Meet the community that’s fighting for men’s rights without bashing feminism

I believe suicide is an interesting and important subject, because of its causes and how it affects others.
https://www.kibin.com/essay-examples/the-reasons-why-people-commit-suicide-in-the-united-states-BO4DbhU8

I also learned recently that South Korea has one of the highest rates of suicide.

Thank you for posting this Engineer. I strongly support the idea that you can support men's rights and women's rights at the same time (I have been arguing that on A2k for a long time). I also support Matthew Hodge's advocacy on mental health, homelessness and domestic violence.

However, I feel he is brushing some of the difficult issues under the rug. There is some legitimate tension between what is often heard from prominent feminist voices and what he is calling "men's rights".

The rights of men as parents are a personal issue, it was legally difficult for me to get shared physical custody. In general fathers are not considered equal parents.

In the interview Matt says "a lot of the rhetoric around child custody has less to do with custody and more with child support payments". In my case this was certainly not the case (and I know of other fathers with similar cases). I feel that he is sweeping this issue under the rug.

Another important issue is the way that male sexuality, and sexuality in general, is being treated after the societal changes of the 60s and 70s. In my opinion, the message should be about respectful, equal consensual relationships that are wanted by both partners. This isn't the message that teens, particularly teen boys, are being taught.

There is no need for people supporting men's rights to be directly opposed to feminism, but the are issues where these two constituencies have competing interests. There is a need, and a way, for these issues to be discussed respectfully. But they need to be discussed. If the idea is to sweep any difficult issue under the rug, I don't think this is helpful.

Bump. I think this is an interesting topic. I will be a little disappointed that no one wants to discuss this. Here is the question (for Engineer or anyone else who wants to have a respectful discussion on the topic).

What does it mean to fight for men's rights without "bashing feminism"? The topic name, and the discussion community it references, implies there is such a thing as men's rights that can be promoted without attacking feminism.

In your opinion, what would this entail?

First, we've had some of these conversations here and they quickly devolve into name calling. I know that some people here have an interest in this area and posted that line to show where the heavily moderated discussion site is. While A2K is moderated, the rules here are more free-wheeling and perhaps not so conducive to such a contentious discussion. That said...

---------------------------

I think you would start with the definition of feminism. You can find variants of it around the web, so I'll just go with Wikipedia.



I can't see any issue for a man supporting equal rights for women in these areas. There are men who either don't want to give up their advantaged position or feel that feminism is an attack on men and that leads to some of the backlash that we've seen for over one hundred years with very little variation. The posters that were used to lobby against allowing women to vote use many of the same tropes that we see in anti-feminist lobbying today. (I've made long posts with examples in the past, no time to dig them up again, but you are welcome to if you want the details.)

At the same time, there are legitimate areas where men are disadvantaged to women. These are great areas for discussion, places where we should be talking about men achieving "political, economic, personal, and social rights for women that are equal to those of women." These things aren't mutually exclusive, but just like some men find that equality with women means giving up some of their privilege, some women find that equality with men likewise means giving up some of the favored status they've enjoyed. In both cases (men and women), these people are then held up by the other side as examples of why men's activists and feminists are evil, hypocrites, etc.

If you really support equal rights for women, you are a feminist by definition. Because some loud person somewhere who also claims that title had made outrageous statements doesn't make the movement any less worthwhile. Likewise, there should be no stigma to supporting men and boys in achieving equal rights and opportunities. I have never understood why men's rights and feminism would ever attack each other. It seems to me that they are completely compatible.

I agree with almost everything you say in this post.

- The definition of feminism you post is an idea that I can get behind. I have no problem accepting the disadvantages women have had historically and that remain in society today. And, I think discussing, advocating and fighting for social changes to remedy the inequality is a good thing.

- I agree that there are men who attack feminism because they don't want to give up their advantage. I don't support the misogynist groups that call themselves "men's rights".

- I appreciate your balanced view that there are some areas that men are disadvantaged, and your acknowledgement that you accept the areas where men are disadvantaged to women. And I agree that they aren't mutually exclusive.

