I don't think that at the "root of the feminist movement is hatred", but I do think that there are people in the feminist movement who hate.

The same could be said for the men's movement.

It is not, at the core, about hatred, but there are people within it who do hate.

Both movements (my opinion) would do well to rid themselves of the haters within them....they damage the movements...they drive good people away.

This quote (Kim), I agree with:

"Much of the real battle is not so much with feminism but with a society and governments that promote and enable misandry; that disregard the value and worth of people based on gender."

I would also add that it is a battle with society and governments that promote and enable gender inequality by disregarding the unjust outcomes of their laws and policies.

This inflames the problem, creates more problems, rather than solving them.

I've said this before, and I believe it to be true:

Just because a cause is noble does not mean that the outcome is just.

Feminism, as the men's movement as well, has, at it's core, a cause that is noble. But with feminism, some of the outcomes have been unjust, and have, in fact, increased gender inequality rather than correcting it. The scales have tipped so far that now we see discrimination and prejudice against men (which I truly believe was not the intent of feminism in the first place), but nonetheless, it is the outcome. And society is ignoring this outcome, and the result is that men are being harmed by it.....and not only are men being harmed by it, but women and children, and even the feminists themselves are being harmed. And no one is really doing anything about it, until now. It's only beginning...just barely....to be brought to the surface for discussion and resolution. Truthfully, we're not in the resolution stage yet...we're still in the :"raising awareness" stage. That's what this forum (and others like it) are doing. We're getting the word out. Change comes slowly...too slowly for our liking. But we must be tenacious. We must persevere. And we must not let our hearts become so bitter that we allow hate to swallow us. We don't want to become exactly what it is we are fighting against.

My opinion.

Quote from TERA

...but there are people within it who do hate.

The MRM does have a few haters, indeed (mikeeusa springs to mind), but let's be realistic here and put the haters of both camps into context.

The haters within feminism have;

Released endless 'studies' hating on men,(Take your pick)
Published books, hating on men,(Susan Brownmiller)
Academic classes teaching hating on men to young & impressionable minds,(Mary Daly)
Politicians in our governments, regularly spreading misinformation & hate on men,(Harriet Harman)
Day-time shows to bash & hate on men, (Oprah)
etc.
I've not as yet read any feminist book, blog, forum, newspaper article, etc. which highlights the haters within feminism and calls them out for their obvious lies, exaggerations, terrorism, etc. Not one.

The haters within the MRM have;

Opened a blog,
Opened a forum,
Erm...
Mikeeusa has been banned repeatedly from forums, other blogs and websites for his outlandish hatred of women. Other 'haters' are also banned from multiple blogs & forums pertaining to the MRM. The haters are usually called out by members of the blogs & forums for being... haters.


Notice any disparity here?

Good points, Joe.

You may also note that the MRM will acknowledge men's failings, for example that we can be more physically abusive - while noting that domestic violence is not a one way street, as feminism would have us believe. We note on many websites that while women account for the majority of child abuse, it is probably because women are in the position of primary carers moreso than men, thus enabling them more opportunities, and if the situations were reversed, men might be the primary perpetrators of child abuse.

My point in this is; the MRM does not entirely hide our bad-side... but it doesn't focus entirely on it either. Feminism refuses to entertain the notion that women are far from perfect, goes out of it's way to defend any abuses upon men and children. If the abused is another woman, feminism blames a man (he looked at her, so his wife beat her up to protect her family). etc.

The manner in which the MRM operates is understandably slower - we realise we're not perfect and can be bad. Feminism simply screeches "Misogyny" if anyone utters that women aren't perfect.

That is why feminism has made strides, it wears blinkers to reality and can thus afford to take giant leaps. The MRM, on the other-hand, recognises problems and tries to walk around them.

No wonder we're not making progress too quick.

Quote from joeblow

You may also note that the MRM will acknowledge men's failings, for example that we can be more physically abusive - while noting that domestic violence is not a one way street, as feminism would have us believe. We note on many websites that while women account for the majority of child abuse, it is probably because women are in the position of primary carers moreso than men, thus enabling them more opportunities, and if the situations were reversed, men might be the primary perpetrators of child abuse.

