The Ultimate Battle of the Sexes

Introduction

Men's Rights Activism (MRA) is actually not in reference to a specific group, but the term is used as a label to describe people who support or contribute to the idea that there is a concerning lack of attention paid towards issues affecting boys and men in society and this needs to change. Contrary to the popular belief of those who don't know much about groups of people that fall under this label, the concept of MRA is not inherently anti-feminism. It is actually indifferent to feminism in the sense that they do not want to take away equal rights from women or implement special rights for men at the expense of women.

Feminism, while also not in reference to a specific group, attempts to classify all those under its banner as though it does refer to a singular collective group. The problem is that it does not have an agreed upon definition for its label that accurately describes the views and actions of people that fall under this label. Therefore, Feminism is actually an umbrella term suggesting that there are different branches within Feminism and it cannot logically be looked upon as one singular group.

If you disagree and believe I am misrepresenting Feminism by alleging the word is now an umbrella term, then you are free to do so, but keep in mind the same logic can be used on MRA. In other words, if you are willing to agree that the key objective of Feminists (except a small radical fringe within it) is to achieve equality for women in areas where women are predominately being oppressed and any other benefits are merely a bonus, then you are forced to agree that the key objective of MRAs (except a small radical fringe within it) is to make society aware that boys and men are suffering and society needs to act to remedy this problem, and any other benefits are merely a bonus. Can't have it both ways.

Feminism was formed at a time when women were predominantly being oppressed and discriminated against, MRAs was formed at a time when the issues predominately facing men and boys were and still are not being taken seriously by society. If you cannot understand the need for MRA, then delve a little further, you will be enlightened.

It's Time for An Honest Discussion

If you are willing to agree so far then I believe we can have a very valuable discussion on this topic. One of the key things to remember about this whole anti-MRA hysteria among feminists is that MRA Is a Direct Reaction to Feminism. Contrary to what you might think, this is not an inflammatory statement or one that inherently justifies that one group is right and the other is wrong. What it is actually stating is that due to the actions of those falling under the banner of Feminism, another group was formed. Without the existence of those individuals who acted under the banner of Feminism, MRA could not exist.

How could I reach such a conclusion? Ever since its formation, Feminism has had opposition/criticism to deal with. Most of the time, this opposition/criticism was unjust in the sense that most people objecting to it were doing so out of ignorance and fear; these people objecting didn't want things to change because things were good the way they were. I agree with that assertion, but if we are to put the movement into today's context, then in Western countries women do have equal legal, economic and political rights to men, the only key area of contention is whether they have equal social rights to men.

The Social Justice Problem

"Social rights" is a difficult term to accurately define and by extension justify as being of real concern. If we attempt to compare social rights in the differing spheres of racism and feminism, there are such clear differences that attempting to compare them as being equally problematic is impossible. Social rights in the realm of racism can be verified as necessary because racism is only problematic (NOT non-existent, but problematic) when a majority feel they are entitled and protected by law to discriminate against somebody else based on their race. If you believe this is a reality in Western countries today, then you are sorely mistaken.

In the vast majority of Western countries, non-white racial groups are a minority in terms of population numbers compared to the white majority who outnumber them in population numbers. In every single country on Earth, including Western countries, women are not a minority in terms of population numbers, in fact there are more countries that have a greater ratio of women over men than countries that have a greater ratio of men over women, even Western countries follow this pattern. In terms of population numbers alone, it is impossible to argue that women are a minority. If women are not a minority by the same definition as a racial group who are also not equally represented in numbers as well as representation and power, how can the sentence "women are a minority" be taken seriously without elaborating?

Now, the popular counter to this argument is that "majority" and "minority" are still relevant terms because they are not being considered in terms of population numbers alone, but "also" (actually, ONLY) because representation, power and influence in the areas of legal, political and social rights are "as" (as what? Advantages in numbers that you already have?) important. See what I did there? I just demonstrated that using the argument "women can still be considered a minority" cannot be logically true if you notice that what is actually being said is that a misrepresentation of a definition can be promoted in this particular case as though it were an ordinary definition.

