So if the mainstream MRA movement is so utterly reasonable and non-poisonous, you have that single, solitary example I was looking for earlier, right? I've gone looking. I've been unable to find it. I would love to be forced to reevaluate here.
Frankly, I've done very little research on MRA. It doesn't interest me. I have spoken to some of its advocates, all I'm saying those people weren't being poisonous, in fact they were saying largely what I was saying, to which I responded that whatever they are trying to achieve will not be achieved any better under the banner of MRA, than it would under the banner of feminism. I never said their sites are not poisonous, I was speaking from personal experience.
I never accused you of saying anything. I have said what tends to come from people who call themselves egalitarians. Please don't accuse me of things I didn't do and then of straw-manning in the same breath. Feminism doesn't devalue men's issues - it is, a huge chunk of the time, the only social-justice movement actually doing anything about them.
Again, it doesn't matter whether feminism devaluates men's issues or not in its philosophy, when it does so in its name. I don't get it how this basic psychological message fails to go unnoticed constantly. It's like saying "Fatfree diet, but actually we advocate a diet that's balanced in its energy consumption." Even if it was true, that name would still have people think "Well, that's crazy!"
All of the issues you have cited so far, every single one, has societal expectations and gender roles as a root cause. You really think the symptom is more worthy of treatment than the disease? As to the rest, you didn't paint MRAs as superior; you drew a false equivalence. One is a sea of toxicity that accomplishes nothing but poisoning the well, the other actually does shit.
How should MRA ever achieve anything, the people who are sensible, are afraid to organize in fear of being branded as misogynist pricks for even mentioning their point of view. The people who do organize, are misogynistic pricks
who don't care about being branded as such.
Tell that to A Voice For Men sometime.
I would compare that to Jezebel. Do you think Jezebel speaks for Feminism very well?
Academic research is more credible than your uncited claim. When the research points to your claim being inaccurate, that's... well, that's what "disprove" means. The other article: If you truly believe that there is a gender gap between boys and girls, and that boys are on the underperforming side of it, then how exactly is a paper that studies and seeks to eliminate gender gaps not relevant? Either boys are not underperforming, or this article addresses the issue of boys underperforming; either way, your claim is addressed. As is your claim that feminism stands in opposition to equality.
I provide sources in my last post. Have you ever heard of a biased study? I mean, when a person of a certain movement makes a study regarding problems that don't really suit the ethos of their movement? And finds out all the problems that were supposed to be there, according to a multitude of studies, suddenly aren't there. That's called biased. It doesn't address any points.http://fabiusmaximus.com/2009/07/07/women/http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-503-x/2010001/article/11542-eng.htmhttp://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/01/29/women-more-likely-than-men-to-graduate-college-at-22/
Just because you have sources doesn't mean they are infallible.
I also did not claim feminism stands as an opposition to equality. Though a lot of the time, certain strands of it do. Just riddle me this: There is an extreme fringe of feminism, the fire breathing dragons fringe. It is not a big one, and it does not represent feminism as it is, but it is there, and it is vocal.
Now imagine an extreme fringe of equalism. What do they want? More equality for everyone? I mean, you can't twist that to your own meanings, equality is just that, equality. Sure you can try to twist the agenda, but at least we're rid of the psychological implication of the name.
Lack of information makes it rather difficult to eliminate bias, since the alternative to bias is deciding on evidence. The rest is a false dichotomy; your bias is clearly toward the inherent superiority of your own position, facts be damned.
I am certain that the position of equality for equality's sake is superior to any other position that wants to drive equality, when the goal is to drive onwards equality. Yes. How could it not be? Besides, I've provided sources for whatever I've said, so no, facts aren't to be damned.
Thanks for the sources. Interesting you had to hop across several continents to gather them - I don't think they can all be applied to a single country so the idea that they are all afflicting one culture doesn't quite hold.
They are all applied to western countries, in western culture. There isn't much difference. I could do more researching to get you the sources you want, but I'm sure someone would say. "That study was done in Chicago, Chicago sucks anyway."
Once again, no one is calling equality "feminism". People are calling feminism "feminism" and equality "equality".
So what is feminism then? If it's not to drive onwards equality, then what is its purpose? As I understand, most moderate feminists would describe it as a pursuit for equality.
Either way, my biggest gripe with feminism is sill the fact that if you don't identify as feminist, you are a misogynist prick. If you even question it, question anything that is said in the name of feminism, you are a misogynist prick. Unless you are a woman, you are an idiot who can't stand up for themselves. This is what you'll face any time you even mention your view point in public, guaranteed.