The Carrot and Stick approach works best if the carrot is something that conveys a significant benefit to the person being persuaded, not “we’ll stop beating you with the stick”.

It’s notably ineffective if the subject is perfectly willing to endure the stick, and, in fact, one of their chief complaints is that you’re using the stick on them.

Trying to pretend that you were somehow forced to use the stick is also a losing proposition, if you’ve just admitted you can stop at any time once your needs are seen to.

Of course, the polemics I refer to aren’t actually aimed at MRAs, and generally demonstrate that they don’t know what MRAs actually are or what they say*. They’re aimed at other feminists, to persuade them that their use of the stick is justified and rational. I have yet to see a single MRA say they were persuaded of anything by one, because they fail at the first rule of public speaking; know thy audience.

Moreover, feminists have seen fit to break the law to try and silence people for talking about men’s issues as far back as the 70s. In fact, you don’t even have to be an MRA. It’s ironic; for people who sometimes claim that MRAs don’t really support efforts to help men’s issues, they’ll discount efforts MRAs support because MRAs are supporting them. Talk about confirmation bias.

* For the former, accusing MRAs of being men. For the latter, saying MRAs blame only women, when MRAs blame society (men and women) and feminism (which is more than just men). I still find it odd that “gender equality” advocates seem to have difficulty remembering the existence of male feminists when it comes time to defend themselves, especially since MRAs don’t, and have absolutely no problem criticizing them.