I'm not sure if you are talking about online (though even then I would disagree)? Or maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by "space" -- e.g. I've read about male fashion designers that felt compelled to pretend to be gay to help make it in that space. Pretty sure you will find similar things in certain other professions (male nurses).
As I point out later, those (very limited) areas which are hostile for men are that way because they are viewed as lesser roles relegated to the purview of women and in some cases, as you point out, non-hetero people. I also doubt very much, based on people I know in those fields, that that hostility is coming from within most times.
Also, the existence of these small and limited spaces where men are less catered to does nothing to invalidate my point that the vast, vast majority of spaces cater far more to men than women.
edit: More importantly, I'm not sure how being 3-4 times more likely to be murdered (by male or female) or being 11 times more likely to die at a job site constitutes a "safe" space by any reasonable definition. Or how longer prison sentences or turning a blind eye to male-to-male prison rape constitutes a "safe" space.
Man. I've definitely seen these out-of-context stats before. Now where was it... Oh yeah. Every time anyone says anything about how shitty things are for women "But 11 times more likely to die on job sites!" Yes. Because women are implicitly or explicitly not trusted in situations involving dangerous things. Because of the underlying sexist assumption that they're incompetent.
This isn't men shouldering some burden unwillingly. This is the men in charge only trusting men to do the dirty work, and the men being hurt because of it. Again. It's can be laid entirely at a shitty patriarchal culture. My entire point was that it hurts everyone.
That does not then mean that that Patriarchal culture also doesn't impart innumerable privileges to men.
Because men are always physically stronger? Because they always produce the monetary value and have power in the relationship?
No, and no. I'm honestly not sure where you even got any of this. I certainly didn't say anything to indicate it.
Because if they call the cops there's not a decent chance they are the ones being arrested, despite being the victim? In the same post you mention toxic masculinity and dismantling it, I regret to point out that you are perpetuating it's myths.
I'd like you to actually point out where I was perpetuating myths, and not where you apparently imagined sections where I was. This is almost entirely projection of stuff I didn't say or imply.
Also it's important to note that men are much more likely to be the perpetrators of violence in the situations you mention. This does lead to the unfortunate consequence, due to our human love of blindly trust in patterns, of male victims not being given due trust. But do try not to so disingenuously use out-of-context statistics if you choose to further engage people.
I'd agree with many of the above statements, though I would replace "patriarchy" with "toxic masculinity". At this point in time, I feel the concept of a binary "patriarchy" is unclear. Both genders suffer from issues differently, I disagree the lack of equality stems from a single source or theory (specifically males having a majority of the power).
Addressing the final sentence here. There's a pretty simplistic view of the concept of patriarchy. It's not just men having the power. It's an entire culture chock-full of myths about gender. One of which you perpetuate right here ("Both Genders")! It's a lot of things. And yes, it is almost universally the cause of issues of Gender inequality. Other kinds of inequality are different and often far more complex (hence why many people practising intersectional thinking now prefer to use the concept of kyriarchy, the theorhetical framework that considers numerous intersecting layers of privilege pervading society)
By the same token, MRAs are not just for men, or spaces just for men. At least some of the spaces are for everyone who is looking for alternative methods and solutions to combat gender inequality.
Dunno where you got the idea that MRAs are "By the same token" of anything. They're simultaneously a shitty thing all to their own and also unshakably similar to other bigoted movements that pop up when their privilege is threatened.
Men's Rights Activism is not just "An alternative method/solution to combat gender inequality." It's an entire framework of thinking that almost necessitates ignorant ideas like "Gender Inequality is over/has actually swung the other way! Men are the oppressed minority now!" or "Feminism is about female supremacy!"
It's all about a blinkered focus solely on the areas where yes, men face problems as a result of our patriarchal society and culture. While also mixing it in with an entirely unhealthy dose of complete denial of most of the issues affecting people who aren't cis men, as well as more than a pinch of completely invented or imagined injustices against men, and a sprinkling of Pick Up Artist bullshit and gender essentialism.
I still do not understand the idea of why creating a separately named but similarly aimed movement seems offensive to some. The idea of "But that already exists!" doesn't prohibit a new group -- if activists want to create a separate group to fight a common issue, what is the harm? From my understanding, this happens all the time within feminism (or any activist movement).
See above. It's not just an alternate name. It does not have the same aim. It is not about reducing gender inequality except in the very few situations where men are disadvantaged. If somehow men stopped being looked down upon for being fashion designers and nurses, and got about equal distribution of custody, the Men's Rights movement would be entirely satisfied. They don't give a shit about anyone but themselves, except for when they're imagining them as evil aggressors.
I think you brought up a lot of good points and thank you for sharing the information about the talk. I agree MRAs often seem to blame feminism (one of the reasons I don't identify with it) but I see it as somewhat analogous to feminists who still blame patriarchy as the prevailing source of modern society's inequalities. In short, whatever the believed source, activism and movement toward equality is a great goal. That being said, things like GG or some of the more vile segments of MRM makes it hard to stomach -- if the believed origin of inequality causes excessive hatred rather than reducing gender barriers, it's not really progress. However, I think the modern wave of MRM is still forming, and it remains to be seen where it goes, in the same way that early second wave feminism differs
Yeah this is just so fucking crazy I almost want to stop addressing you right here. No. Blaming Feminism (Which actually involves blaming an imagined version of feminism or even just some imagined inherent evil in women) and correctly identifying patriarchal culture (With extensive research and academic documentation to back up the assertion) are not equivalent situations. There are no non-vile segments of the MRM. They're bigoted or ignorant. Often both, never neither. People actually fighting gender inequality rather than ignoring it or actively preserving or increasing it are called Feminists.
Regarding comparing opposition to MRA as opposition to Mens Rights -- claiming that "anything said by MRAs is not worth defending" is such an extreme version of opposition it belittles inequalities men suffer. Although one can easily disagree with MRAs about the origins of inequality for men, I do not feel it invalidates the underlying issues men face -- even if those issues are voiced by MRAs.
Cool. Nobody has actually denied men face problems in certain areas. Once again you're literally fabricating arguments.
MRAs don't say anything worth addressing because the closest thing they get to is occasionally saying "Men sometimes have it bad too!" That's it. It's a worthless statement. Because everyone already knows that. Those issues are being addressed by feminism in its currently dominant form.
When MRA's bring them up they're usually wilfully ignorant about the cause/source of those problems. This is not me "Disagreeing with MRAs about the source of Inequality" this is me pointing out that they're almost always flat out wrong. They ignore inequality in almost every case but when combating it would benefit them. Pointing out "They occasionally correctly identify situations everybody always knows about!" is pretty much a "Making the Trains run on time" observation.
