Nicko wrote:I agree that it is a reasonable view to hold for an interest group for "women's interests". That is, if one is only claiming to be a special interest group for issues that affect women, all well and good. Where I think many* feminist groups go wrong is claiming they are for "gender equality" when they are in fact only addressing areas where gender inequity adversely affects women and ignoring - in some cases actively discouraging efforts to address - areas where gender inequity adversely affects men.
And I disagree with that you are saying here, because I do not think feminist groups are going "wrong" by pushing for equality by addressing issues that effect women. This is a perfectly logical approach and not in anyway undermines by the notion of them not also pushing for inequity issues facing men. The greatest inroads into tackling equality are still from the direction of addressing discrimination against women, so it is logical that feminists do this.
I will agree that any feminist group actively campaigning to discourage efforts to address the issues of inequity to men, is reprehensible but, that's true for any group actively campaigning against another that is trying to right a wrong. Feminists shouldn't do it. Neither should anyone else.
Nicko wrote:If feminist groups simply said, "This is not something we are going to address. Only so many hours in each day, people. If someone else wants to get this, fine." then there would not be a problem.
The problem only arises if pressure is brought to bare to discourage action, in the manner you have outlined. Even then, this is a problem created by some feminists rather than all and isn't, in anyway, a problem caused by feminism or the feminist movement.
Nicko wrote:Where I think the justifiable** antagonism towards feminists from the MRM comes from is that every time they try to do the things you were under the impression they never do, there are feminists standing in their way. Stating that feminism is all the fuck over this problem and that the MRAs should go home or join up with them.
As I said, it is reprehensible behaviour. Unfortunately where my sympathies (never abundant at the best of times), run dry is when the MRM's decide to tar all feminists with same brush. It is unsurprising that cries fall on deaf ears at this point.
Nicko wrote:The problem for this argument is that the MRM has a number of prominent figures who did try to address men's issues from within feminism. And it didn't work out well for them.
I've learned that, even as a male feminist, trying to get involved with feminist groups is incredibly dicey business if you're a man. Even if you're a man advocating for the issues feminists are concerned about. They're not all like that but some of them, hooooooooo boy. I've seen feminist groups absolutely tear into other groups for misandry, others for being TERFs, others implode for being too tolerant of men.
But then, the same would be true for a feminist trying to address equality issues from within certain MRM groups. So really this line of thinking achieves nothing other than to have the negative beliefs of both sides reinforced.
Nicko wrote:It is simply not rational for anyone advocating for men's issues (oh, how I hate the term "Men's Rights") to regard any feminist group as anything other than a potential obstacle.
This is sensible stakeholder management after all. In any line of policy work, you've got to identify who your potential antagonists are and work out how to either get them on side or go around them.
Nicko wrote:Personally, I think that - at least in modern developed democracies - things have progressed at least to the point where real progress on gender issues is not going to be achieved by just getting "stuff" for one gender. Issues like women's lack of credibility in the workplace when bucking for promotion are just not going to be addressed in any truly meaningful way until we look critically at just why - to use the reverse example - the criminal behaviour of women is also taken less seriously.
I see where you are coming from and I think broadly, no, developed democracies collectively are not yet at that point. I think some of them are, mostly ones in Europe, whereas others are a way off that point.
There is also the problem of whilst the ideal would be to tackle these issues in a nice balanced way as you've proposed, which shows inequalities being addressed on both sides of the line, legalistically this isn't a neat a tidy thing to do. There isn't a single set of law for "women" and another for "men" and it is rare, speaking from experience as a legislator, that you ever get to make a coherent set of changes that cuts across all sectors of law.
But, if we take the principle of tackling issues on both sides of the line within respective areas of law, then this would be the ideal way to achieve a demonstrable move towards greater fairness and equality.