As usual a few (hopefully) good intentions and a lot of mess. Personally, I don't follow a lot of the groups or authors, particularly lately. Even when I was reading theory and research, I was usually more interested in people writing on sexuality per se than gender (apart from some studies of what seems to be happening more presently with discrimination, violence or trans/queer issues). I don't even know peanuts about men's rights as a movement(?) or with reference to specific groups. So I am not going to toss many names. And I'm not very interested in the back and forth and quote-squinting, which others are certainly doing sometimes neatly and sometimes more crassly. So just a couple cents on the general situation.
Placing sneer quotes around an -ism or a group, and then trying to use that quoted version to disparage certain elements over and over can get ugly. Try to stop at some point and put words to just what you're talking about. Then use those, but tell us what you mean by them and try to stick to your own labeling. For example, certain authors (Dworkin is a good example) and some groups have often been called -- or maybe said to be influenced in certain respects, on certain issues by -- radical feminists or separatist feminists. There may be a world of difference between what these strains say and what others say on points of interest. So why not pick a label that you think speaks to exactly what you are criticizing, rather than sticking with sneer quotes over and over when the target (I think?) is not the entire movement. Maybe the "-ism" actually targeted there is more separatism within feminism. And you might say the "-ism" being argued for (maybe?) is more egalitarianism generally. The quotes and new words, it may get a little overdone without adding things people have not already been arguing over.
Hmm. Can I agree with everyone ? (Ducks presumed barrage of vegetables from most for asking that way. Giggles.)
Women often suffer real domestic violence, particularly domestic violence -- particularly once again non-reported or non-prosecuted violence, and I'd be surprised if it's actually found to be an even split. That is, unless people are using a very broad definitions of violence and perhaps also of self-defense. So it's hardly surprising that women's shelters get some publicity.
Men are largely expected to "tough it out" or "suck it up" when it comes to a string of particular, difficult things. Including for some, having really awfully limited -- if not downright piggish -- rules about what to talk about, and what to say about gender in horribly narrow masculine communities. Some of which, I am gathering from a lot of hearsay I haven't really investigated yet, go about calling themselves loudly, "men's rights" (do they not?).
But that's not all. Men are often expected to limit and discipline themselves such that they "suck up" rather frequent application to specific kinds of hard work, monotonous or ugly routines, OR for some, harsh violence... And while we can still find quite a few men who will only be satisfied with a woman taking care of house, kids, and his ego even IF she might have a day job too... We can also still find women who are only happy with "a real man" meaning one who never cracks, who rarely cries, who never looks too feminine, and who doesn't bother her about all the petty, sick, annoying shit he goes through in the day and maybe he better be able to protect her physically from every other pig out there too. I don't say all these things to deny anyone seeking particular types of relationships for the sake of it... But how "normal" has it become for many people to assume one kind and to start demanding it such that everyone is pressured to subscribe to it to a degree?
We aren't in the 1970's anymore; more of the jobs are service and office. More of the jobs aren't great paying, which means more women are working and not making enough for what they do -- before we even get into women often making less for the same (I think, more particularly for professional jobs?) ...
.... And what about entry level office jobs, service jobs? The brawny, mechanical, greasy, long hours of manual work factory jobs are pretty much gone and have been for some time. If a man doesn't grow up with the particular training in grooming and soft - soothing - yielding language, quiet group maneuvering, and technical skills education already being pushed at him all such that he fits those jobs, what happens? Do women expect him to be able to get those jobs and love them, all the same? Does he become less of a "real man" and not eligible to be a good partner (which brings with it, less chance to be in a long-term romance with her, if both are led to believe everyone can only have one long-term partner for love and sex and household and everything, no room for more) all because his chances of making what scant money such jobs afford, are rather less? If he feels that to "develop" himself to compete for those jobs amounts to a feminization or to a contradiction with those women who demand that he otherwise continue to play the emotional "rock" at home, then what? Is it his personal problem to solve, or is it an education and cultural problem?
Just some men, particularly those with higher education, wind their way through this and perhaps aspire to the very masculinized veneer of "technical manager" sort. They manage to adopt the middle-class image of perhaps, better-paying jobs for higher professional levels women are still often kept below glass ceilings in. ('What, she might ask for maternity leave! No way she can be on management track and get the same pay as a guy who might later be eligible for that.' The more things change, the more they stay the same.) For those who make it, they'll be given a good chance to elbow women out of the running for a real living wage. Wage and even simply, employment disparity continues there and it all favors those men.
But for too many men -- and many of these are now angry white men filling out the ranks of various more virulent politicians and groups -- success at the white collar jobs was never a "manly" option or an economically obvious option that could be attained... And where these happen, it's often both at the same time. You end up with working class males going to underfunded schools in depressed regions among a general recession, being pressed to do something to be hero-provider even for their birth families first, where they can't see what the hell to do. And they often end up being told by their parents essentially not to focus on school or (even if they aren't strict gender police) polite business language and expensive grooming, but instead to find some reliable, low investment work the minute they graduate if not much, much sooner. But the wages are getting depressed, contract work is in -- lifetime is out, etc... Life is tough for many of those jobs and quite a few of these guys end up kicking around ranting about how the women, and so many other minorities have "stolen" all the opportunities from them through affirmative action and how they lack "respect" or "appreciation" for the limits and struggles of more "tough" masculine life.
There is also the little matter that women's roles are roles taught to enjoy and be aware of aesthetics, relationships, soft power. Which do not exactly get most women more money or status wholesale. But they do provide it for a select few (who probably, granted, work their butts off to keep "the right stuff" to do that as long as possible)... And more important, soft power provides a measure of comfort and perhaps some more basic security to women... Many shops won't pay much, but having one slot to fill -- how many would want or would prefer the "decorative" or "soft speaking" girl figure, which when times get tough well many women basically know how to be without necessarily compromising every edge of what they consider their personal gender ideal. Offbeat example: Even the brooding goth chick or say totally earthy, no-makeup vege eco-activist nearly androgynous girl type... Either often has smoother accessories and washes her hair more often by routine than quite a few of the working class guys? (Though for some it's totally unacceptable of course.)
Beyond that, women more often get to enjoy talking to each other for support and seeing inside relationships in ways maybe men aren't "supposed" to, and they get to play with how colors and appearances and fashions can be used to manipulate emotions and relationships -- it's something of a sport for some. While it's true some would prefer more stereotypically "masculine" things, I would be surprised if women were all happy to trade that in completely for equal work access. Just as men are not always quick to trade in prestige and wages that are supposed to go with being "reliable providers and leaders" for ready access to cozy but boring and frilly (sometimes grossly humiliated) assistant sort of office jobs.
And how many women would be happy if all men leaped headlong to embrace as much personal femininity in sex and performance as possible? I think there would be a surprising amount of disturbance, even a few more separatist claims seeping around mainstream culture that men should not be allowed to because surely they would do so with "the wrong intentions" or saying that could only be leading to a situation where more women would somehow or other be abused by some "false equality" there.