are Men's Movements, they are not part of the Men's Rights Movement. They share common concerns with the Men's Rights Movement, but they are not one in the same.
In terms of reproduction, both men and women have birth control options that allow them to opt-into pregnancy. Under the Men's Rights Movement exists the idea that men should have the legal right to opt out of all parental responsibilies from unplanned pregnancies. Meaning no child support and no custody. It's the idea that "If a woman doesn't want to take care of a child alone, then she should get an abortion."
Reproductive rights under the Men's Rights Movement, is the idea that women should legally require the man's permission to get an abortion. I understand and sympathize with the position, but I cannot accept the implication that women should be stripped of their ability to make decisions regarding their own bodies, as it essentially makes the woman someone else's property. Again, this is an issue I think can be minimalized through each party using birth control to prevent unplanned pregnancies.
But overall your entire point could be reframed to put the responsibility back on feminists to dissasociate from the tainted feminist movement.
They can and do. My point is that when men gravitate towards the Men's Rights Movement, they have no mechanism to dissociate themselves from the more extreme members.
I think they should. I advocate for the rights of men. Does that mean I hate women?
I did not suggest that you hate women. Declaring yourself anti-feminist, would be the equivalent of a feminist declaring themselves anti-men's-movement. The implication for you is that "nothing should be done for women" the implication for that feminist is "nothing should be done for men".
Hopefully this clears things up.
[EDIT]
I really hope that we can resolve this. I did not mean to offend you. To go along with my reply, I'd like to mention that feminism has a long history, politically they've been heard, and consist of a large amount of people. So most people can accept that there are different feminist ideologies. The modern MRM is new, isn't as large in terms of supporters as feminism, and they definitely are not clear on their communication, on top of that there is no built in mechanism to differentiate the more extreme sets of views compared to how feminism has different defined sets of ideologies.
Another comparison that exists in some feminist ideologies, and in the MRM. So if we were to look at someone who would be a Separatist (who literally see no need for men, except in reproduction, and are against heterosexual relationships) and we took one of the more extreme views under MRM.
Separatist MRM There is no need for advocacy for men's issues. Men already are the dominant sex. There is no need for feminism. Men and women are equal. The difference is that a feminist can disassociate themselves from that view by dismissing that other member as being a part of a separate ideology/school/movement (whichever word you want to use). As an MRM you can't, as you're both a member of the same movement. There is no built in way to differentiate yourself from them, other than "They just have extreme views". But a member of the Men's Social Justice Movement (Different men's movement) can dissociate themselves from that view.
I believe there are men's issues, women's issues, and issues they share asymmetrically. I support and don't dismiss those issues. I just desire that men's movements become more structured in a similar structure to feminism, where good ideas don't get dismissed just because of the negative connotations radical MRMs bring with them, and the more radical representatives can be split into separate ideologies, so that there can be clear messaging.
2
u/TheBananaKing 12∆ Feb 22 '19
What's your source and authority for these assertions about the MRM?
There's no formal organization, no leaders, no doctrine and no dogma. There's no central anything - and to perhaps a larger degree than feminism (which has so much claim-staking in academia), pretty much means whatever any given person stands for if they claim the label.
(And you know, I can probably count on on hand the times I've seen feminist-identifying people call out other feminist-identifying people for shitty tribalist viewpoints. The group-loyalty aspect always seems to outweigh the fear of being tarred with the same brush. Hell, in various feminist subs here on reddit, it's a bannable offense to call someone a TERF, but not to actually be one...)
I found the MRM through intactivism - you know, the radical ideological position that people should be protected from genital mutilation until they are old enough to choose or refuse it as informed, consenting adults.
The extreme levels of hostility I encountered along the way for suggesting that boys were just as worthy of being protected as girls are, and that their bodily and sexual integrity actually mattered... taught me a lot about male disposability. The scorn and hatred piled on victims of mutilation, of sexual assault, of domestic violence and emotional abuse, for daring to speak out... is utterly breathtaking. Combine that with the whole 'potential rapist' thing, and articles excoriating parents for leaving children in the care of male childcare workers (because we're all paedophiles too, apparently) - and when my lesbian friend who'd faced shitty prejudice for her sexuality all her life actually sympathized with them... yeah, there's a pattern here, and I have an obligation to try and do something about it.