In other words, changing a definition for the sole purpose of including something that is not ordinarily considered to be part of that definition and then prohibiting others from doing the same while enjoying the benefits of this misrepresentation as though you did nothing unusual. Such behaviour is not only illogical and unfair, it is simply wrong.

Another popular counter is the "equality of opportunity might be there, but shouldn't this be demonstrated in the opportunity of outcome if the former were true?" No, it should not. But before I explain why, let us define "equality in opportunity" and "equality in outcome".

Equality in opportunity (EIO) means every person within a society ought to have the same chance to achieve anything they want compared to anybody else and should not be denied this chance due to factors for which they do not have control over (in this case, their sex or gender). The reality is this actually cannot be achieved (unless you create a perfect system) and the definition is used rather as a guide to aim for, to ensure you get as close to the goal as possible, even though you are aware that achieving it is impossible.

Equality of outcome (EOO) means that regardless of what actions you take or efforts you put in to achieving something, the end result should be as rewarding and beneficial for you as somebody who did not take a similar degree of action and did not put as much effort into achieving this goal. This is also an impossible goal that could only be possible if it were utilised in a perfect system, but unlike EIO it is NOT a concept that should be used as a means to aim for something because it goes against basic human biology and human nature.

Continued

The vast majority of humans on this planet will find incentive to do something if there is a guaranteed reward or benefit as a result of their actions. They are generally prepared to work harder if the result will be more rewarding. The vast majority of humans on this planet will refrain from doing something if there is only an unlikely chance (and no realistic guarantee) that they will be rewarded or benefit as a result of taking part in this action. Whether it is for selfish or selfless reasons does not matter. If themselves or nobody they care about is benefiting from their action, what is the point in taking this action? Moreover, what incentive is there to work hard and do your very best when you are not even sure things will change for the better?

Here is a clear example illustrating why EIO is critical to what is deemed to be a fair society and has the added bonus of bringing strong benefits, while EOO is not critical to what is deemed to be a fair society and has the added misfortune of adding highly detrimental consequences for society:

A male is born and decides from a young age that he wishes to help sick people and tend to them until they are better. He discovers that the profession that best fits his desires is that of a nurse. For most of his childhood and teen years he is ridiculed for wanting to be a nurse. When he is teenager, his own parents support his wishes, but caution him that the role of a nurse is better suited for women because they are naturally better at it than men. They also mention that even if he is good, he will likely face discrimination based on his sex because most of his competition will be women. Despite all these hurdles, when he reaches adulthood, he becomes a nurse and even goes on to become a highly successful and influential one within the country he is born.

By the time he has retired, he has achieved so much material success, respect, fame and admiration from all those who have come into contact with him that when he is one day asked in retirement, "how did you achieve all of this, you are a man?" He would most likely say "being a man does not prevent me from becoming a good nurse. Not even societal expectations or pressure from those who are closest to me. The only thing that could have prevented me from becoming a good nurse is if I believed myself that I could not be a good nurse."

"I saw a goal and the only genuine obstacle was allowing the opinions of those around me to influence my decision not to become a good nurse. I had enough opportunity as any other women did to achieve what I have. And that does not make me more special because I am a man, it makes me special because of my work as a good nurse, which men and women can both achieve. The law and workplace environment all ensured I could not be fired because I am a man, but I did not need to be a man to be a good nurse so their protection was only useful if I had a man-hating boss or man-hating colleagues who wanted to get rid of me because of my sex alone. Otherwise, I had to rely on my skills as a good nurse to ensure I succeeded and I truly believe that I did."

What does this tell us:
Does the average man have the same natural skills that aid him in being a potentially good nurse as the average women? No. But there are still many worldwide male nurses.
Are there men in positions of power who represent their nursing staff and their achievements in a public setting? Yes. Men are in plenty of positions that have control over groups of nurses and therefore young men wishing to become nurses are not put off, and should in fact feel easier and more encouraged to become one, knowing that a man is speaking for many nursing groups around the world.
Do movies, popular culture, media and societal attitudes towards men generally encourage men to become nurses? No, they mostly trivilise and dicourage men who express a desire to become a nurse. Do male nurses still exist? Yes.

