Men's rights activism?? Antifeminist stuff here? πŸ‘€

No! Men's rights are for men, not against women. Many men's rights activists are also feminists themselves.

Ok, but are men's rights incel, patriarchal or right-wing?

At the root β€” no. Incel, patriarchal and right-wing ideas are not only trash for everyone, but even controversial with men's rights.

But sometimes men's rights "activists" unfortunately are incels or tradcons, yes. Let's smash those dummies together.

How are men discriminated against?

How are men discriminated against?

How are men discriminated against?

Source for every fact is an authoritative study or publication. You can find each one by clicking the highlighted hypertext.

Source for every fact is an authoritative study or publication. You can find each one by clicking the highlighted hypertext.

Source for every fact is an authoritative study or publication. You can find each one by clicking the highlighted hypertext.

But aren't men privileged and women vulnerable?

No. The data tells us that men are also vulnerable.

Are you saying that men don't have privileges?

No. Men do have privileges and vulnerabilities. And women have their own vulnerabilities and their own privileges. It's that simple.

But aren't we living in a patriarchy?

"Patriarchy has no gender" β€” Bell Hooks

Feminist Gayle Rubin has wrote in her "The Traffic in Women", that the patriarchal system is system of absolute power of fathers (patriarchs) β€” eg. biblical character Abraham was a patriarch. Patriarch can rape, sell or kill "his" women and children without punishment. So today we are not living in patriarchy just starting with the fact that a man is punished for raping or killing a woman.

Continuing further, while governments are indeed more often filled with men, the governments almost never make any decisions that are beneficial for men as a group. As we've seen above, men are absolutely not privileged or "beneficiaries of the current system".

Thirdly, the system gives privileges to both men and women (and none to non-binary people by their correct gender, lol).

If not patriarchy, how to call the gender-unequal world then?

Sex/gender-system or gender-system ●
This option was suggested by Gayle Rubin.

Kyriarchy ●
In feminist theory, kyriarchy is a social system or set of connecting social systems built around domination, oppression, and submission. If patriarchy means "fathers power", kyriarchy means "masters power" or "rulers power". So, basically, by kyriarchy privileged ones are the people who sit in governments or big businesses, are they men or women.

??? ●
If you have another option, suggest it to me and I'll add it here!

And do not use:

Matriarchy ⚬
The system does not give women enough power or benefits to call them privileged.

But men are hurt by other men, not women?

No, not only by them.

IPV violence:
- Huge systematic review of 62 different studies has come to the conclusion that "Female- perpetrated IPV is a common occurrence among adolescents, college students, and adults" in heterosexual relationships.
- Another meta-analysis of close to 100 studies, found that in heterosexual intimate relationships, women are even slightly more likely to use physical violence against a partner and to use violence more frequently than men.

Sexual violence:
- According to one study, nearly half of the men (46%) who reported some form of sexual victimization were victimized by women. According to another, 80% of men raped had female rapists,
- CDC USA 2010 and 2012 studies both found out that 40.5% of all heterosexual rapists are women. [?]

- More than a half of the perpetrators of child abuse/neglect today are mothers (53.5% vs 45.3%).
- In heterosexual monogamous relationships, women are involved in 72% of child abuse crimes (43% mother alone, 27% father alone, 20% both parents, 7% mother and non-parent, 1% father and non-parent).

- Female science teachers lower the achievement of boys, but not girls.
- Female history teachers increase achievement of girls, but not boys.

- Women also start wars, where only men are forced to die.
- Between 1480 and 1913, queens were 27% more likely to start wars than kings.

Unfair trials:
- Women judges, just like men judges, also judge other men and give them longer sentences for the same crime.

And so on.

Even if men were oppressed only by other men, it would be egregious cruelty to oppose the men's rights activism just because of this. After all, it's worth noting that even in the case of male-on-male crimes, the crimes are committed by β€œother men,” but by β€œ0.2% of men.” β€” just likes these mentioned crimes are commited not by women, but by radical minority of women.
(Note that the data above doesn't say, that men cannot be bad or that all women are bad, but just that some women can also be bad β€” what a discovery!)

But this is against feminist ideology: discrimination cannot work "backwards"?

If one's ideology (eg. homophobia, racism or men-hating feminism) goes against the scientifical facts, it's time to change the ideology (or acknowledge that you're a bigot). But I believe that the idea of women being discriminated against by men is wrong by itself. Women and men are discriminated by the sex/gender-system, not one by another, just like gays and lesbians are discriminated by heteronormative system, not by heterosexuals exclusively. And here we can agree: discrimination "backwards" β€” i.e. discrimination against those in power by ordinary women and men β€” does not exist.

Are you trying to say that feminism is not needed anymore?