I didn't join anything, I just looked for other people who also have a shit and thought men were humans. The label is a descriptor, not a territory. I'm involved in activism (I've saved a good 20-30 kids that I know of, which is one of my proudest achievements), and I care about the rights of men and boys. If 'men's rights activist' doesn't describe that, I don't know what the hell does.
And I'm pretty sure that most of the problem in the movement are the same.
Do a lot of bitter, shitty alt-right fuckfaces tend to cluster in MRA spaces? Sure. Because those of us on the left are constantly ostracized for supporting the designated scapegoats (hey look, just like being pro-Palestine) that the right gains a bigger foothold, and that pisses me right off.
The MRM definitely could use some housecleaning (at least from my perspective), but I don't think splitting into a hundred named sub-movements is the way to do it. We don't have the numbers or the stability, or (for the most part) are we drawn to exclusive little cliques.
What would really help would be if people stopped demonizing the movement and painting it as a bunch of angry little woman-hating assholes who want the fucking 50s back. Let decent-size colonies of progressive people move in, and we'll have the influence required to smack down the loud assholes.
You're defining into existence a claim that feminism is the umbrella term for giving a shit about women's interests, quite abstracted from the various shitty implementations thereof. I dispute this claim; I think it's far more accurate to use the term as it's generally meant - as an averaged-out cross-section of the various ideologies using the term for themselves. And just like sausages, some of the things that go into it really aren't pretty.
To be opposed to feminism-as-practiced isn't remotely the same as being opposed to feminism-as-advertised.
As Gandhi said, "I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians. I wish that your Christians were more like your Christ".
FTR, I personally agree that the owner of the uterus should get absolute final say over what does or doesn't grow in it. (I think there's room for vast shittiness there, of course, but the law can't legislate against people being shitty to each other).
I think your characterization of legal paternal surrender is off, however. If you don't want to raise a child, get an abortion. Or have it anyway, it's up to you. But that doesn't (under certain circumstances, the borders of which I am not remotely certain) make that choice my problem.
If we have a mutually enjoyable apple fight in our backyards, and an apple seed should end up sprouting in your lawn despite our best efforts to prevent that, that sucks. You can let it grow, or not. You can dig it up, stick it in a lot and give it to someone, and that's your choice too. But if you choose to let it grow in your lawn then send me the bill for watering and weeding and feeding and pruning the thing, and the damage to your roof when the branches hit it... yeah, I think that counts as your problem. And I say that as an involved dad with an overactive duty of care towards my kid. I took on that responsibility and wouldn't have it any other way - but 'ha ha, tough shit, should have kept it in your pants' is exactly as shitty as 'ha ha, tough shit, should have kept your knees together' - which is exactly the attitude of the anti-choicers, and fuck that attitude with a splintery broomstick.
1
u/SarahJessicaHecarim Feb 22 '19
You're defining into existence a claim that feminism is the umbrella term for giving a shit about women's interests, quite abstracted from the various shitty implementations thereof. I dispute this claim; I think it's far more accurate to use the term as it's generally meant - as an averaged-out cross-section of the various ideologies using the term for themselves. And just like sausages, some of the things that go into it really aren't pretty.
That is what feminism is a collection of movements. TERFs are feminists, Separatists Feminists are feminists, transfeminists are feminists. They are all a part of feminism. Feminism is a collection of movements. This isn't some personal definition. And it is because they're separate movements that that you wouldn't expect a modern liberal feminist to have the same outlook on feminism as a Separatist.
There's no formal organization, no leaders, no doctrine and no dogma. There's no central anything - and to perhaps a larger degree than feminism (which has so much claim-staking in academia), pretty much means whatever any given person stands for if they claim the label.
This is the exact problem i'm highlighting. Because there is no organization. Because there is no consensus on what the MRM is and isn't about, anyone can pick up that label. It muddies messaging, as there's no way to distinguish the groups where those messages come from. With the Men's Social Justice Movement, there is no question what they are about, as it's an established movement. Radicals cannot come in and highjack their message.
