Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Dealing with Feminist "contributors"...

I'm sure by now it's become obvious there are essentially two forms of rebuttal to the Men's Rights Movement. The frontal assault, in which MRA's are characterized as Patriarchal Cretins out to enslave women "once again". The other is the "Many Feminists actually agree with you" argument, also known as the Patriarchy Hurts Men Too argument.

...So, how to respond?

In the first instance the response is rather obvious I would think... Attacking the messenger is only ever used as a distraction tactic, so simply asking for specifics as to what is wrong with your argument should suffice. This approach may lead to a "battle of the studies" type of debate...which is boring and no one wants to read those (which the Feminist agitator will be aware of). In that case, I would suggest keeping the conversation on "big picture" stuff (ie, why shouldn't men have Reproductive rights? Doesn't that mean that you then indeed DO advocate one set of rights for men, and another for women? Four legs good, two legs bad?).

The PHMTers, and the sister-group the "concerned Feminists", are tougher to deal with (and discern from genuine curiousity/concern). This umbrella also covers the NMBOF (not my brand of Feminism) approach in my view. For them, I would ask what Feminism has done, specifically, for men? If men's issues are "up to men to solve", what exactly qualifies THEM to even comment on men's issues, let alone claim expertise? Another qualifier would be their belief in Patriarchy Theory (do they think men oppressed women for thousands of years?) - a belief that requires the elimination of male power of all forms. This is man-hatred, and cannot be viewed otherwise.

The main thing to remember is that Patriarchy Theory (and the idea of historical oppression and the need for compensation) runs throughout Feminism. This will often be used to justify current injustices.

Of course, not believing in Patriarchy Theory(tm) essentially means your next question could easily be "How are you a Feminist then?" It's quite possible she's actually an MRA and didn't know it.


It seems almost too easy, but that's really all there is to it. Don't get bogged down in studies and statistics, appeal to logic and "common sense" whenever possible, don't be ashamed of saying your piece and don't hesitate to make sure it's heard, and insist that actions speak when words only promise.

A final note. The use of the "rape Card" is becoming more and more common, and it's destructive to the current thread, but I do not believe there should be much cause for concern here. It's already becoming sort of background noise, with the vast majority of those who comment on these subjects sick to death of the topic. But more importantly, this is an area where we can wedge a couple issues in. Prison Rape as consequence of imprisonment for CS debt,or false accusations in custody cases meaning innocent men railroaded into Prison being raped....well, how do you defend these things happening to good men, especially if you're "eager" to display that you really don't hate men....despite what 80% of the world thinks..

So you see, we can do much the same thing back....if we're so inclined..


  1. Ahhh...this post. Niiice! :)

    You smack nails on their heads like . . . . bam-bam-bam!

  2. I think that you have copped the grist here.

    Really, all we need to do is to MIRROR them. . .

    The same "trickology" they have deployed upon us, we are morally entitled to shove right back in their faces.

    Apart from that, we must instill upon them that we are essentially a foreign and sovereign power, and as such, to be dealt with in the appropriate manner: by diplomacy, and protocol.

  3. I absolutely agree. I like throwing their own words, and even concepts, straight back in their face whenever possible. Hard to dismiss the source when the source is you (insert NMBOF argument here).

    But it's definitely time men stood up and said "I don't give a shit if you think this is Neanderthal or offensive. It's what I want, it's what women have, and it's basic equality. Don't like it? Tough shit."

    It's time to call Feminists to the carpet to answer for their own transgressions.

  4. A society that imprisons men in such large proportion clearly is not meeting the needs of its men.

    I was once a teenage male (duh), and now I have a teenage son and speak with him frequently, as often as possible in fact. I have come to the conclusion that young men are not designed / intended to be happy. In fact, dissatisfaction with "the way things are" is a design feature of young men. A young man is supposed to try to remake the world the way he wants it to be. This is why men want to leave home as soon as possible, try to dominate other men, and why men build things. It is why men have dominated history. It is also how things get done in the world.

    Modern feminists leave the movement after they marry and have kids; this is what most women really want, in spite of feminists exhortations toward careerism.

    Marginalizing males and the male role in society has destroyed men and the society along with them. Feminists have sought the redefine the needs of the world in female terms, and they have accomplished this by marginalizing men and the needs of men.

    From Robert Reich's blog, his take on the "economic stimulus package":

    "The Stimulus: How to Create Jobs Without Them All Going to Skilled Professionals and White Male Construction Workers"

  5. Yeah, don't bother with statistics or studies, or anything else vaguely resembling evidence to support your claims.

  6. They all exist, in fairly easily accessible manner, from all sorts of sources.

    If you refuse to investigate my claims, there's not much I plan on doing about it, because it simply means you will refuse to be convinced...in short, a waste of time.

    There is no ROI in time spent proving anything to an ideologue.

  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.