Taking everything I have just stated into account, what is the primary reason women far outnumber men in the nursing field? You can try find the evidence you want. You can make all the justifiations you like and try your best to dodge, deflect and suppress the truth, but it is staring you right in the face: men and women are generally different. They not just different because of their genitals, they are also different in the way the concetration of hormones in their bodies affect their behaviour, they are also different in the choices they make in regards to work and family. They are also naturally suited better for certain jobs and are therefore more likely to fall into these jobs that reward their natural skills, regardless of their external environment as they mature into adults.

Significant Shifts In Dealing With Criticism

Original criticisms of Feminism were rationalised by its opponents along the lines of "your lives are fine, don't complain and just be quiet" (A), to "ok people are taking you seriously, my privilege is under threat and now I need to ensure others don't ruin this status quo" (B) to the "your help and support towards women has been great, how about we now help men as well? You know for equality's sake?" to what it has become now "I thought Femiism was about equality? Why would I want to criticise Feminism then? Am I a sexist misogynist who doesn't want anything good for women? Why do I hate women so much? How could I not want to be a Feminist?" (D).

As you can see, A-C are a steady change as circumstances around the world changed, but D is clearly an outlier, clearly an extreme reaction. It really is from C that we notice a significant shift in the way Feminism chose to promote itself and deflect criticism. They had originally relied on the merit of their beliefs to win the hearts of their opponents and it had always worked. But now, at C, something unprecedented had happened, opponents of femism were asking for their help in regards to issues facing boys and men.

By slapping away the hands of these opponents, feminism was revealing that its promoted message of "belief in equality" was wrong. This was ammunition for opponents of feminism and they decided to attack Feminism for falsely advertising itself as a movement that cared about achieving equality.

Suddenly Feminism went into full damage control. Questioning an aspect of Feminism in an unfavourable light meant you were being seen as directly attacking the foundation of Feminism and trying to destroy all it had created. This conditioning that criticising Feminism equaled criticisng women was so strongly conditioned into Western minds that "anti-feminist" became the new "racist" card. To make matters worse, when opponents of feminism criticised the labels that were being unjustly placed onto them, feminists responded by saying you just don't understand feminism, go read up about it. (They knew opponents would not bother, so did not have to worry if the opponents actually did follow through with what was being told to them.)

And then the biggest mistake of all happenend. When people who were not opponents of feminists tried to reach out in support of those that were unjustly being labelled as anti-feminists, feminists responded with "I don't care about your problems, this is a movement for women. Go make your own men's group if you can't accept that!"

Instead of just copping it and moving on, instead of letting it slide, instead of "being a man about it" and just accepting the phrase "men are in power, they cannot experience real sexism or oppresion", some of them snapped. No, I will not do these things, I will actually take the advice of feminists who suggested I start a men's rights group. I will demonstrate clearly that something is wrong and I am close to powerless to stop it, but I will not just sit by and let it happen.

And so MRA was born. And what happened when it came into public awareness? Check back to criticism argument A above. And now, we are currently deep in stage B. But that is where it stops. Feminism will not be able to recover from its current position unless there is a significant reformation or a revolutionary more effective PR campaign. "But women are so oppressed!", "you are just a misogynist!", "you want women to fail!" These phrases mean nothing now. They are little more than talking points that lack substance.

If you don't want an extreme reaction like MRA to occur again, be more receptive to criticism and don't allow it to be the basis that irrepairably harms your movement.

Conclusion

In reality, females in Western countries have achieved equality in every way that it is possible to regulate. There is even strong evidence that they receive extra rights which men do not have in the legal, social and political spheres. They are favoured over men for certain jobs just because they are women. They are protected from harsh criticism and harsh scrutiny because they are women. They have far more services and resources that are focused on providing support to women. They are still the first ones along with children whose lives are deeemed more valuable and more innocent when emergencies or dangerous situations occur. They are allowed to have high expectations and will not be critcised when complaining that these are not met. They are given freedoms and privileges without being forced to own the responsibilities that usually come with those freedoms and privileges.