My point in this is; the MRM does not entirely hide our bad-side... but it doesn't focus entirely on it either. Feminism refuses to entertain the notion that women are far from perfect, goes out of it's way to defend any abuses upon men and children. If the abused is another woman, feminism blames a man (he looked at her, so his wife beat her up to protect her family). etc.

The manner in which the MRM operates is understandably slower - we realise we're not perfect and can be bad. Feminism simply screeches "Misogyny" if anyone utters that women aren't perfect.

That is why feminism has made strides, it wears blinkers to reality and can thus afford to take giant leaps. The MRM, on the other-hand, recognises problems and tries to walk around them.

No wonder we're not making progress too quick.

You're making quicker progress than you might believe, although it is slower than we would like. But this is understandable, considering what powerful forces we are up against. Changing the view of society is not an overnight task. To climb Mt. Everest without the best of gear, and doing so alone, is a task that is as formidable as the mountain itself. And yet there are brave souls willing to do this. And they have my respect. I am here to help in whatever ways I can. My motives may be questioned by some, but these people do not dissuade me.

Julie,

In the post you left on Kim's site, you express that you are ashamed for having an issue with her writing, but I looked hard (in that post) for a clue as to what the issue might be. Am I missing it somewhere? (You don't have to answer this question unless you are comfortable with it.)

Though I don't agree with every single thing she says (and she does not agree with everything I say...lol)....I can say this for her (and this is big, in my mind): she knows instinctively how best to support men who are hurting. She seems to have a gift in knowing exactly what they need to hear, and she believes fully in what she expresses.

We're all here for different reasons, I suspect. What she gives to the movement is needed greatly by some, maybe all.

You may have a different gift to offer (as do I), and maybe our contributions are not the same as Kim's, and maybe they are not needed by all, but, does that make them any less valuable? I counter that it does not.

Have faith. Sometimes you will never see the fruits of your labor with your own eyes. But this absence of evidence does not mean that evidence is absent.

Does this make sense?

LOL....somehow I think you understand.

Tera I must disagree with you about feminists core not being about hatred.

All of the big name feminists groups and most of the small ones all preach hatred for men and like a sprinkler that hatred radiates outward.

And simply put that is how misandry is spread. Feminists shame men with false statistics because they know that men have an honor system where harming someone weaker than oneself is cowardice. But by beating men over the head with with inflated statistics men go out of their way to prove they are not this way.

Why else would male judges and lawmakers do so much harm to men and children by passing and enforcing such destructive laws.

Feminists play off of the goodness of men to shame them into giving them what they want. And they will gladly lie to do it.

Feminists want outcomes to their likings without all of the bother of earning them or being responsible for them.

It is much easier to point a finger and say look what they have I deserve it too for equalities sake instead of looking and thinking men get the outcome they want because they earn it and are responsible for what they do to get what they want in life I should do that too.

Quote from chevalier

All of the big name feminists groups and most of the small ones all preach hatred for men and like a sprinkler that hatred radiates outward.

And simply put that is how misandry is spread.

...they know that men have an honor system where harming someone weaker than oneself is cowardice.

Why else would male judges and lawmakers do so much harm to men and children by passing and enforcing such destructive laws.

Feminists play off of the goodness of men to shame them into giving them what they want. And they will gladly lie to do it.

Feminists want outcomes to their likings without all of the bother of earning them or being responsible for them.

Spot on!

I can't (and shouldn't) speak for Julie, but I don't think it's jealousy. If she is confused, it's understandable. The goals of feminism are not to harm men, not to harm families....the goals are honorable, but the means are not always in line with honor, and the outcomes have not always been just. That's where the confusion comes in, I think. At least it was a point of confusion for me.

Yes there are those who steadfastly believe that feminism was always about hate. That the goals were to destroy families, create superiority, to directly and indirectly cause harm to men.

This is a point of confusion for some, as well.