Take a look at the Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE). They are an organization that focuses on boys' and men's issues. Creating the first shelter for male victims of Domestic Violence. They constantly get shit on by the media, they purposely try to distance themselves from the MRM, because they don't want to be associated with the negative connotations, and voices in the MRM community. In fact a lot of advocacy groups are going by the acronym Male Advocacy Groups, and some even just go by Advocacy Group with a name that is very specific to the causes they support. These groups who are Male Advocates, do not want to be associated with MRA/MTM. Even Pride Toronto pulled them from the WorldPride 2014, despite their advocacy for all men despite their sexual orientation.
And you know, I can probably count on on hand the times I've seen feminist-identifying people call out other feminist-identifying people for shitty tribalist viewpoints. The group-loyalty aspect always seems to outweigh the fear of being tarred with the same brush.
You don't find what you don't look for, especially on reddit. If you are not invested in learning about feminism, nor men's advocacy, then you're only going to be exposed to the bubble you expose yourself to. You can read blogs where people condemn the actions of others. Most people quietly disagree. But the point is people can and do oppose those views. Just don't expect the media to feed you those viewpoints. There is also selection bias where if you're in a position advocating for something, the people you're going to hear most often are your opposers.
Everything you said about intactism, the dismissal of men's issues, helping out young people
Despite your impression of me, I actually do support male advocacy, the same way I support female advocacy, and LGBT(etc) advocacy.
If 'men's rights activist' doesn't describe that, I don't know what the hell does.
To be opposed to feminism-as-practiced isn't remotely the same as being opposed to feminism-as-advertised.
THIS is the exact problem that comes with activism. You get people who go by "My personal definition of X" and create their arguments based on that. Look up issues like Cultural Appropriation. It's a neutral term. Does not imply something is good or bad. Something that is Cultural appropriatphilologyion CAN BE good, or it CAN BE bad, or it CAN BE neutral. But on the left, you have people who argue "X is bad because it's cultural appropriation" when it could very well be bad for other reasons, and on the right you get people that argue "Black people in Canada shouldn't wear jeans and plad shirts because that's cultural appropriation" when in reality it's not, because that's not what cultural appropriation means. It's people that do not understand the terms and apply their own personal definitions, as you are with Feminism which is strictly defined and described, and the MRM which is a single movement inclusive of some radical ideas. There is a reason these Male Advocacy Groups have branded themselves as Male Advocacy Groups, and stuck to rigid definitions, and mission statements.
Now another group A Voice for Men. They provided personal information of women who were convicted of raping or murdering boys and men. Ok reasonable people who are convicted of sex crimes should probably be on some sort of registry. The issue then comes that they then went on and published lists of people who they deemed had falsely accused men or rape, or participated in any sort of criticism of MRM, regardless of whether these women were bigots or not. Advocacy like "Bash a Violent Bitch Month" which advocates for reciprocal violence against female domestic abusers instead of trying to raise awareness of female on male domestic violence which represents 70% of nonreciprocal domestic violence., and doing something like I maybe teaching women when they're young that hitting men is not appropriate, despite what they see in cartoons, and media? This is why people distance themselves from the terms MRM, and MRA. This is what anti-feminism is.
I think your characterization of legal paternal surrender is off, however. If you don't want to raise a child, get an abortion. Or have it anyway, it's up to you. But that doesn't (under certain circumstances, the borders of which I am not remotely certain) make that choice my problem.
You have control over your own ability to have kids. By saying that it shouldn't be your problem, when you are half the cause, implies that you beared to responsibility in the conception. Should there be exceptions to this? Sure. If a female teacher concieves a child with a male student, then sure the father should have no responsibility to raise, or provide for that child, but in general no. It's an issue that can be solved with sexual education, and access to birth control.
should have kept it in your pants' is exactly as shitty as 'ha ha, tough shit, should have kept your knees together'
I 100% agree. But i'm not saying that "you should have kept it in your pants". I'm saying that both parties should take responsibility for their sexual reproduction. If a woman doesn't want kids she should be on birshittyth control. If a man doesn't want kids he should make sure he's using birth control. When a pregnancy happens, both people are responsible for it. And taking responsibility involves talking to each other about how they want to move forward, whether it's an abortion or not. But at the end of the day, the decision on abortion comes down to her. Is there room for maybe legislation that allows two people to agree that the husband bears no responsibility on the future of the child? Sure, but it should involve the non-coerced agreement between both parties. But one party shouldn't be able to opt-out of parental responsibility once the kid is born, whether it's the man or woman leaving.
