Of late I haven't been posting on this forum as I've been somewhat busy with other concerns, but during my absence I've continued to talk to everyone I know about many things which trouble me. I continue to be surprised at how easily people come to accept an MRA-like attitude, a few honest conversations or article links and some solid, well backed-up facts and I've found the majority, men and women, come to see that women are indeed very well off in the first world, and that there are many social and legal hurdles now present for men; that tangible discrimination exists, and that violence against men is not comedic, that derision of men causes genuine anguish, and so on.

Now I've often heard it said by those who share my political outlook (or something similar) that engaging a feminist in debate is a pointless exercise. Until recently I would have agreed however it has come to my attention over the last few weeks and months that a large number of women exist who identify with feminism, perhaps even to the point where they may call themselves feminists yet they do not display those attributes which we commonly assert a feminist must. A friend of mine has, at times, called herself a feminist and yet she is, by and large, a reasonable and pleasant individual; she has taken a women’s studies class and frequents feminist blogs, but she does not hate men and to the best of my knowledge does not try to exploit men. She does not feel women are getting a fair shake in some instances, hence her subscription to feminist concepts, now in these instances I’m inclined to agree with her. She is an intelligent person capable of making her own decisions, indoctrination largely fails when directed against any individual with a healthy dose of cynicism and enough sense to see it for what it is, and I believe in this woman’s case that is precisely what has happened.

Consider, for a moment, that it may be possible for women and men to both, each as a class, be treated unfairly in different fashions by the same apparatus. Now this isn’t a competition about who has it worst, but an analysis of what is; the state attitude to women borders on infantilisation, this cannot be refuted, now, indeed, while it leads to many material and legal benefits it is nevertheless to an intelligent woman who has no desire to exploit men, and who possesses pride in herself hardly an acceptable trade-off. I do not mean to marginalize men’s issues here, as I admit they are tangible, and materially the current state of affairs does favor women, but it is possible for both groups to be treated unfairly at the same time.
It follows, then, that if women are being treated unfairly they have a political right to oppose this treatment, just as we do; essentially what I’m saying in this thread is that someone may be a feminist, and someone may believe women are treated unfairly, but their interests and those of MRAs need not be mutually exclusive.

How are women treated unfairly?

Yes, there are some intelligent women around who subscribe to mini-feminism. They can be very nice women. Have a look at RADAR and the Buscuit Queen and Joy Adams and the like. They see their own intersts lie with humanity rather than any 'isms' and can meet any reasonable man half way.

We need good women. Men's rights are human rights. Just as 'Feminism' would never have got off the ground without men, so the Men's Movement will not advance without women.

But the everyday woman in the street, wives, girlfriends, mothers, who can see through the misandry and public policy destructiveness and be supportive of men, even of MRAs, are very easily swayed by the shotgun that is ever present and handed to them at the drop of a hat. They are encouraged to hate and destroy the moment their relationships start to falter. They take advantage of the massed forces ready to do the dirty work in the 'Let's you and him fight' game. Even where they may occasionally be unaware of these forces - police, lawyers, courts, beaurocrats etc - they are thrust into her hands often unwanted and carry her off to extremes.

Yes, we need the good women. Even the not perfect ones. Its the rabid ones that are our enemy.

Exactly, it's not so much the women who are the problem. It's the state and it's laws. They've turned every woman into a potential black widow spider. Some men will get close and take the risk, some will stay away. Even if some of the iniquities are redressed, the fact that the balance of power between men and women has been fundamentally upset, is not going to go away.

I disagree. Men could achieve whatever they wanted - with or without women. Women are not a must. The problem is that a great majority of men don't seem to mind being treated like dirt. At least as long as it doesn't happen to them personally. And even after that a lot of them seem to just keep on going the same way they did before. It's difficult to make somebody fight back when he doesn't mind the current state of affairs and is happy with the status quo. On the contrary, a lot of men want women to become even more "equal".

Women (and I mean enough of them - you can cite exceptions, but that is nothing compared to the masses on the opposing side) will never help men as a class achieve greater equality and/or diminish their own privileges they get as a class. Never! Men are on their own, as always.