And it really is no wonder why some would believe this. They see the outcomes that are unjust, and they believe this was the intent all along. Easier still to believe this when society, faced with reality, chooses to ignore (or just failing to even see them at all, though not purposefully) or justify the negative outcomes instead of changing and correcting them.

Just like the story I told in the thread "GI Joe's wedding cake"....women don't see the differences, probably because they are so prevalent and so "normalized"...but I truly believe that most women would and can wake up to reality when presented with it in a way that they don't outrightly feel compelled to reject. Having hostility levied against a person who does not see themselves as prejudiced can create the very prejudice (or deepen it)....it can close ears to hearing and absorbing the truth. If that happens, change will be most unlikely to occur.

Quote from TERA

Just because a cause is noble does not mean that the outcome is just.

Feminism, as the men's movement as well, has, at it's core, a cause that is noble. But with feminism, some of the outcomes have been unjust, and have, in fact, increased gender inequality rather than correcting it.

As Chevalier says, you will get an argument on this point. Your position I think is the progressive or liberal stance, though some conservatives might agree.

You are giving first- and second-wave feminists the benefit of the doubt, ascribing honourable intentions to their activism. I used to believe this, but now I don't believe they were honourable, though some may have been ignorant of the potential outcomes they helped achieve.

Progessives believe that changing the system of society will make us better people. I don't agree with this. Sane adults are responsible for their own errors, and cannot blame them on environmental factors. We have free will and autonomy, or at least the illusion of such. Socialists and communists reduce us to the level of passive animals (vegetables?) absorbing external stimuli.

One explanation of feminism is as a manifestation of the rising importance of the bourgeoisie over the traditional aristocracy in the West. In other words, it all comes down to money and power, just like us evil men.

I think the name for your argument here is the fallacy of the 'false middle', which assumes that there is always a median postion between two apparent extremes

BT,

Maybe so. I am a "shades of grey" person. I do believe there are "middles" to most everything.

Is it a fallacy?

Perhaps...but perhaps not.

There are, undoubtedly, people who have embraced feminism with noble intentions, but I would place them in the "ignorant to the reality of feminism" category.

Feminism has ALWAYS told women that they are oppressed. By whom? Men. The goal of those who have led the movement has been to empower women by using men and oppression by men as a catalyst, thus dividing the genders.

This is a blog post I did a while back,

The Greatest Trick


There's a saying that goes something along the lines that the greatest trick Satan ever played was to convince people that he doesn't exist. I've always liked this saying because, being religious, I've found it to be true. I think it could also be said of feminists. The greatest trick feminists every played was to convince people that misandry didn't exist. They managed to convince many, many people that everything they did was only in the pursuit of fairness and equality. They only want equal rights, nothing more. If that means tipping the scales in education and the job market to favor girls and women, that's not misandry; sometimes you have to overcorrect in order to make something right. If it means an on-going campaign to make men look stupid and inept, that's not misandry, how else can you convince women of their worth unless you give them somebody else to look down upon? If innocent men have to suffer because of overzealous sexual harrassment and rape laws, that's a sacrifice they should be willing to make in order to support the movement to protect women. If they're not, then they must be male oppressors. After all, how could what the feminists are doing be wrong? And if you think it is, then what kind of monster are you that doesn't support equality for women....you must be a misogynist.

Kim,

Women were oppressed. Look at the history...I can't believe that anyone could deny that women were ever oppressed. Women couldn't vote, before that, couldn't own property. I'm not even going to get into all the ways that women were oppressed. By whom? The government, the churches, and yes, men, who believed in the rightness and justness of these forms of oppression.

Does this oppression still exist today? In many places (if not most), the answer is no. But in some countries, yes. The oppression still exists, and it is still backed by those who have power, and in those societies, it's men who have the political and religious power.

To deny that oppression ever existed (and that it still exists in some places) is a slap in the face to women who have lived with it in the past, and those in some places, who still live with it today.

Some may not see it as oppression: those who are quite content with the way things are. But if everyone was "so content", feminism would have never emerged in the first place.