No. The idea of men's rights activism is about "men are also vulnerable", not "women aren't". Women still have their own issues: eg. abortion rights, abuse in prostitution & pornography, transwomen oppression, fundamental rights in islamist (not muslim) countries, languages androcentrism and others, that deserve to be fixed.

What should we call men's rights movement?

The egalitarian fight for men's rights is usually called masculism.
The fight for patriarchy or misogynist struggle is usually called masculinism.

They are sometimes mixed, because men's rights are not popular yet. Stick with masculism, to confidently expropriate the term to the left-wing side.

In case you want to stay neutral as much as possible, or don't want to sound political (-ism ending like in capitalism, anarchism), you can always say "men's rights advocacy".

What next? Oppression of heterosexuals or whites?

No. White and heterosexual females and males are indeed privileged: there is no law against white skin color or heterosexual orientation; there is no country where being heterosexual is illegal; whites and heteros are killed no more than blacks and gays. It will be ridiculous to argue against that.

Is masculism just a reactionary answer to feminism?

No, because it still talks just about men (who unquestionably do have problems), not against women. Compare: transwomen activism is not a "reactionary answer to feminism from Β«menΒ»" (as TERFs say), it is a fight for basic human rigths.

But feminism already fights for equality for every gender?

Yes and no. In theory β€” yes, it fights for equality of women and men. But in practice feminism barely does anything for men (like protests against male military service, gender differences in suicide, or unfair trials for men). It is OK, because feminism is about women's rights: it shouldn't necessarily fight for men just like ecoactivists shouldn't necessarily fight against racism (however you can be ecoactivist and antiracist). But we need a separate movement, which will focus on men's rights, so we can approach gender inequality from both sides: making women equal to men and men equal to women. It would be also amazing for feminism, masculism and enby-activism to cooperate in their fights.

Though, is men's discrimination structural?

Yes, and that's the very point of masculism: it tells us, that armies, police brutality, suicides and etc is a system, not unrelated series of events.

Military discrimination is even included in the backbone of the structure: if men couldn't be forced to go on war, states/elites could not defend themselves, and there would be no structure.

If we focus on men, won't we forget to fight for women?

On the one hand: definitely won't. If intersectional feminism doesn't think that simultaneously fighting against homophobia, racism, transphobia, ableism, ageism and so on will get in the way, then it shouldn't think that adding misandry to the "fight against" βˆ’list will break everything. If you're a TERF, well, you're out of luck.

On the other hand, worrying about NOT antifeminist men's rights movement gonna harm feminism may mean that one is afraid of losing their monopoly on the position of victim by recognizing that men can be victims too. One should overcome it.

What do you think about the "patriarchy also hurts men: they cannot deal with their emotions" agenda?

Indeed, today's system indisputably does teach men being machist, which is indeed a problem. But I am fed up with those, who reduce the whole problem to just and only that. In the worst case β€” huge left-wing super-inclusive "against every discrimination" festivals tells me, that "men's discrimination doesn't exist", because "(cis)men aren't vulnerable, they oppress other people all over the world", but "(cis)men also suffer from patriarchy in the way they are educated to deal with emotions!". This agenda is often said implying that "men are benefactors of the system, but even for them it has some little flaws".

What do you think of the "all men are rapists" slogan?

The same what you should think about "all blacks are murderers" or "all gays are pedophiles". Some blacks are murderers (0.01% in USA), some gays are pedophiles (0-3% worldwide), some men are rapists (0.06% in USA).

Sayng "all women are sl*ts/cheaters/gold diggers/etc β€” and if it hurts you, you are the problem!" is not okay β€” why is it different with men?

This slogan may also spread useless toxic fear of men: eg. every third woman worries about being sexually assaulted by a male (0.9% get actually assaulted).

I believe that equality should not be based on competition or struggle for hegemony, but on cooperation and respect.

Then we are on the same side.

Respect men's rights, support cooperation between feminists & masculists, do not start a competition about who is oppressed more or struggle for hegemony of feminism in the gender-equality front.

OK, I agree that gender equality should apply to men as well. What should I do?

OK, I agree that gender equality should apply to men as well. What should I do?

  1. Thank you. Your existence really cheers me up.

  2. Spread the word β€” or link to this website. Specially in lefty and liberal movements.

  3. Aim to gender equality, not women's privileges.

  4. If you won't fight for men, please don't oppose those who will. Still continue to bravely oppose patriarchal and misogynist activists.

    And remove #KillAllMen from ur twitter. :^(

Men's rights are human rights.

Read also: - you may already be an anarchist!

If you've spot a mistake, want to ask something or just tell how much you hate me, my contacts are here:

If you've spot a mistake, want to ask something or just tell how much you hate me, my contacts are here: