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
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
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
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.
edit on 11/4/2017 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)