AHC: Make the Men's Rights Movement more successful/popular
- Thread starter Von Tyrconnell
- Start date
- Status
jahenders
Banned
These issues are, to some degree, problems for both genders. They might not be solved by a men's rights movement, but the current feminist movement shows absolutely no hint of addressing them because it's not in their political interest to do so.
jahenders
Banned
One possibility might be if feminists were more vocal and frank about the concept of long-term uses of Title IX. When it was being passed, it's sponsors in Congress proclaimed many times, "Oh, this will only be used for X, not for Y." Since that time it has been used for Y, Z, 1, 2, and 3 and continues to be used for more today. If Congress pushed for it while its supporters were open about all that they planned/hoped to use it for, it might start a backlash against it or, if still passed, prompt the formation of a counter movement
Help please
Dear sciscisciortino,
Please could explain what a "neckbeard backlash" is?
As I am not a aware of a socio-political grouping called the "neckbeards" and therefore seek enlightenment.
Yours
Stafford1069
Dear sciscisciortino,
Please could explain what a "neckbeard backlash" is?
As I am not a aware of a socio-political grouping called the "neckbeards" and therefore seek enlightenment.
Yours
Stafford1069
The problem with the men's rights movements is that it is a reaction to the women's rights movement. It's a tit-for-tat backlash based on "you think you're better than me?". It's not the only movement like that, but just as with all movements that were born out of and have that mindset, I can't stand them. There are probably issues that need to be reexamined in terms of gender equality for the modern age, where the man is the unfavored party for whatever archaic reason. Divorce laws are among them. But the "men's rights" movement isn't going to accomplish that, and really isn't about that. It's a dunderheaded ire that entrenches the exact sexism that feminism was created to fight in the first place.
I don't know if men's rights can be anything much of anything. Early on, sexism is entrenched anyway, so you won't have men's rights concerns in a male controlled society. And when feminism comes along, the rallying cry of "men's rights" is a reaction of rage rather than the solid, grassroots movement that feminism is.
I don't know if men's rights can be anything much of anything. Early on, sexism is entrenched anyway, so you won't have men's rights concerns in a male controlled society. And when feminism comes along, the rallying cry of "men's rights" is a reaction of rage rather than the solid, grassroots movement that feminism is.
Riain
Banned
Any first step to a successful men's rights movement would have to be the killing of the sacred cow that is the idea that women are totally oppressed in Western society. The fact that several people have said they don't want to touch this subject is indicative of how pervasive this concept is, which of course means that there can be no sensible discussion on the subject.
A sensible discussion that doesn't begin with the assumption that women are roundly oppressed and then quickly descend into emotive shrieking about rape may shed some light on the swings and roundabouts in Western society.
A sensible discussion that doesn't begin with the assumption that women are roundly oppressed and then quickly descend into emotive shrieking about rape may shed some light on the swings and roundabouts in Western society.
Then why do you even post here if you do not want to get into it...
As for the Men's movement. There was, at least in Sweden, a fairly large Men's Movement called Befria mannen (Free the man) that was heavily inspired by the feminist movement. It worked to reevaluate the norms for men and increase the spectra of acceptable manliness. It did however, sadly, derail somewhat in the 80s to a more essentialist approach with a larger focus on the uniqueness of masculinity.
Sadly whole "be a man!" and "get your man card" too often means "be a mysoginist pig"
American caucasion males are the most privilaged group of people (or at least majority group) to walk the earth ever. Any movement that tries to play the victimization card with this demographic is never going to gain critical mass. What you have are specific issues that need to be addressed. Every population has this. But a bigger movement? Swap out gender roles 5000 years ago.
Maybe backlash from WWI can help in that regards. If, at the end of it, in countries which suffered the worst military casualties you have some sort of assertion than, unlike women, young men are considered expandable, and have been so since we have records of mankind, it will be very hard later on for feminism to claim women have been the one and only oppressed group.
I think such an idea requires butterflying away WWII to take root though. While WWI is regarded as a futile war, WWII isn't. Men fighting in the trenches in WWI can be considered victims. Men fighting in WWII would be considered heroes. Also, no WWII will also have quite a few butterflies regarding feminism.
Given what the Men's Right's movement gleefully advocates, how do you get some kind of Edwardian stasis that rolls forward to today? Simply preserve how the world was in that time were Europe ruled the globe as empires, women couldn't vote and had limited legal rights, and viola - you have a successful and popular Mens Rights Movement. A Men's Rights world, even.