The burden is now on women to show that they do not need to hide behind a movement whose goals have been met. They have the same opportunity as men to achieve any realistic goal they have in mind. The pendulim that was very much against them in the past has swung passed the centre and is now heading way farther in the opposite direction. If you are a true egalitarian and believe in equal rights for every individual, remove your shackles and embrace an ideology that cannot be corrupted, that cannot be used to openly demonise 50% of the population, and one that will never become a dirty word because it has strayed so far from the original meaning and purpose of the movement.

If you made it this far, thank you for reading. Even if you now love me, hate my guts or found it somewhat interesting, I respect your decision and effort to hear me out in full.

It's 2am, I've only read the first two posts so far, and I'm not yet sure if I agree, but I just wanted to stop here to compliment your writing. Regardless of the content, that is really well written.

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Thank you for the compliment. I do hope you get a chance in the near future to read the thread in full. Have a nice rest

Interesting concepts-obviously deeply and sincerely spoken-by a man.

Unfortunately, your lack of experience from the view of a woman, seems to muddle your concepts of the differences in the sexes and their difference in life experiences and needs.

Best wishes for your descriptions of manhood-wrong time and place.

You are, as said above, a gifted writer-your concepts are extremely skewed, however.

a reply to: Justso

Yes, my lack of experience from a female perspective is troublesome when truly trying to understand everything I mention. I acknowledge that. Would a hard-line female Feminist have the integrity to admit that her lack of experience as a male makes her claims about anything affecting males just as problematic? I highly doubt it.

The problem with what you just said is this (and I don't believe you intentionally did this): you are trying to undermine my credibility to speak about the topic of Feminism because since I am not female, I cannot truly understand the issues it raises for females. If you were consistent and really believed that, you would not accept males under the banner of Feminism, but rather refer to them as potential allies. You would not accept help from males in any form and would have to do everything yourself. If that were the case, you would still be forced into a life of subjugation that would be impossible to escape.

So which is it: do you want to be forever trapped within a system that you do not like, cannot change and regret every time you see males enjoying freedoms and taking for granted things you can never have? Or would you like to stop pretending that men and women are a different form of species when it comes to facing human issues and come to some sort of compromise?

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Hiya!

This was a much better thread in terms of thought processes than the "Israel" one. I hope I wasn't too rude about that, but I have a big interest in Israel remaining secure for obvious reasons.

Well, socially there is an environment in which women can operate now. I think ultimately the social engineers (the real ones who actually have power to change society) have big plans for women to take over men, not for good reasons either.

I worked in care work and nursing for many years. Ever been gunned down by women? I have. It hurts like hell and I don't think women are weaker than me.

Right from my birth when my Mom left me I have had problems with women. For some reason it has always been bitter. I'm not joking. I don't want to list it all here, but it is very real. They have continually sabotaged me.

I could not carry on in nursing; it destroyed me. I am much happier now I don't have to degrade my maleness. I am far from a macho guy, but I am a guy and I want to live my life as a guy. I had to bury all my emotions to do that cursed work that brought me poor wages, a whole lot of daily bitching and ultimately ruined my health - mental and physical. That is the reward I got for all those years trying to care for people. No medals of honor for me I'm afraid. If you had done nursing as a career you would know how it feels.

I really like women a lot, despite the bitter experiences, but they will never have the opportunity to sabotage my life again. I always make sure my emotions and my living situation is as autonomous as it can be realistically. I am glad they have it better now. If they wanna be the boss go ahead; I don't. I hate controlling people. I even hate chastising kids. I like freedom and autonomy almost too much.

Many women who read this would blame me without knowing my personal circumstances and say that I deserved what I got. If they truly knew then they would not. They would be rather surprised at my ability to forgive and not hold grudges.

Nursing is a ridiculously hard thing for a straight guy to do. Though, these days I wonder how straight I am, "reeeeeee!" and all that, lol.

Take it easy, fella. You write very well. I am sorry if I was a little hard yesterday. It is just that I see clearly the threats to Israel and I get all emotional about it. It is a vulnerable point.

Men and women-venus and mars-they are so different with such different life experiences-thank God, for the 70s when women could speak and be heard.