Any law that unfairly favors a woman must also insult her if she has pride. Most people who are rational and self-respecting will not be beggars or prostitutes. Would you play a game with a rigged start which you couldn't loose? I wouldn't. I'm not saying it's horrible, don't get me wrong; I haven't gone soft and become a mangina. I'm just saying that no intelligent, self-respecting woman could actually enjoy the way the Government is going about things in this day and age; not only is it cruel to the men around them (these women have fathers, husbands, children and boyfriends and male friends whom they value; they do not want to see them suicides or thrown in jail) but it is patronizing to them.

Well said Bola, Percy; good women exist, and terrible women exist. The honest truth of it is some people can smell a farce, and some can't, if you meet a girl who isn't toxically indoctrinated then you've met a sharp young lady, and yes we, as MRAs, need their help. Too many MRAs are thought of as closeted women-haters, when most only desire a partnership of equals wherein the positive assets of either sex function as a compliment to the other in a society without the strict pigeonholing of fixed gender roles. To dismiss that myth is vital to our growth; to harbor good relationships with like-minded groups is vital to our growth, they may appear hostile, but the dreaded F word has fast become a label for any woman who is politically minded, among many other things. It should not be a determining factor in whether or not you reach out to someone.

I will see if this girl will be willing to post here, she may not, but she might.

Hmm, dad_savage, let's take retirement age, for example; I mean, -say- in the UK, women have to work 5 years less than men. I don't see them being too insulted by that, as a matter of fact, I'd say 90% can't wait to retire as soon as possible, and little do they care about their male "equals" having to work 5 years more than themselves. Where are all the voices of protest against this unfair law? The remaining 10% who don't want to retire as soon as they could also don't do it because they'd feel some binding responsibility of sharing the burden of their male colleagues and/or because they'd want to contribute to some greater level of equality, no, it's simply because the business is good and the income is better than the pension would be.

First,

I agree. But what I fail to see is how this makes women our vital ally? Why do we need women?

a) why do those like-minded groups have to be female, i.e. why male like-minded groups wouldn't be enough?

b) where do you see all these like-minded women? I mean, sure, like you say, there are wives and mothers etc. who hate to see their husbands/sons railroaded, but that is based on a personal level. As long as it affects them, so to speak. But I don't see many of them challenging the system on principle?

Dad_savage, I'm not saying that women couldn't possibly be of any help. I just don't think they're essential. Men could do on their own, I think the MRM could advance without women, why not? What do women have that is so essential, so unique, that is so irreplaceable that we have to have them in "our ranks" in order to advance?

In my opinion, it is a must that we work on men (for they are essential for "our cause" indeed), and as far as women go - whoever listens, listens.

There are a lot of women who are not our enemy. But they are also not our friends. Their allegiance is to themselves, their family and women in general. They sense no obligation to a fair society for all.

Maybe they won't oppose us, but they won't ally themselves to us either. And if we cross them they will become our enemy.

The best possible dynamic is that of revolutionary paupers and well-meaning members of the aristocracy. It will not end well.

Nevertheless, I agree that our immediate problem is the State and it's army of male undead. Let's face it: democracy in its current form does not work.

Yes, this is what I wanted to say, but unlike me, The Sad Geek managed to express it in mere 6 clear and short sentences.

C'mon guys, you're telling me things I already know. I'm already aware that there is a large class of women who don't care; what I'm telling you is that there is a minority of women out there who do care. The reason, the question has been asked, why we need women is the reason we need men; we need everyone, we need representation from all people. Women who join our cause not only shrink the recruitment pool for the opposition, not only do they add their voices to ours, but let's be honest here; if you cannot show the majority of men that being an MRA will not isolate them from women they will continue to ignore us. Now to adress some quotes directly -

See above, most men avoid MRA groups for fear that it will have them branded as a mysognist and isolated from women.

I'm only talking about those who would be insulted by it, those who would not arn't relevant to this discussion.

I said we need like-minded groups, I did not mention women; my rationale for the benefits of attracting women to our cause is stated above.

They do not have to be female; I never said they did, but nor should we exclude ourselves from outreaching to groups that are on that basis alone.

They're not as uncommon as you think; as for where, where do you normally meet people? There is no one place, but the majority of all social venues could be considered examples.

It all depends on how easily you want to accomplish your goals.

It doesn't take allot of effort to reach out to somone, as far as I see it it should be a priority to reach out to everyone, regardless of race or gender.

i dont think you're totally right, tell people they are victims of something men