Men's Rights Activists- Strange Reasoning? Watch

Lychee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#1
Something that has puzzled me a bit in all the debates about feminism on TSR is the way that MRA's/ Anti-feminists seem to get really angry about 'unfair' treatment of women compared to men but then seem to imply the solution is to make things worse for women rather than make it better for men. I will give a couple of examples:

Domestic violence:

MRA's complain that domestic violence against men is not recognised by society and that while x amount of money is spent on facilities such as shelters for women an equal/proportiante amount of money is not spent on comparable facilities for men.

Now my response to this would be to argue that shelters for women are obviously needed and oversubscribed, they are staffed by volunteers and by people who work very hard for little reward. Their whole existance is because activists fought to get them opened and fight to keep their funding. If shelters are also needed for men then men need to fight for these shelters, secure funding and volunteers for them etc in the same way that women have. The women should share their expertise and training in order to help them do this but their priority must be to maintain the existing network.

Now my interpretation of what MRA's think is that it is unfair that these shelters exist without comparable shelters for men so the money should be redistributed and shelters should be closed down so that shelters for men can be opened.

Another example:

Funding for Breast Cancer vs Prostate Cancer

MRA's complain that Breast Cancer gets much more funding than Prostate Cancer. Again I would argue the reason for this is the history of breast Cancer activism which has taken BC from something that was never talked about to one of the most recognised and supported types of cancer. Again my solution would be to increase the campainging for PC, again perhaps using techniques that could be learnt from the fundraising for different types of cancer. Whilst this might have an indirect effect of taking more money from BC (as people can only support a limited amount of causes) At least people would be choosing what to support (and I would bet that men, the primart target of PC fundraising dont actually give that much to BC)

Again the attitude of MRA's seems to be that money should be taken away from BC and given to PC instead to even things out.

To my mind this dosent make sense, surely we should be making things better for everyone, not lowering the standards for one group to make things better for another. It is a bit like saying that the solution to the problem of private schools getting better results is to abolish them rather than make other schools better.

Maybe I am misinterpreting this though? What do you think?
0
quote
reply
Darkened Angel
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#2
Report 10 years ago
#2
(Original post by Lychee)
Maybe I am misinterpreting this though? What do you think?
Women fought for their rights, men have to fight for theirs too. Makes sense to me. No one is going to get any thing done by sitting around moaning all day.
0
quote
reply
Smack
  • TSR Support Team
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 10 years ago
#3
Indeed, I think many MRA's are as stupid as the feminists, and as misogynistic as feminists are misandristic.

But then this is inevitable when your movement only focuses on the ills towards one particular gender.
0
quote
reply
numb3rb0y
Badges: 3
#4
Report 10 years ago
#4
Are we talking about government funding or voluntary donation? If it's government funded then I see no moral justification for taking money from 50% of the population and spending the vast majority of it on the other 50%.
quote
reply
Lychee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#5
(Original post by numb3rb0y)
Are we talking about government funding or voluntary donation? If it's government funded then I see no moral justification for taking money from 50% of the population and spending the vast majority of it on the other 50%.
Thats part of the problem to me- I am not sure. Certinally for BC both the Government funding for BC and the voluntary funding are greater but I assume this includes the cost of NHS treatment and if BC is more expensive to treat than PC (which I believe it is) then surely it is right that the money that needs to be spent on the treatment is spent on the treatment.