I have a son-I hope he is not feeling emasculated by feminism-oh, that's right, he's a Minnesota man-who respects the differences between men and women yet lives his life fulfilled with traditional manhood experiences-and not at all intimidated by successful women.

Everyone has a different journey-man or woman-accept it-we're different-your society helps define your role.

Sorry you seem so angry and unhappy with present day American societal definitions.

a reply to: Revolution9

Thank you for sharing your experiences, they give us some valuable insight.

In regards to the other thread, what happens in that thread stays there. I am not one to try distance myself from somebody who disagrees with me or thinks I am ignorant on a certain topic. I am more eager to distance myself from people that refuse to even acknowledge they might be wrong and especially those who go after my character just because it's easier than addressing what I have written.

If you have a problem with something I have written, provide me with reasoning so that I can do my best to understand and try to understand your mindset, perhaps even come to a compromise. If you have a problem with everything I am saying and just want me to shut up because you don't want the content of what I'm discussing to be the topic of conversation, then I have no time for you.

Only women who classify themselves as Feminists would do that. I have spoken to women (non-feminists coincidentally) about some of my own personal issues in the past and I was thunderstruck by their ability to acknowledge that while they couldn't understand exactly what I was going through, they were still going to try their best to help me because helping me was far more important than attempting to be me. It is a type of empathy that you cannot explain with words. There are people like that of both sexes, but my personal experience taught me this: feminism does NOT equal women and women can be already incredibly powerful beings without it.

originally posted by: Justso
Men and women-venus and mars-they are so different with such different life experiences-thank God, for the 70s when women could speak and be heard.

I have a son-I hope he is not feeling emasculated by feminism-oh, that's right, he's a Minnesota man-who respects the differences between men and women yet lives his life fulfilled with traditional manhood experiences-and not at all intimidated by successful women.

Everyone has a different journey-man or woman-accept it-we're different-your society helps define your role.

Sorry you seem so angry and unhappy with present day American societal definitions.

Was your previous reply some kind of satire?

I am not angry or upset about present day America because I don't even live there.

What I am fed up with is the continuous gender war that is causing so much heartache for both men and women. People just refuse to acknowledge that while there are big differences between them, both males and females are human beings that need each other to help balance the male strengths and weaknesses with the female strengths and weaknesses. Every weakness men possess can be addressed positively with the strengths of women, and every weakness women possess can be addressed positively with the strengths of men.

Feminism is a serious thorn to achieving that mass realisation. It's not the only thorn and it cannot be blamed for everything. But there will never be cohesion between the sexes as long as the Feminist ideology is permitted to thrive.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

sorry, it's too early in the morning and haven't read all of this but..
can enlighten me..
give me a quick rundown of what the issues for men that make them feel like they are at a disadvantage.
I can think of a couple that you will probably mention that I will agree with... but not that many really...

a reply to: Dark Ghost

feminism does NOT equal women and women can be already incredibly powerful beings without it.

Yes, some may argue that women have given up a much more subtle "backbone of humanity" power in favor of becoming more of a man in a man's world. Was it ever a man's world truly?

Also, how well are we gonna do now we have no "backbone"? Might we now require a wheelchair to get around?

Scary stuff. I feel like life is half missing now. I HOPE all my fears prove to be baseless, really I do.

a reply to: Dark Ghost


but, the creator had more than two cookies cutters that he used when he created people... it would be more accurate to say that each person was cut from their own unique cookie cutter.
each have their own set of strengths and weaknesses. when we start setting up predetermined characteristics of any type according to weather they are male or female according to what we perceive to male qualities, female qualities, and trying to enforce them on others, we harm more than we benefit.. since just like no one actually fits into the category of what is viewed "normal" some just come close, no one actually fits into the boxes that are fit for "male" and "female".

if MRA is a reaction to feminism, then well, what can I say, feminism was also a reaction that started during a time when men were claimed to be only one thing, but allowed to be just about whatever they wanted to be, while women were forced to be one thing, regardless of how men chose to be!

This kind of highlights the problems of trying to fit people into a group.

