Feminism vs Men's Rights
Factory, who publishes the Hunting for Archetypes blog, has posted a dozen or so videos on YouTube. But this one is the crown jewel of the lot. Fidelbogen's Pick, if you will. So what can I say? It is pure genius, a masterpiece of lawyer-esque ratiocination! I watched it seven times in a row, and even went to the trouble of transcribing the entire monologue into written form.
Trouble, did I say? No: it was a pleasure!
I am so impressed, that I have made a special dispensation to my 'No Embedded Videos' design law. It deserves exposure, and that is what I intend to give it. Even the feminists need to watch this. Yea, for it shall plant a bug in their brains, the buzzing whereof shall be a sore affliction, and a grievous burden unto their spirit!
So on behalf of the MRM region of the Non-Feminist Sector, here is Factory, speaking ex cathedra from what appears to be a very comfortable couch:
The transcript follows directly:
"The ongoing discussion between men's groups, masculism, MRAs and the rest, brings to light a simple question: why do men's rights groups need to justify themselves? The dynamic of feminist group versus men's rights group may seem on its face quite natural —the battle of the sexes and all that—but move beyond the face and the question becomes more problematic.
"Both groups claim to speak for equality; both groups claim that their goals and ideas are legitimate, and just. Both groups claim that their ideas are based on observed human behavior, and both groups claim to be addressing pressing social injustices. There may be more claims, or more nuance to the claims, but these generalizations hold true for both groups.
"Now, if that's true, how exactly are they diametrically opposed? What is it that makes these groups natural opponents? If both groups act in a manner that is consistent with these principles, there cannot BE a conflict between these groups.
"Then one has to consider this as well: the mere existence of a men's rights movement justifies its need. Feminism is SUPPOSED to be about gender equality, and feminism has shown no interest in adopting a male position regarding equality for ANY reason.
"That's all fine and good, but it makes feminism a women's advocacy group. Again, this is not a problem, but such status creates a need for a counterpart advocacy group representing men—the other half of the human race. It also disqualifies feminist groups from making judgments AT ALL regarding the legitimacy of men's rights groups.
"Most importantly, this position negates the idea that feminists are authorities on men's rights, or anything related to them, since by their OWN ADMISSION they have done no work in these areas, and have never felt the need to.
"In short, feminists cannot tell the world that they are the arbiters of all things equality-related, then represent only women's interests, then decide if a movement arisen in response to such one-sided perspectives has legitimacy, or if the sex they represent has legitimate gripes.
"It is not up to feminists to legitimize or accept the men's movement. It's here, whether they like it or not. There IS reason for it whether they admit it or not. Things will change, whether they help us or not. There are very specific and quantifiable issues that MRAs are fighting to correct. They are glaring injustices, and obvious connections made invisible ONLY by the lens of feminist idealism.
"Feminism argues to correct ideas and "patriarchy" — and you can't even define, let alone quantify. Feminists lie and mislead as a matter of course, be it for dramatic effect, or out of simple ignorance of the truth. MRAs point to the half of the statistics ROUTINELY ignored in mainstream reporting. Feminists point to the past to justify their current and future actions. MRAs point to the present and ask what the future will be like.
"If feminists were what they tell everyone that they are, the men's rights movement wouldn't exist. Period. "