What misconceptions are held about the MRA/Feminist movements?  

Sources:  

http://www.berry.edu/womens_studies/myths/ 

https://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/10-misconceptions-about-the-mens-rights-movement/ 

  

Not all "feminists"understand feminism. Not all "MRAs" understand the mens rights movement. This has lead to the tarnishing of both labels. What then are some common misconceptions held about each movement?  

Berry College in Georgia released an online article titled "Myths About Feminism." The article contained a numerical list, which stated the top three misconceptions as "they hate men – they are angry – they are ugly and un-feminine". Another list posted on the Huffington Post website lists the mens rights movement's top three misconceptions, as being "It's misogynistic, conservative, and it's members don't participate in activism". While the common myths about true feminism seem to relate to the subjects themselves and their emotions, the myths about the MRA movement are primarily centered around the belief that MRAs fall into a specific "conservative" political stereotype – and hold traditionalist views. 

It is clear that the stereotypes plaguing each movement are false and not logical. Feminists who are fighting for the equal opportunity of women to men are not inherently angry, ugly, or biased against men – and MRAs fighting for the equal legal protections of men to women are not inherently misogynistic, conservative, or "lazy internet warriors". These myths are easily disproven on both sides of the spectrum. A feminist would point out Emma Watson – one of the most attractive modern actresses, who is an avid feminist supporter, and has used her fame to help push feminist ideals in the media. She is by no means angry, unfeminine, or a "man-hater" (although her role in the Harry-Potter series may lead some to think otherwise!) 

On the flip side, men will point to conscription as a mens equality issue; traditionally, women have not been forced to register for the draft in the USA. This is a deep-held Republican/conservative belief – that we need to protect our sisters and daughters, and keep them from enlisting. Yet, the vast majority of MRAs push for conscription by both males and females, which is inherently against the common conservative ideal that women need to be protected at home, while men do the fighting overseas.  

With a clear idea of what types of misconceptions each movement faces, we need to ask ourselves the question: how can we clear the air around each movement? How can we end the silly stigmas that each faces?

Defining the Mens Rights Movement 

Sources: Reproductive Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know?  ~ Rickie Solinger 

Unlike it's perpendicular movement (feminism) the mens rights movement has not yet received the honor of a Merriam Webster Definition. However in a very similar fashion to the feminist movement, the mens rights movement seems to be made up by two separate factions: Those who are concerned with fighting for mens rights, and those who are primarily just opposed to feminism. In the same way that some feminists label themselves as such, yet fail to understand the current use for feminism – many people who call themselves "MRAs" are labeling themselves as such, without actually fighting for mens issues. Rather, this faction is only concerned with battling against feminism. This is talked about in Rickie Solinger's book, "Reproductive Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know?" Where he states that the rise of feminism in the 60's and 70's is what created a backlash movement "made up of men who believed that feminism harmed mens interests and status in society". 

Sadly, this idea still holds true among a chunk of "MRAs" or "Anti-Feminists" today. Many people who are opposed to the idea of feminism fail to realize that there are areas in society where men are seriously lacking; and in which we are being discriminated against, and unfairly treated. Many people are simply tired of hearing about feminism – or disagree with the ideas it is pushing in the modern day. Not only is this a shame, as mens issues continue to be overlooked, but it also sheds a bad light on the MRA movement, when people call themselves "MRAs" but are only concerned with providing backlash against feminism.  

It is easy to see that each movement needs to be concerned with the labels that it's members are using to define themselves. Modern feminism is not necessarily a fight for womens rights, but rather it is a fight for women to have equal opportunity to men, and to avoid prejudice in society. Similarly, the mens rights movement is not supposed to be a backlash against feminism, it's intent is to help solve legitimate social and legal issues that men in particular have to deal with. While both movements are concerned with a noble cause, each has a separate faction of members which identify themselves as members of the movement(s) yet fail to understand the actual core concepts that each is fighting for. Whatever the label, no movement is entirely untainted by ignorant individuals.

     

Defining Feminism

"Definition of feminism

1. 1:  the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2. 2:  organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests"

(1) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism

       The difference between the two definitions that Merriam Webster gives us, is that one implies the label "feminism" fights for everybody - while the other, implies the term only encompasses woman's issues/rights. What is interesting is, if you ask ten "feminists", you will get conflicting answers about what the real definition is. Most all feminists agree that one of the two definitions provided by Webster is the correct way to describe their personal label; but there is no clear answer as to whether feminism as a whole fights for everybody, or whether it fights for women.             Regardless of who the collective whole of feminists are fighting for, we know that they are fighting for the rights of people who need more rights. We know that the cause is a good cause and has the best of intentions. In it's beginning form, feminism fought for the basic rights of women; the ability to vote, own property, to work. And today, it fights to make society "fair" (but that really means, equal - which isn't always fair)! From the beginning to the current form, feminism is a good thing. Why then has it come to face such great opposition, especially from the Mens-Rights-Movement? 