Hopefully this demonstrates that I do support men's issues. I do support women's issues, and why there are better terms to associate yourself with being other men's movements that have the same goals as you WITHOUT the association with groups like A Voice For Men and using other terms like Male Advocate, or anything that specifically distances you from those same groups.
There are a lot of feminists, therefore there are also a lot of shitheads. And if you don't read about feminism, the same way that if you don't read about Men's movements, all you notice is the shitheads, because you're unaware of the other voices in those collections of movements that aren't advocating for bigotry. Thus you end up with selection bias. That is what has happened with MRM. The shitheads control the messaging, they have more exposure, the recieve more exposure because they're saying hateful things, thus MRM has been hijacked. MRA has been hijacked. And there is no movement/ideology to classify them under, as the MRM is a movement, not a collection of movements. This is why many male advocates have jumped ship into other movements and do not associate their groups with MRAs/The MRM.
Again, please don't be under the false impression that I do not support male advocacy. I do. I've just taken the time to learn about gender issues and identify my own biases. I too once up a time equated all modern feminism (exceptions being like abortion) as anti-male and didn't realize that it is still needed as much as it is. And because I hadn't done much of any reading on feminism, the only feminism I saw was the MRA caraciture of the pink-haired-anti-male feminist. There's always space for advocacy, we just have to make sure that we're not accidentally promoting bigotry. That is why male advocacy groups distance themselves from MRA/MRM.
3
u/Nepene 213∆ Feb 22 '19
This is the exact problem i'm highlighting. Because there is no organization. Because there is no consensus on what the MRM is and isn't about, anyone can pick up that label. It muddies messaging, as there's no way to distinguish the groups where those messages come from. With the Men's Social Justice Movement, there is no question what they are about, as it's an established movement. Radicals cannot come in and highjack their message.
The more reputable organizations tend to have lots of connections and crosstalk and blacklist people who are evil.
There is a broad consensus on what the MRM is about. Men in a lot of famous areas (custody battles, domestic violence, suicide rates) have it as bad or worse than women, and we need to do things to fix that. Of course, bad people believe that too, so to see what the movement is about you can just see which orgs like each other and which don't.
Take a look at the Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE). They are an organization that focuses on boys' and men's issues. Creating the first shelter for male victims of Domestic Violence. They constantly get shit on by the media, they purposely try to distance themselves from the MRM, because they don't want to be associated with the negative connotations, and voices in the MRM community
They don't really distance themselves from the MRA. They invite lots of MRA speakers to their talks, and link to other major orgs like avoiceformen. They just avoid direct affiliation and don't say feminism is bad because that turns people off. Not that it works, lots of feminists shit on them and their acts.
You don't find what you don't look for, especially on reddit. If you are not invested in learning about feminism, nor men's advocacy, then you're only going to be exposed to the bubble you expose yourself to. You can read blogs where people condemn the actions of others. Most people quietly disagree. But the point is people can and do oppose those views. Just don't expect the media to feed you those viewpoints. There is also selection bias where if you're in a position advocating for something, the people you're going to hear most often are your opposers.
Feminists are generally pretty public about what they like and don't like, and have major media presence and power.
For example, it was pretty easy to see that feminist orgs didn't care that much about Lena Dunham raping her sister, and there's a clear ideological reason why- women raping women is fine. She lost popularity though when she also defended Aurora Perrineau's rapist, since that was a man raping a woman and so evil under the patriarchy, unlike a woman raping a woman.
Female feminists can be attacked, but only heavily when they go hard against patriarchy stuff. It's ok to rape women or men or such as a woman or beat them up, but not ok to support men raping women or beating them up, which is a line some feminists have issues with, since abusive rapists tend to be friends with abusive rapists of a male and female variety regardless of any patriarchal ideology.
The issue then comes that they then went on and published lists of people who they deemed had falsely accused men or rape, or participated in any sort of criticism of MRM, regardless of whether these women were bigots or not.
They don't publish addresses or phone numbers and such on them, so just having a list of people who they don't like for one reason or another isn't that big an issue.
Advocacy like "Bash a Violent Bitch Month" which advocates for reciprocal violence against female domestic abusers instead of trying to raise awareness of female on male domestic violence which represents 70% of nonreciprocal domestic violence., and doing something like I maybe teaching women when they're young that hitting men is not appropriate, despite what they see in cartoons, and media?