American Caucasian males aren't a majority group, mathematically speaking, as women comprise 50.8% of the US population. I don't have data broken down into race and gender and don't have time to look for it, but I suspect that American Caucasian males aren't a plurality group, either; that would probably be American Caucasian females.
I'd also argue that the nobility and aristocracy were the most privileged group of people ever, albeit far from a majority group.
However, everything else you said? Absolutely correct.
On the subject, the best way I can think of to make a Men's Rights Movement more popular and successful is for a leading organization to be created early in the movement's history. This organization must have the support of the vast majority of people who consider themselves activists for the cause, and must make it explicitly clear that the movement is not misogynistic, has definable goals that are not in opposition to, or a backlash against, the goals of feminism, and that anyone who attempts to use the label of the movement as a shield to permit them to act misogynistically is not welcome as part of the movement. Further, they must actively speak out against people who attempt to do this last, so as to render the misogynists pariahs.
Okay, this is probably ASB, but somehow, have feminism get stuck in its 80s/90s rut, where its perceived as being focussed on things like banning pornography and pursuing dubious cases of Satanic Ritual Abuse. Maybe the MacKinnonite Minneapolis ordinance passes, which emboldens the antiporn crowd to continue trying for similar legislation elsewhere. Even if they don't have much success, just keeping it going as an issue will probably cause feminists to wear out their welcome pretty quickly.
(Sorry, I don't know how you keep SRA going, since there are only so many individual miscarriages of justice that you can have before the public starts to connect the dots. But anyway, let's assume that feminists, at least, decide to keep making this an issue...)
So, after a few more years of feminists sounding like a cross between Carrie Nation and David Icke, the public is thoroughly fed up and ready to embrace any movement that promises to stop them. Though, honestly, if that did continue to be the main current of feminism, the movement would probably just die from public disgust/indifference anyway.
And on the Men's side of the equation: Have more people care about whether or not custody cases are fair to men(which in my experience is one of the driving issues of Men's Rights). As it is, people might get upset when they hear about some guy they know getting shafted on visitiation rights or whatnot, but they're pretty indifferent to it on a societal level. I'm not sure how you go about getting people to care.
(Sorry, I don't know how you keep SRA going, since there are only so many individual miscarriages of justice that you can have before the public starts to connect the dots. But anyway, let's assume that feminists, at least, decide to keep making this an issue...)
So, after a few more years of feminists sounding like a cross between Carrie Nation and David Icke, the public is thoroughly fed up and ready to embrace any movement that promises to stop them. Though, honestly, if that did continue to be the main current of feminism, the movement would probably just die from public disgust/indifference anyway.
And on the Men's side of the equation: Have more people care about whether or not custody cases are fair to men(which in my experience is one of the driving issues of Men's Rights). As it is, people might get upset when they hear about some guy they know getting shafted on visitiation rights or whatnot, but they're pretty indifferent to it on a societal level. I'm not sure how you go about getting people to care.
Quoted for truth.
This thread is almost certainly going to escalate, especially since the OP requires that the current (virulently misogynistic and bigoted) Men's Rights Movement be the one that gains traction, which is obviously impossible (not to mention reprehensible).
That said, I could see some kind of male-centered gender equality group coalescing in the 70's, as an ally/off-shoot of the feminist movement, and that pulls some members from the anti-war movement. Even then, I'm having a real hard time coming up with what they're platform would be beyond "It's bullshit men have to fight and die in bullshit wars", and most likely they'd simply be a facet of the broader equal rights/feminist/burgeoning LGBT movement, rather than a separate/parallel group.
I find myself in this thread despite my attempt to LaForge, but he said "yes" to the civil rights MRAs as opposed to the redpill MRAs (although redpills tend to be PUAs, but semantics) being more prominent in response to my query.
Yeah, if he had meant the latter it'd be the functional equivalent of a "KKK-ruled America" challenge, and nobody wants that.
In that case you would have been well advised to simply refrain from posting at all instead of drive-by trolling
Considering the modern and distinct civil-rights based version of the Men's Rights Movement (the specific kind I assume we're speculating about) came about because the internet allowed for easier communication we would have to have some kind of event that allows men with these kinds of experiences (being abused, ignored and forgotten by society) to meet one another and exchange experiences, perspectives and ideas.
- Status