There are men who love being nurses, primary school teachers and suchlike. Equally, there are women who love to tear down engines, fly jets and skateboard.

I think it would be more beneficial to gradually educate everyone to see each person as an individual and not necessarily some part of a group.

How you do that, though...That's a tough one.

a reply to: SprocketUK

This is an important point. We need to remember that not only can women and men be different, women can be different from other women, and men can be different from other men.

One of the main points of feminism originally was that women didn't have the freedom to work at certain jobs, run a company, etc. Their choices were limited to either being a spinster librarian/school teacher/nurse/secretary (still looked down upon as "that poor spinster woman), or being a wife/stay-at-home mom (which was the ultimate ideal).

But we have to remember that men were somewhat limited in their choices too. Not that they weren't allowed necessarily, but they would be ridiculed if they wanted to partake in traditional women's roles.

Despite the nature of the term itself, feminism for me means that men and women should both have all choices available to them. If a man wants to be a nurse or an administrative assistant or a stay-at-home dad and raise the kids, he shouldn't be looked down upon. If a woman wants to be a soldier (and can fulfill the same physical requirements), she should be allowed. If a woman wants to be the main bread winner in the family, she shouldn't be looked down upon. If a woman doesn't want to get married and/or have kids, she shouldn't be looked down upon. Where the mainstream feminist movement went wrong for me is when women who wanted to be stay-at-home moms became the enemy. Of course, there is the fringe who hate all men simply because they are men, but I think those are very much the minority.

I have seen vast improvements for both men and women when it comes to life choices. I have a male cousin who took 3 months paternity leave after his child was born, while his wife went straight back to work. My last female boss told me that she and her husband agreed that he would stay home to raise their young children while she worked to provide financially for the family.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Absolutely agree with you.
It's also important to remember that as well as being different from the group you can also be different from yourself too.
That girl who spends most of her life in grubby jeans and has oil under her fingernails might also like to throw on some heels and a lbd and get wined and dined.

I guess it all comes down to being free of the cage of other people's expectations.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Buddy, I completely agree. I have been fighting the MRA fight for about 3 years now even though I've only become conscious of it within the year. At first I thought I was just fighting against people who were trying to over reach on accident. Now it seems I am fighting against people who actively want to demonize masculinity... It's become far more than fighting for the rights of those around America and even the world. These snowflakes have been engineered socially. We live in a world where information is free but manipulated to an extreme. People ask me why I am suicidal... I am sick of societies bull# and manipulation. This next generation is really going to # this country up and I don't want to be around to be in their internment camps.

Very nice write up.. Much more diplomatic and even handed than I could be.


I tried to assist with a mens rights group for about 2 years, really all I was doing was being a shoulder for some of the guys... I had to quit the stories I heard on a regular basis, coupled with a handful of suicides forced me to walk away.. it was making me hate.

I have no problem with women doing whatever work they want... your capable then knock yourself out.

My issue comes with a system that has flipped, they changed public education to help girls do better... problem is typically girls and boys learn differently.. and now we have a problem with boys not graduating high school, or the ones that make it though high school do not complete college. But nobody cares...

There are men that are desperate to be part of their children's lives and the courts force them to stay away based on the word of the mother alone with no evidence.

Ever heard of a guy getting support payments reduced after they lost their job and had to take a lower paying one... yea me neither.

I am renting a house to an Airmen right now who is struggling to get custody of his child from a drug addicted mother... the court thinks being with a mother hooked on drugs is better than being with the father in the military.

the suicides I mentioned earlier were fathers who felt there was no other way to get their point across to the system that looked at them as nothing more than a sperm donor, that deserved no contact with their children.

As I said.. its a sore subject for me, and not one I can debate without getting emotional..

a reply to: kaylaluv

This is not really an issue of Traditional views vs. Progressive Views.

And while I am glad you have experienced both men and women in your life benefiting from society's adoption of more progressive attitudes towards gender roles, I can assure you that feminism has nothing to do with the benefits the men in your life have received.

It appears to me that you are agreeing that Feminism is more likely a umbrella term than it is a singular collective with a tiny fringe minority? Would I be correct?