That's a damn good question.

I think there's a lot of mixed opinions at this time about most of the above issues you raised.

However, I do think there's concensus on some of them. For example, I think most MRA's agree that VAWA needs to be re-titled at the very least, so it can be accessed by men who otherwise assume it is specifically for women only, feel too ashamed ("people will call me a woman") for using it, and implying that only women are recipients of violence - when in reality, the majority of violence is directed at men (by both sexes).

Oh brother....

Why not save us all alot of time and just tell us what it SHOULD be... That's where you'll be in a few pages anyhow....

Incidently, each of those "issues" has been discussed many times and a simple search would have garnered your 'answers'. So the question remains, yet again, why?

TMOTS

MRA's are "for":

Or,

"against":

How much tolerance or acceptance will MRA's give or show to others who deviate from members' individual beliefs or group consensus? Which issues must have a consensus, and which issues is it o.k. to have deviation from the group consensus?

It is quite simple if you are advocating mens rights you can call yourself a Mens Rights Activist.

Of course there are topics MRAs differ about (as well as feminists). What is needed is a group to articulate excact political requirements on what we want, just like MANNdat did in Germany by putting up a 30 point plan ( here: http://www.manndat.de/index.php?id=37 in German of course )

To address what we want to achieve politically is much more important than to argue about different stances on drugs and religion. It is necessary to focus on key aspects (the ones we all agree with each other) and fight to legislate them.

Quote from TERA

MRA's are "for":

Or,

"against":

How much tolerance or acceptance will MRA's give or show to others who deviate from members' individual beliefs or group consensus? Which issues must have a consensus, and which issues is it o.k. to have deviation from the group consensus?

Sigh....

MRAs tend to have variations within the mindset (for lack of a better word)...Unlike femikooks that almost requires you to have group-think....

An example would be a woman that is prolife cannot possible be a femikook.

And another would be a woman that is against specialized law (ala VAWA) again, cannot possible be a femikook....

And yet another would be a woman that truely believes in equality for all, including GAK! men, and acknowledges that there are disparagies against men.... It's just not possible to be a femikook and accept that men are 'oppressed' as well...if at all.

TMOTS

The one universal qualification that makes you an MRA is infighting. Or so it seems.

I think it’s a good question. Men Going Their Own Way is all well and good, but if we want to make a political difference, there should be some things that we stand for and/or are together on.

We all know that the more vocal of the femmies, who wind up teaching in universities and/or quoted in the news media, as well as blogging, think our “agenda” is:

• Misogyny
• Women barefoot and pregnant
• Women subservient to men
• Women unable to get an education
• Women unable to vote
• Men being able to beat and rape women with impunity
• Women having to wear burkas

And on and on and on. If we had as much information out there about what we do stand for as there is misinformation about us, I don’t see how that is a bad thing.

I'm for:

* Basic even rights for ALL people with an emphasis on respecting things like basic constitutional rights so that there are far fewer outrages of the kind we read about daily. If there is a divorce the man and the woman should have workable financials and responsibilities and there should be efforts to save the marriage or at least preserve cooperation (presently there are no efforts to save relationships and an adversarial / nuclear war / winner-take-all aspect is used in Family Court). Custody should tend to be joint or shared nearly always. Fewer financial incentives to divorce and "work the system".

* Strengthening the traditional family. This means that more couples would tend to marry and stay married. Kids would wind up doing better in all ways. Jails would not fill as quickly. Fewer programs and social workers would be needed. ALL social ills decline if family units tend to be strong and durable. Women are NOT failures if they choose a traditional home life...but per Cosmo magazine they are losers or something. This would be a long term thing, improving the odds that families thrive.

Quote from KellyMac

I think it’s a good question. Men Going Their Own Way is all well and good, but if we want to make a political difference, there should be some things that we stand for and/or are together on.

We all know that the more vocal of the femmies, who wind up teaching in universities and/or quoted in the news media, as well as blogging, think our “agenda” is:

• Misogyny
• Women barefoot and pregnant
• Women subservient to men
• Women unable to get an education
• Women unable to vote
• Men being able to beat and rape women with impunity
• Women having to wear burkas

And on and on and on. If we had as much information out there about what we do stand for as there is misinformation about us, I don’t see how that is a bad thing.

Yes, feminists have their own brand of bigotry and a knack of pre-judging men.

Quote from brian44

Yes, feminists have their own brand of bigotry and a knack of pre-judging men.

Oooh that's misogynistismable talk that is!

Do it like MANNdat I say. Simply a list with different points that explain the situation and the political solution we want to have. Good for linking references on what we want. I am really thinking about translating this list.....

Hi Tera! I think - you hit the head of a snake...
Problem with most MRAs is - that they ignore fact - that feminism is political phenomenon, and can't be effectively fought only on "gender" field - without creation of strong political movements... Although I have to disagree with Kim... MGTOW - is important trend... Not because it can vanquish feminism - but because it is important for future of our sons(before feminism will be vanquished)... It is the only known to me attempt - to establish new positive, musculine behaviorial model for young males - that suite current state of affairs - when old model (man leave for his family, family support it's man) is no relevant any more (since family institute is not relevant any more)

Quote from zuismanm

Although I have to disagree with Kim...

Whaddya mean? I haven't even posted on this thread.

I think he meant KM