Feminists try to excuse their dismissal of men's issues as not as important, big, or impacting as women's issues on the claim that women are oppressed by "patriarchy," which in turn benefits all men. They conclude that men are never oppressed, discrimination against men isn't discrimination, and men who are abused don't suffer as much as women who are abused because all men have this phantom benefit to offset any suffering they might experience.
At the same time, feminists excuse their dismissal of the need for a men's rights movement by claiming that men's issues are caused by "patriarchy," and since feminism is fighting "patriarchy," feminism fights to make things better for men, because "patriarchy hurts men, too." They conclude from this that there is no need for a men's movement, because feminism has its function covered.
Putting the two side by side really makes their incompatibility obvious. If all men receive some suffering-eliminating benefit from "patriarchy," and therefore no men are oppressed, then "patriarchy hurts men, too" doesn't make sense. If "patriarchy" hurts men, too, then men's issues cannot be dismissed with "but 'patriarchy,' so women's issues are worse," because if "patriarchy" hurts both sexes, then its influence on women's experiences doesn't make them any worse than men's experiences, which feminists claim it also impacts.
These incompatible concepts really need to be addressed with feminists who use them as arguments against men's advocacy related to men's issues, not because feminists need to get their shit together and narrow it down to one argument, but because the fact that they do regularly throw both of them out there indicates that their objection to men's human rights advocacy is completely unrelated to its legitimacy - they're simply willing to say anything to shut MRAs up.
At the same time, feminists excuse their dismissal of the need for a men's rights movement by claiming that men's issues are caused by "patriarchy," and since feminism is fighting "patriarchy," feminism fights to make things better for men, because "patriarchy hurts men, too." They conclude from this that there is no need for a men's movement, because feminism has its function covered.
Putting the two side by side really makes their incompatibility obvious. If all men receive some suffering-eliminating benefit from "patriarchy," and therefore no men are oppressed, then "patriarchy hurts men, too" doesn't make sense. If "patriarchy" hurts men, too, then men's issues cannot be dismissed with "but 'patriarchy,' so women's issues are worse," because if "patriarchy" hurts both sexes, then its influence on women's experiences doesn't make them any worse than men's experiences, which feminists claim it also impacts.
These incompatible concepts really need to be addressed with feminists who use them as arguments against men's advocacy related to men's issues, not because feminists need to get their shit together and narrow it down to one argument, but because the fact that they do regularly throw both of them out there indicates that their objection to men's human rights advocacy is completely unrelated to its legitimacy - they're simply willing to say anything to shut MRAs up.
No comments:
Post a Comment