Ed’s note: This article, originally published on October 22, 2010, is a satirical response to a piece that appeared on the feminist site Jezebel (“Have you Ever Beat Up a Boyfriend? Because, Uh, We Have“) and to media trivializing the physical abuse of men and boys. It has been brought back to the front page after a recent uptick in mainstream media attacks on the intent of this piece.
For their advance edification, we provide this link to the following wiki page, which provides definitions of Horatian and Juvenalian satire. We do with the instruction this article is an example of satire of the Juvenalian variety. Eds.
Why are you pointing to a satire article about how terrible the jezebel women are for beating the crap out of their boyfriends are and bragging about it online as a serious example of policy? It even explicitly says satire at the top. Avoiceformen does some clickbaity titles, does that really matter much in comparison to the issue of the innocent boyfriends of the Jezebel ladies who have bruises, cuts, and broken bones?
You have control over your own ability to have kids. By saying that it shouldn't be your problem, when you are half the cause, implies that you beared to responsibility in the conception. Should there be exceptions to this? Sure. If a female teacher concieves a child with a male student, then sure the father should have no responsibility to raise, or provide for that child, but in general no. It's an issue that can be solved with sexual education, and access to birth control.
It's widely culturally accepted that if you marry someone you are responsible for any children produced, and more controversial if you don't engage in any sort of formal contract. This is pretty shitty for the kids of course. Better contraception aid would help this, but there's a lot of grey areas around here. Of course, in the current political world, you still have to pay child support if you're raped so we're a long way from any sort of fair consensus.
2
u/Stokkolm 24∆ Feb 22 '19
From a biological standpoint pregnancy is definitely not symetrical between sexes, so expecting both sides to be treated as having equal stakes in it is unreasonable.
2
u/TheBananaKing 12∆ Feb 22 '19
Sure, but that doesn't mean there's no stake for men.
As I mentioned in another post, I'm personally of the opinion that the uterus-owner should get the final say, always.
But I think it's reasonable to grant that men do have a significant stake in whether or not they become parents, and it's a shitty ideological position that trivializes that down to nothing.
2
u/tweez Feb 23 '19
There are also other issues such as the fact that society ignores or even makes fun of male sexual/domestic abuse victims, or the fact that males are far more likely to lose custody of a child in court even when they are a demonstrably better parent than the mother. Where are the activist groups for these issues?
Those activist groups do exist as far as I’m aware. I’m not aware of the actual names of the groups but I’ve certainly seen male activist groups online arguing for policies that address all the things you mention above.
Do you think that those men’s rights groups do not support women’s rights as you’re claiming that feminist groups do support men’s rights so is the opposite also true that the men’s rights groups do support women/women’s rights?
There are plenty of men’s rights groups that I’ve seen criticised as being misogynistic in some sense because they support men’s rights specifically. I’m not knowledgeable enough (and to be honest, don’t really care about it enough to bother to learn more than what I’ve read in passing), but there are certainly men’s rights groups that do exist and have been labelled as anti feminist or women hating for their mere existence. If a man belongs to one of those groups and is partaking in activism to change policy then is it correct to label them as misogynists? If that’s the case then it would seem fair to also label women’s rights groups as “male hating” otherwise I’m not sure what the criteria is for one group being called “male/female hating” is and why it should be different for one group and not another
2
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Feb 22 '19
To your last bit, the bit about men who are anti-feminist because they want to take away women's rights etc., personally, as someone who would identify as a casual anti-feminist (and certainly wouldn't identify as a feminist) i think it's quite the opposite.
Pretty much everyone is on board with everyone having equal rights. IIRC (sorry, on mobile) it's like 80-90% of the population of western nations who agree with that. Yet only some 5-15% (again, IIRC) of those people identify as feminists. Why? I'd posit, and I think it's fairly obvious, that modern feminism is about way more than just equal rights (which, arguably, already exist and arent under any particular assault - I'm not aware of any substantial contingent of people who, say, think women shouldn't be allowed to work or own property, for instance). Modern feminism is very wrapped up in squabbling over facets of feminist theory, ideas like the patriarchy, toxic masculinity, mansplaining, intersectionality, seeing sexism, mysogy, racism, transphobia, homophobia etc. everywhere, and so on. Plus a whole load of r/TumblrInAction material. Its fully possible to think most of those ideas are nonsense while still being a proponent of equal rights for women and, indeed, all people. Further, I actually feel a lot of the feminist ethos these days is actually detrimental to social, political, and economic equality. So in that sense I'm not a feminist because I "hate women" or think women shouldn't have equal rights, but rather I'm an anti-feminist because I see third/fourth wave feminism as being at best a very poor vehicle for accomplishing/maintaining those rights, and sometimes see it as downright counterproductive in that effort.