       The most common argument against feminism, is that it is no longer necessary to fight for rights of women, as women have essentially the same amount of rights as men. This means either, that giving women more rights would be unfair to men; or, that women already have all of the rights that can be given to them. The problem here is that most feminists aren't actually fighting for the "rights" of women anymore - but rather, they are fighting for the equal opportunity of women and men. When people hear feminists say they fight for "equal rights" this creates confusion - as the binary genders have parallel "rights" in today's first world society. If more feminists said that they fight for equal opportunity, or to eliminate prejudice (which is what the actual fight is, these days) then it would be much harder for anybody to create an argument against feminism. Many of the people who call themselves feminists however, have not put so much thought into why they are calling themselves such. 

       

       

Who has more opportunity in the United Sates: Men or Women? 

This question is an important one, yet most people don’t look into it seriously. Many people have never heard of the term, “MRA” and even those who know what the Mens Rights Movement is, often have misconceptions concerning what the Mens movement is fundamentally about. On the flip side, an increasing number of Americans are beginning to see our societal gender-balance through the MRA lens, without first learning the feminist side of the spectrum (I’m guilty). This is not inherently an issue, so long as an individual is devoted to understanding both sides of the debate and becomes educated before they begin to argue for one side or another. This is why there is such a great divide between opinions on the subject matter of gender equality in the first-world. Not only does each side fail to emphasize with the other, but people are also split between what they consider “equality” fundamentally, 

     Some people consider “equality” to be fairness on a demographic level. For example, in the USA, there is a wage gap between men, and women. It is said that women only make 77% of what men make in our country. Of course, that is not equal – but does that mean it’s not fair? Studies that compare men and women of equal job titles, experience, age, and education levels, show that women make 96% of the money that men make in America. (1) While there is still a $0.04 gap, this is attributed to men having stronger negotiation skills during their interviews to be hired.  

        With this in mind, the ultimate question is, do we want a fair society, or a society where demographics are equal? We would have to pay women a drastically higher salary for doing similar work to men, if we wanted to create an equal demographic between the income of men and women. This is because there are less women in the workplace. It would be unjust to pay either sex more money for doing the exact same job as the other sex, assuming their qualifications were similar. With this in mind, the most effective approach from those seeking to create a fair society where everybody has equal opportunity (regarding their salary at work) would be to create classes for women, that teach personal marketing/ negotiation skills. If we taught women how to negotiate their salaries as effectively as men, then the wage gap would shrink to an insignificant number, and the binary genders would then have a fair playing field when it comes to their pay at the workplace. 

This is the approach that should be taken in order to create the most effective, and fair, results, for men and women both. It isn’t fair that women are born into a society which raises them to have weaker negotiation skills than men. They are raised to be more docile and agreeable – and back down from confrontation. One person can’t change society on their own - but the government has the power to shape and mold things to it’s liking. For the sake of equal opportunity, we need to get the governments attention, and find a way to create womens courses that will teach women to negotiate better. Then, they will have equal opportunity to achieve the same pay as men for their jobs, and we would not have to worry about the wage gap as an issue any longer.

Sources:

(1): http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap

When will men and women finally have equal rights and liberties?  

This is a tough topic to address without upsetting either side of the gender-issues spectrum. To answer this question, we must first assume that people of the male and female sex are treated differently in their day-to-day lives. Everybody who asks this question can agree that men, and women, are not treated the same in every area. Where the divide happens regarding this topic however, is in the perception that people have about which gender is "ahead" of the other. Mainstream knowledge is that women are "behind" men as a collective sex, when it comes to the rights they are granted by governments, and when it comes to the social expectations that society has in place for them. However, as time progresses, more and more men are raising their voice and saying "hey – we have problems too!" - in a humble attempt to argue that men may have it as bad as, or worse than, women, when it comes to economic and social liberty. 

In order to answer the posed question, you must first choose a side of this spectrum. You must believe that either the male sex, or the female sex, are "ahead" of the other. My goal is to be able to make an educated argument in favor of each side, and to fully understand the current challenges that each sex faces, simply for being born with their respective reproductive organs. Once I have achieved this, I will be able to create a hypothesis in response to the posed question, as I will understand the differences and struggles that males and females must go through and live with.  

The toughest part about this for me, could be my bias for the MRA movement. I am already well versed in the realm of "Mens Rights" and I understand that end of the spectrum well. However, that brings up a secondary goal of mine, which is to eliminate my previous bias – or at least, to understand the "other" (feminist) side of the spectrum well enough that I could emphasize with people who fall on that end. With that in mind, I may need to spend more time researching and writing about feminist ideals and arguments, which may pain me a bit. However I understand that the end result for me will be a proper unbiased mindset, and regardless of my end position on the "gender rights spectrum" I will be better able to argue and articulate my position.