To move it away from gender for a min say that the same number of people contract bowel cancer and skin cancer each year and the same numbers die from each. However the treatment for bowel cancer is much more expensive than the treatment for skin cancer because of all the invasive operations (*Disclaimer- I have no idea if this is true but if we take it as true for the basis of the argument) Therefore it would follow that we spend more NHS money on treating Bowel cancer. however this is not unfair to skin cancer suffers IF they are still gettting the best treatment available. The fact that their treatment is cheaper is irrelevant. The same is obviously true for PC/BC

However you also have to factor in the amount the government spend on research etc and I don't know what the figures are for that.
0
quote
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 10 years ago
#6
I just think they're a lot of snivelling prats with a victimhood mentality.
0
quote
reply
Nu Ordah!!!!!!!!!!!!
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7
Report 10 years ago
#7
I dont care about mens or womens rights, we just drift to what we have always done. Men go out, kill meat, fight rivals and shag, and women perform the social/reproductive function.
0
quote
reply
34253
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8
Report 10 years ago
#8
I don't get angry because women have it better in some situations than men, I get angry because feminism still exists when it needn't. When our inequallities are equal there is no need for anyone to pick a side, rather they should be pushing for equality for all to make everybodies lives better. I'm sick of complete idiots saying 'but feminism is about equality for all', it certainly isn't. Want proof? What has feminism EVER done for men? Nothing. It's getting to the point where the balance is going the otherway and we need masculinism.
0
quote
reply
Lychee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#9
Well i guess thats the point of MRA's I think there is still a need for feminsim TBH, things like the pay gap (which is increasing) domestic violence/rape issues, gender stereotyping etc are still big issues. I think there are inequalities both ways but they are not on the same issues iyswim. However I think the MR movement wants to take away the gains of feminism, not promote better circumstances for men.
0
quote
reply
nolongerhearthemusic
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#10
Report 10 years ago
#10
Yeah, I think you're right. There are certain things - such as domestic violence support and shelters for women - because they are actually needed and because people worked hard for them. It doesn't mean society has favoured women on these issues, it just means there was more demand and more people willing to put in their time and effort. If domestic violence towards men is a big issue - go out and set up shelters.
0
quote
reply
Darkened Angel
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#11
Report 10 years ago
#11
(Original post by Elipsis)
I don't get angry because women have it better in some situations than men, I get angry because feminism still exists when it needn't. When our inequallities are equal there is no need for anyone to pick a side, rather they should be pushing for equality for all to make everybodies lives better. I'm sick of complete idiots saying 'but feminism is about equality for all', it certainly isn't. Want proof? What has feminism EVER done for men? Nothing. It's getting to the point where the balance is going the otherway and we need masculinism.
I agree with your points, there is no need for it any more. These days feminism has just turned to greed and contradicting tantrums -

"I want the right to my kids as I was the one who carried it for 9 months" vs "I want a high-paying full time job but I can't because I have a kid to look after, this is unfair!"

:rolleyes:

EDIT: I've corrected my post.
0
quote
reply
34253
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#12
Report 10 years ago
#12
(Original post by Darkened Angel)
Hence why it's called feminism. I agree with the rest of your points though, there is no need for it any more. These days feminism has just turned to greed and contradicting tantrums -

"I want the right to my kids as I was the one who carried it for 9 months" vs "I want a high-paying full time job but I can't because I have a kid to look after, this is unfair!"

:rolleyes:
That's an argument I use quite a lot (i'm not sure if you were agreeing with me and you did/didn't know about it?). If it isn't solely about promoting women's rights then why is it called feminism?

I'm glad somebody else realises that it's just about having your cake and eating it.
0
quote
reply
Darkened Angel
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#13
Report 10 years ago
#13
(Original post by Elipsis)
That's an argument I use quite a lot (i'm not sure if you were agreeing with me and you did/didn't know about it?). If it isn't solely about promoting women's rights then why is it called feminism?

I'm glad somebody else realises that it's just about having your cake and eating it.
Ignore the first past of my post, I misread yours. But I am agreeing with your points.
0
quote
reply
Oswy
Badges: 13
#14
Report 10 years ago
#14
I think men who are principally concerned at those inequalities and prejudices which affect men should spend less time attacking feminism and more time actively seeking to remedy such inequalities and prejudices.

Maybe, though, it's just easier to caricature and attack feminism and women than actually do something constructive for men instead?
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (234)
27.34%
No (622)
72.66%

Watched Threads

View All