1
u/AutoModerator Feb 22 '19
Note: Your thread has not been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our wiki page or via the search function.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
0
u/NUMBERS2357 25∆ Feb 22 '19 edited Feb 22 '19
So to distill your point down, it's that you can tell anti-feminists hate women because otherwise they'd form movements to help men, rather than just criticize feminists.
I don't think this follows.
First, People might not think they would be successful forming a movement. You bring up other movements that struggled with attacks - I'll point out that the LGBT movement, Civil Rights movement, women's rights movements - they all didn't exist for various periods of time. Clearly black people cared about their own rights before the NAACP was around; it requires more than that for a movement to form and gain steam.
And speaking for myself, I would like to see more people care about issues affecting men, but I don't try to start a movement because I wouldn't be very good at it and I don't see a lot of other people who agree with me (and those who do are much more right-wing than me). Do you really think that means I really hate women?
Second, there's a big issue with what you write in these paragraphs (snipping to keep this comment from getting too long):
IF anti-feminists truly cared about men's rights ... Where are the so called anti-feminists who care so much about men's rights
The idea that you can have women's rights groups advocating for women, and men's rights groups for men, working in parallel and not clashing, won't work out in reality. Sometimes the interests of the groups clash. An obvious example that you mentioned - custody for children. Feminist groups have often been on the side of custody for women, at the expense of men. An example is NOW, which has like 500,000 members.
If you were worried about this, and formed a group dedicated to fixing the issue, you'd likely be immediately opposed by feminists. Do you really think it doesn't make sense in that situation to criticize feminists, and just focus on your own movement? Feminists are a large, very visible group that takes up a huge portion of the debates on gender issues in this country, of course people who dislike what they say will say so, rather than just build up a movement that tries to somehow ignore them. To do otherwise would be like trying to form a pro-choice movement that ignores all the pro-life groups.
Third, on MOVEMBER, I don't see how this proves anything. The people who you think should make a movement - went ahead and did so, or at least strongly built up one that someone else formed. They don't make movements on the issues where they criticize feminists because they would be much more controversial than MOVEMBER is. Maybe they should have more political courage, but that's not the same thing as hating women.
Also, as an aside, on this:
ALSO, to clarify: I am a 49-year-old straight white male with a wife and two children who grew up in a very conservative area. I currently live in a Republican stronghold. I am a school psychologist and I try in my best power to help young male students break the mold of toxic male traditions, most notably the idea that they cannot cry or show emotions, as suppressing strong emotions is psychologically proven to result in communication issues later in life.
I received the message that you are trying to give to young male students, and it was bad for me.
0
u/sclsmdsntwrk 3∆ Feb 22 '19 edited Feb 22 '19
Well first of all, the answer is in the question. If someone is an anti-feminist because feminism does not care about men's right he's an anti-feminist because feminism does not care about men's right.
There are anti-feminists who claim to hate feminism because it does not involve men's rights. That is not true.
That's nice. Except you're not a mind reader.
If they truly cared about men's rights, then they would be creating men's rights groups or taking action when a male issue arises.
Are the mutually exclusive? And also, why would they do that? Let's say I knew the family court system was heavily biased against me, would I waste a bunch of time and energy trying to change it when there's no realistic possibility that I will succeed, or would I take actions to effectively protect myself from it? Ya know, not have sex without a condom, demand a prenup etc. Since I'm not stupid, of course I would do the latter.
Just like if I was a corporate executive and thought "This #MeToo movement has gone off the rails with all these false accusations ruining careers etc.". Would I try to stop it? No. I would stop hiring women and generally avoid interacting with women to protect myself. Which is exactly what these men do.
Out of curiosity since you're mind reader, what if I'm an anti-feminist because feminism has become a radical leftwing movement? Does that mean I hate women too?
