The MRM has developed through several stages and at the moment anti-MRAs, feminists in particular, are asking why MRAs are so obsessively anti-feminist. Now if they were a little more familiar with feminism’s stated principles – gender equality and a commitment to dismantling traditional gender roles – and then to to draw the obvious conclusions from these principles, they wouldn’t be asking this question because they would have arrived independently at the same answer as MRAs have.

Perhaps if feminists were a little more committed to feminism, they would agree with MRAs more – unless “that’s not their feminism.” Perhaps if feminists applied feminist principles to their analysis, they would recognize and then condemn feminist advocacy that actively attacks the civil rights of men in their quest to favor women. They would recognize appeals to chivalry in their rape and IPV advocacy. They would recognize advocacy founded on the male hyperagency/female hypoagency at the root of the patriarchal social order when female rapists are excused out of hand or try to accuse their male victims of rape, or denying that women abuse men in relationships as often as men abuse women, and to the same extent. They might even stop making IPV about female victims and distracting attention from the majority of DV victims – children, especially male children – and denying that mothers acting alone are the majority of abusers.



Perhaps if feminists were a little more committed to feminism, they would attack misandry in all its forms and sexism in all its forms, recognize their own anti-male advocacy and stop it.

This thread on r/changemyview caught my eye. The post laid out some reasons that feminism was not the answer to men’s issues. One comment in particular was so good that I thought it deserved wider dissemination.

And is it not too much to expect serious feminists to acknowledge this, and then to go ahead and stop it.

by