- I disagree with your insistence that people accept the label "feminist". Your academic definition of "feminist" is good. I feel that if I say "I am a feminist" in popular society, people will form an incorrect view of my political and social views.

Beliefs, attitudes and actions are all more important than labels. The reason that I am uncomfortable with the label "feminist" for me is that it has become attached with a set of political and social views that go far beyond the definition you provided.

This may be my personal opinion, but my personal opinion is a perfectly good thing to base the labels that anyone chooses to apply to themselves.

It seems like all we really disagree on in what we have discussed so far is that use (or lack of use) of a label.

Note that we have had this discussion before.

http://able2know.org/topic/258678-19

Thanks! You have a better memory than I do, Engineer. That was kind of fun to re-read after two years. I see the point that attacking feminism feels like attacking the progress that women in our society have made and are making. I also want to pause and say I appreciate that you can express your ideas rationally without ad hominems. I respect you for that. Let me try to get to new ground that I think relates to a men's rights group that doesn't bash feminism.

The difficulty comes when there is legitimate disagreement with the ideas, or policy goals of prominent feminist voices particularly when they conflict with reasonable concerns of men. It is possible agree with the definition of feminism that you provided while disagreeing with the direction that prominent people and organizations are taking on some issues. I have already expressed two areas where this happens... there are more.

Custody (and the roles of fathers in general) is one issue. The idea that fathers are only concerned with paying less child support is very frustrating (and in my case demonstrably untrue).

The way that sexuality, particularly male sexuality, is being addressed in society and now taught in schools is also an issue. There is a legitimate need for rape prevention, but the way that this is being done should be questioned based on what is good for both boys and girls. Raising legitimate question about whether a particular rape prevention curriculum is really good for students is not the same as supporting rape. However any attempt at a rational discussion on these issues leads to just this attack.

There is a big problem discussing these issues because any time someone raises question and presents data in a rational way, they are met with ad hominems and personal attacks.

We need a way to raise these questions. They are admittedly questioning the current direction of progressive social change... but that doesn't mean that these questions shouldn't be asked. After reading of this article and this group (I spent some time reading posts on the reddit group), this group doesn't seem to be meeting that need.

Most men and women who connect to the word 'feminist', have conversed about it and are for room for women in the world of medicine, science in general, and business in general. Most are not radical academic feminists, who seem to occupy Max. I have explained how I agree with him on stuff I know about happening against men, I think more than once. But, over and over he posts anti feminism, when he means rad.

That is one reason there are relatively few joining this thread.

I'm done with Max and perhaps I have company.

Ouch Osso! That feels a little personal. You join on this thread to say that because of me you don't want to participate in this discussion and that no one else wants to engage with me either... I don't know what to say (other than this feels like junior high school all over again).

I am sorry you feel this way. Of course it is your choice to engage in this dialog or not, I respect your decision. (And I am not as fragile as I was in junior high school where saying "nobody likes you" was about the cruelest thing possible you could do to another person.)

In a dialog people express their opinions respectfully and listen to each other respectfully. It doesn't mean perfect agreement... I don't think it is right if you are saying that unless I agree with you we can't have a dialog. The idea is to accept our differences and search for common ground. I think that is the part of the ideas expressed in the OP.

The people who agree with you don't annoy you the way I annoy you. But, they also are unable to challenge your ideas or push you so see the other side of an issue. I want this challenge. That is why I am here. You are correct that you don't have to engage... but I see the point of this type of thread if everyone is in lock step agreement. To each her own I guess.

I am hoping for a dialog. If you change your mind about this, you know I will be here.

You do, it's one thing to disagree with someone's position. It's something else entirely to malign, slander and distort the position you disagree with while at the same time pretending to be something you're not. When someone is so comprehensively dishonest it's impossible to have any sort of conversation with them.

Izzy, Can you write a response without an ad hominem?