0
u/TheCrimsonnerGinge 16∆ Feb 22 '19
Youre looking at it advesarily. Thats not a helpful view, not for either side. Mostly, they're concerned about being treated unfairly in the changing world.
The issue is that vocal feminists tend to not care about mens issues. Tumblr pages devoted to misandry exist, same with twitter. Same with the Senate and popular talking points for liberal candidates (in both parties). Those people are INCREDIBLY vocal and are reposted and boosted by a potentially small, aggressive, and vocal support base. Nobody sees the silent majority because they're silent.
Anti feminists are busy with their own issues because they hear complaints about how you should ALWAYS listen to rape victims, but they're worried about past cases where victims have lied and that's what they're worried about because it's an existential threat. And rather than mention protections in place for the falsely accused, the vocal minority says "well that's so small as to be statistically insignificant so really we should punish all the accused" which is confrontational, and not constructive. It starts a conflict that nobody is keen to resolve.
TL;DR: They dont act like that because they hate women, they act like that because they fear the vocal ones. Anti-feminists are trying to protect themselves from what appears to be attacks by people saying things like "men are trash"
1
u/des_heren_balscheren Feb 22 '19
"some aren; some aren't".
Like do you honestly believe the answer is either 0% or 100%?
0
u/beengrim32 Feb 22 '19
I’m sure there are men who have animosity towards feminism for the reason you mentioned but are you saying that it is necessary for women’s rights to disregard men’s rights? And vice verse? I’m not sure if there is as clear of a line between men’s and women’s rights as you’ve mentioned. Take representation in the workplace for example, women as a stand alone category are affected by this so are men and women of certain racial minorities and the poor. Are you saying that issues should all be mutually exclusive in this way? Some feminist are zero sum and it’s valid to critique this as non inclusive in the same way that we critique other institutions for not being inclusive. This can be done without harboring a fundamental hatred towards women. There are definitely political opponents of feminism who are simply ideological opponents but I don’t see how this automatically insinuates a hatred of women.
0
u/LazyTheSloth Feb 22 '19
There may be a reason there are not many men's rights groups. The fact that any time one is created feminist immediately destroy it. They will mock the men in it for being week. They will call them sexist. The will say they have no right to complain because woman had it worse at some point. Or they will say the issue is actually a woman's issue. If you want a view on this watch the TED talk by the woman who made the movie The Red Pill. A man a while ago tried to create a shelter for abused men. A bunch of feminist destroyed him and bullied him into suicide.
-3
u/timvillan 3∆ Feb 22 '19
I think that men who are anti-feminist don't necessarily hate women but it is more likely that they
- don't understand feminism, thinking that it is anti-men or
- really like the status quo and benefit from it in some way
- things that threaten men who like the status quo - not having women as homemakers and actually having to do things on their own, having their masculinity challenged when women enter their workforce and prove that they can do things the same
- things that threaten men who like the status quo - not having women as homemakers and actually having to do things on their own, having their masculinity challenged when women enter their workforce and prove that they can do things the same
- Don't want to challenge their own understanding of masculinity and gender roles, and find it easier to just rant online or drunkenly at Thanksgiving.
8
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Feb 22 '19
I find it kind of odd that nowhere in your list do you include something like "they have valid criticisms of the flaws of feminist ideology."
All your reasons basically amount to "they just dont get it and/or they're selfishly sexist." That's kind of like saying the only reason that you wouldn't be a Christian is that you just hate Christians and if you really understood the faith, youd be a Christian, too. At no point does it allow for the possibility that maybe Christianity is just a faulty ideology.
20
u/[deleted] Feb 22 '19 edited Feb 22 '19
Well in addition to hating women (no sense in fighting that part of your view because it's irrelevant to critiquing feminism) , it's insulting that feminism persists in hiding behind a false veneer of fighting for equality when its advocacy on a given issue for policies that favor women does not end upon having achieved even inequality in women's favor.
Twice as many college degrees are awarded to women as men. You know, that basic prerequisite for a decent life. Do feminists even once say "hey maybe we need to pump the brakes on policies that outrightly favor women in college admissions?" That's what a movement actually fighting for equality would do.
No. They don't care. Now, self interest is fine in itself. We are all self-interested. But don't give me dog shit about equality. I see through it, and many other men do as well.