you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ArchangelleStrudelle [score hidden] ago

Personally I'd go with "hate movements" or "hate groups."

e: IMHO "supremacy movements" would also be better than "privilege movements," which is a term I haven't heard before.

[–]bonemachines [score hidden] ago

I think there's a fundamental difference between white rights groups and MRA's when it comes to being hate groups. While some MRA's are outright hateful toward women, there's still some people within the movement who eventually turn to feminism or egalitarianism. It's like they only see one piece of the equality puzzle - specifically, how the patriarchy affects men (along with specific issues like circumcision). There's nothing inherently wrong with being anti-circumcision or aligning yourself with some of the MRA positions. MRA activism is so limited that it pretty much only exists on certain Internet websites, and there's different levels of severity with each individual website. Think of the difference between The Red Pill and the regular MR subreddit - both are anti-feminist and ugly, but to different degrees. Having a group that advocates for men's rights isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's only an issue when they marginalize women/feminists.

On the flip side, there really is no such thing as white rights groups that aren't hate groups. There's no element to white rights activism that isn't inherently racist/anti-Semitic, and there's no evidence that anything white rights groups complain about is actually real. The MRA's are wrong by claiming that women are more privileged than men or that there is widespread misandry, but important social issues harming men exist. White genocide doesn't exist. A Jewish conspiracy to indoctrinate our children and promote race-mixing doesn't exist. No equality movement can adopt parts of white rights activism because it's entirely hateful.

Whether MRA's and feminists want to admit it or not, there are some issues they have in common, like the bodily autonomy argument with circumcision or the problem of gender roles discouraging men from expressing their emotions. These problems are real. I obviously wouldn't be posting here in SRSD if I agreed with men's rights activism as a whole, or the hate speech that many (but not all) MRA's spew at women. Yet I still believe in the possibility of the men's rights movement evolving, much like most of feminism has evolved from "helping upper class white women do things" to its present state, while casting out TERF's and other harmful radical elements.

tl;dr: "White rights" groups are inherently hateful, the idea of a men's rights movement isn't (although the current one is poisoned by misogyny and general cluelessness), and I think that's an important distinction.

Also, "reactionary group" is probably the best thing you could call them.

[–]lazurz [score hidden] ago

I've mentioned this before, but I think that the problem with the MRA's is that because of how toxic some of their most vocal segments are, the people who would self identify as a "MRA" but are reasonable, non-misogynistic people are generally unwilling to identify as such. There are reasonable ideas in the movement, but they are generally buried on the torrents of misogyny, and when they do address them, they bring them up not as a "We should provide more support for male victims of domestic abuse by raising more money", but as "We should provide more support for male victims of domestic abuse by taking money away from female domestic abuse shelters."

[–]fifthredditincarnati [score hidden] ago

Oh no. MRAs are fundamentally fucked up, not just their vocal elements but their core principles and beliefs, as well as their main activism.

For instance, they call themselves a "men's RIGHTS movement" - i.e. they think men need more rights. Their very name is the hateful idea that men are an oppressed group lacking enough rights.

Then, the core tenet of Men's Rights groups is opposing feminism. One cannot be an MRA without opposing feminism - there is no room for bargaining or misunderstanding here, it's their most sacred ideal. We don't need any more proof that it's a hate group for its ideology, not just "vocal members".

But here's more anyway. If you look at the number one issue they advocate for more men's rights in, it's false rape accusations. Not dismantling gender norms that hurt men, not even child custody, but making it more difficult for female rape victims to report rape. It's not just a few vocal people doing this, it's ALL of them - the prominent ones, the rank and file, everyone.

[–]ArchangelleStrudelle [score hidden] ago

I agree with most of that but your tl;dr is basically my reasoning for why it's fine to call the MRM a hate movement - we can talk all we want about some theoretical, ideal, pro-feminist MRM, but the simple fact is that the actual existing MRM is undeniably misogynist. /r/MensRights is probably the tamest part of the "manosphere" and I have no problem calling that place a hotbed of hateful misogyny, nor does the SPLC. Yes men can be victimized by the patriarchy but, as you briefly note, pretty much all MRAs dispute the existence of the patriarchy and indeed believe that men are oppressed by women. The number one most important issue for most MRAs is not circumcision and certainly not destroying harmful gender roles, it's not even family law issues - it's false rape accusations. In practice the MRM is dedicated to preserving rape culture, that's the central issue for them.

You might not disagree with much of this. I think it's fine to note the differences between "white rights" and "men's rights" depending on the context. But given that OP's question seems to be referring to the actual existing MRM, I'm not sure how relevant it is in this context.


feminism or egalitarianism

This implies that feminism isn't an egalitarian movement and is generally a red flag that the person thinks it's about "female supremacy," just FYI. Most MRA's claim to be "egalitarians," for example.

[–]marrowwealth[S] [score hidden] ago

I understand what you're saying. I will most likely continue to use supremacy, as I'm focusing more on white rights movements than MRAs, but I think it's important to remember that when we discuss MRAs, we usually aren't discussing those who turn to feminism.

My paper, specifically, is about institutionalized racism and sexism within health care. So I'm not talking about MRAs who are concerned with how the patriarchy hurts men; I'm talking about MRAs and white supremacists who are concerned with denying the patriarchy.

Personally, I wouldn't call the "good" MRAs that. I would call them feminists, tbh.

[–]bonemachines [score hidden] ago

I'm just curious, how are you linking men's rights activists to institutionalized sexism in healthcare? To me it seems like they don't have enough power to really affect anything as important/widespread as a healthcare system. Are you just going to quote some of their opinions about healthcare and refute them?