This is interesting. I have expressed an opinion on a topic that is relevant to me. If you want to talk about the relationship between men's rights and feminism, I am the person to have this discussion. It seems the primary goal of Osso and Izzy is not to contribute to the discussion themselves... but to push me out of the discussion.

Izzy has an opinion of what type of person. He has never met me, his opinion is based solely the fact that I have disagreed with him here (and anyone who disagrees with Izzy must be a bad person).

This is an ad hominem attack. Even if he is correct about what type of person I am (and I truly am a vile man who hates women), why does that matter? I am not asking for anyone's trust. I am simply expressing my opinions and my reasoning (and even vile women-haters have opinions and reasoning) on a topic that interests me.

I am truly curious what Osso and Izzy would have to contribute to this topic if they could stop with the ad hominems for a little while.

I wasn't talking to you, but I was being honest. You do malign all feminism, not just the extreme radical variety. In fact you try to portray all feminism as being extreme and radical which it's not. You claim to be concerned about women's rights, but your comments, especially those on the rape thread where you're extremely blasé about the notion of consent, show the opposite is true.

And your lies about being a single father are proof that you're dishonest and deceptive. I may be many things, aggressive, single-minded, rude, but I'm honest, and I despise those who are dishonest and sneaky.

You don't know what honesty is, you twist facts for your own malign purposes, but you're not smart enough to know when you've been caught out.

Izzy, You are following me around making ad hominems. That's all you are doing.

Rather than responding to my opinions and the points you are just making juvenile insults to keep other people from reading my opinions. If my opinions where so stupid, you would just ignore them... you wouldn't have to follow me around trying to keep other people from considering the points I am making.

Why don't you add something to the discussion? Even if I am the dishonest, deceptive, twisted, blase woman-hater you think I am ... I still have a voice. I am a human being. I am expressing my opinions and explaining my perspective.

I have expressed my point of view on this thread. I have set up my opinions and I have backed them up with some reasoning (which I think is pretty good but you may disagree). I have done this with no ad hominem attacks.

Why don't you do the same? Maybe the reason you can't have a discussion with me is that you can't write a response without an ad hominem. Ad hominems tend to kill discussion.

I'm not following you around, I'm talking to Osso. None of your points are worthy of consideration and your opinion is that of a bald faced liar.

You are not a single father but you lied about being one to impress Germlat. It was not a mistake or a case of different interpretation. It was a lie, and a deliberate one. You're a liar, that's all you are.

You are talking to Osso about me. I am rather flattered, I suppose.

Whether I am a single father or not, or even whether I lied or not, is irrelevant in this thread (although you do seem obsessed with it). We haven't met. You don't know me. You have no way of knowing whether I am a single father or not, and frankly it doesn't matter.

I am expressing my opinions on this topic and explaining my point of view. That's all.

You don't get to shut people or perspectives out of public discussion simply because you and Osso have judged that they are vile.

It's the best you can hope for, like a fly buzzing around someone's head. Most people learn that not all attention is good attention when they're at kindergarten.

Btw, anyone who is worried that some of his previous sexual encounters could be classed as rape is not someone who should be allowed anywhere near women. You're that person. (That's not an ad hom, that's a reminder of what you've already said.)

Ad hominem metrics (my new innovation):

Engineer: 0 (0%)
Izzy: 4 (100%)
Osso: 1 (100%)
Max: 0 (0 %)

I'm done with you now. You can play the victim and blub about how mean people are all on your own. And if you carry on whining like this you will be on your own, believe me.

Now I'm going to need to take a bath, I feel dirty all of a sudden.

Don't worry Izzy, my feelings aren't hurt by your ad hominems. The point is that these ad hominems are the thing that is making discussion difficult (if not impossible) here.

An interesting discussion involves two people expressing different opinions from different viewpoints. That is the point of a community that bridges men's rights and feminism. I think that would be a great thing.

Ad hominems are used to shut down discussion and prevent certain viewpoints from being heard. I think that is sad.

Enjoy your bath.