A Basic Feminist Hypocrisy.

One of the basic ideas behind affirmative action was that there is "systemic bias", or a(n) (un)concious effort to both discourage and actively bar women from participation. As evidence, the lack of female participation in such areas as engineering, medicine and the like were used.

When it was pointed out that women chose to not enter these professions the argument was made that society did not encourage it, as well as other social/structural reasons, and that "awareness campaigns" must be mounted to encourage women to seek these professions. This was in addition to millions of dollars and man-hours "tailoring" these professions to be more woman-friendly. This was all in the name of "equality" since it was meant to establish equality of outcome, not opportunity. This is the entire underpinning of such concepts as "affirmative action".

Shift the focus a tad to the Family Court system though, and such glaring deficiencies such as markedly fewer men getting custody of their children is glossed over by redefining "Joint Custody" to also cover what used to be called "Sole Custody with Visitation". This was done to counter initial arguments that fathers see too little of their children, and to APPEAR more equal.

Now that the evidence is mounting of severe inequalities in outcome in the Family Court system, these same feminist voices are pooh-poohing the whole thing saying "Men just don't go for custody as often as women", or "Men are fine with walking away".

See the hypocrisy?

In one instance, equality of outcome is paramount. So paramount in fact that even if people don't want to do it, we must work to convince them to, and make it as easy as possible for them to do so. But in the other, we should ignore everything because it's not really a big deal. Men don't care all that much anyway. "Awareness Campaigns"? For fatherhood? I suppose, as long as we blame men. "Systemic Bias"? What's that?

Feminism vs Men's Rights?

The ongoing discussion of men's groups, MRA's, masculism, and the rest brings to light a simple question. One with many connotations as well as ramifications. The question is a simple one: Why do men's rights groups need to justify themselves?

The simple dynamic of feminist group vs. men's rights group may seem on it's face quite natural. Battle of the sexes and all that. But move beyond the face and the question becomes more problematic.

Both groups claim to speak for equality. Both groups claim their ideas and goals are legitimate, and just. Both groups claim their ideas are based on observed human behaviour. And both groups claim to be addressing pressing social injustices. There may be more claims, or more nuance to the claims, but these generalizations hold true for both groups.

That being the case, how exactly are they "diametrically opposed"? What is it that makes these groups "natural" opponents? If both groups act in a manner that is consistent with these principles, there can not BE a dissonance between these two groups, or at the very most, there can be a mutual dissatisfaction in equal measure on both sides of the ledger. Deciding who wins the "whine" debate could be the real key...

Then one has to consider this as well...why are MRA's, and quite frankly nearly everyone else, consulting feminist groups on these issues as if they were to grant legitimacy to MRA positions? The mere existance of a men's rights movement justifies it's need, feminism is about gender equality (supposedly anyway), and feminism has shown no interest in adopting a male position regarding equality....for any reason. This is all fine and good, but this then makes feminism a women's-advocacy group. Again, this is not a problem, but such status creates a need for a counterpart advocacy group representing men, the other half of the human race.

It also disqualifies feminist groups from making judgements AT ALL regarding the legitimacy of men's rights groups, insofar as the need for, or legitimacy of. Most importantly, this position negates the idea that feminists are "authorities" on men's rights or anything related to them, since by their OWN ADMISSION they have done no work in these areas, and have never felt the need to.

In short, feminism cannot tell the world it is the arbiter of all things "equality" related, then represent only women's interests, then decide if a movement arisen in response to such one-sided perspectives has legitimacy, or if the sex they represent has legitimate gripes. It is not up to feminists to legitimize or "accept" the men's movement. It's here, whether you like it or not. There is reason for it, whether you admit it or not. Things will change, whether you help us or not.

There are very specific and quantifiable issues that MRA's are fighting to correct. They are glaring injustices and obvious connections made invisible ONLY by the lens of feminist idealism. Feminism argues to correct "ideas" and "patriarchy" they can't even define, let alone quantify. Feminists lie and mislead as a matter of course, be it for dramatic effect or out of simple ignorance of the truth. MRA's point to the half of the statistics ROUTINELY ignored in mainstream reporting. Feminists point to the past to justify their current and future actions, MRA's point to the present and ask what the future will be like?

If feminists were what they tell everyone that they are, MRA's wouldn't exist. Period.

Because feminism is a lie, MRA's do not need their approval, or their help.

If feminists want to help, they can start by shutting up for a while and actually listening to men, caring enough to take their perspective, and making the changes they can to help out.