[–]marrowwealth[S] [score hidden] ago

I'm using them for two reasons:

  • discussing the treatment of male rape victims and how the MRM insists on separating the issue from feminism, which leads to no work getting done on their part and less attention paid to the movement making steps to correct the issue

  • their opinion of health care definitely plays in -- I'm analyzing the make-up of Congress (like I need to provide a summary...) and the attitude is shared by many privileged members of Congress and MRAs, and I'm using the MRAs to show the privilege in congressmembers who hide it under the guise of improving health care

[–]snedgus [score hidden] ago

What attitude, exactly? I think SRSers are too quick to say that MRAs are powerless, because while people who officially declare themselves MRAs don't actually do much in the world, I think many actually powerful people share some of their ideas. I'm curious whether that is going to be your argument, given bullet 2.

[–]marrowwealth[S] [score hidden] ago

that actually is part of the argument! not many officials would explicitly label themselves MRAs, but share the mind set. aligning them will help me argue for de jure sexism in health care

[–]Suddenly_Elmo [score hidden] ago

I understand you're focusing on white rights, but if you're going to create an umbrella term, shouldn't they accurately describe both groups, even if you're focusing 90% on one of them? Personally I think the MRM could fairly accurately be described as a hate group, considering they exist almost exclusively to bash feminism and women, but I'm not really sure how they could be considered supremacist. Yes, if there ideas were implemented, this would result in widening the power gap between men and women, but they don't have an ideological commitment to the innate superiority of men and men's right to control women. They argue for (their version of) legal and social equality. Most of them seem to believe that feminism has poisoned women's behaviour much in the same way that feminists believe patriarchy poisons men's behaviour. Yes, they spout a lot of biothruths, but these tend to be of the "different but equal" variety than the "inherent male superiority" variety. Obviously there are those in the movement that genuinely and consciously believe in male superiority, and MRA affiliated groups that do, but they do not define the movement. Personally I think reactionary captures the spirit of the movement much more than supremacist, but I'm very interested to hear your thoughts on this.

[–]marrowwealth[S] [score hidden] ago

personally, I think that the MRM is too closely linked with racial supremacy movements to discard as just a hate movement, not to mention their loose ties to TRP. I agree that reactionary is by far the best term, but white supremacy isn't, and their connections are imperative to remember. idk -- I haven't had coffee so I probably don't sounds half as coherent as I think.

[–]fifthredditincarnati [score hidden] ago

While some MRA's are outright hateful toward women, there's still some people within the movement who eventually turn to feminism or egalitarianism.

And there are individuals in white rights movements who eventually stop being shitheads too. IN SPITE of the movements, not because of them - hence, the movements themselves are hate groups.

MRA activism is so limited that it pretty much only exists on certain Internet websites

So? Hate groups are defined by ideology, not location.

the idea of a men's rights movement isn't [inherently hateful]

Yes it is, because it says right there in the name that they're fighting for men's RIGHTS - which means they think men don't have enough rights. That concept of men being denied rights is inherently hateful.

I don't understand your logic at all. Why are you defending MRAs in here?

[–]thepinkmask [score hidden] ago

White rights" groups are inherently hateful, the idea of a men's rights movement isn't (although the current one is poisoned by misogyny and general cluelessness), and I think that's an important distinction.

A misogynist movement is a hate movement. Cutting MRAs slack because theoretically maybe in bizarro world they might not be a hate movement makes zero sense to me.

To fight hate we need to call it what is.

[–]bonemachines [score hidden] ago

Fight the misogyny when you see it, then. If I see MRA's or common MRA opinions I don't automatically assume they all hate women, because there are still some people to whom "men's rights" means "fight against homelessness affecting men, circumcision, toxic masculinity, etc." I see them as people who are at least aware of some gender-related social imbalances, which is better than nothing. I have personally never identified as an MRA and only came across their activism after seeing feminists discuss it, but there are some MRA's who eventually come to see that the issues affecting men are just a small part of gender discrimination as a whole.

The MRM is still young, and I think most people who come across it for the first time see it as missing the point at best. I don't think it's unthinkable that young people, particularly men who are primarily affected by these issues, could create a movement that still focuses on helping men without disparaging feminism or women.

[–]thepinkmask [score hidden] ago

I used to think similarly. I wasted years attempting to reason with MRAs, hoping in vain that somewhere under the Vadar mask there was a glimmer of humanity -- but believe me there is not. They are hateful to the core, and their movement over time has only become more hateful, more unhinged from reality and more dedicated to harassment, intimidation, doxxing, and violence.

Is a positive men's movement possible? Maybe. But for that movement to arise, the MRM must be denounced at every turn for the poisonous hate movement that it is.

[–]fifthredditincarnati [score hidden] ago

men who are primarily affected by these issues

Such as?

I'm curious to know, since you imply that you're getting this list from MRAs.

[–]Dakayonnano [score hidden] ago

I'd second the "supremacy movements" title.

[–]marrowwealth[S] [score hidden] ago

I would love to do that, but I don't think my professor would accept it for the MRM. I think I'm going to go with supremacy movements.

[–][deleted] ago


    [–]marrowwealth[S] [score hidden] ago

    I agree with much of what they're saying. I'll be focusing more on white rights so I feel safe calling it "supremacy," but I'll expand more on my decision in response to their post if you're curious.

    [–]fifthredditincarnati [score hidden] ago

    In what way is MRM not a male supremacy movement?

    [–]Toka313 [score hidden] ago

    If you are hung up on whether or not to create your own terminology, the answer is to create your own terminology. That's how you get dat tenure.

    [–]marrowwealth[S] [score hidden] ago

    ungh dat tenure

    Seriously, though, I'm not a professor. I wish. Maybe one day I'll coin "privilege movement" and become famous or something.

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.