Why do anti-feminists become men's rights activists?

First, I apologise if I've misunderstood the MRA position on the issues I brought up: I'm not an MRA, and I have very few beefs with them, so I'm not engrossed in the issues.

So, why do anti-feminists become men's right activists? Ultimately, I think it comes down to the fact that feminists tend to trample men's rights and otherwise hurt men, so anti-feminists can't help but sound like MRAs, and vice-versa.

Original video:

CogentCanine's channel:

Sources:

Support this channel on Patreon:

Like this channel on Facebook:

Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0

[xhesil]

On the point of Domestic Violence, the distribution of resources is not proportional to the issue. DV has been a feminist talking point since the 80's, and has become a very real example of legal discrimination. It's called the Duluth Model, and it's the most sexist policy in use today. The model holds that the man in a DV situation is the abuser, 100% of the time. It's horrible, and I've seen it in action. My father was in an abusive relationship, one I told him to bail out of when I was 8, although he left her when I was 26. In one incident, he was sir on the couch and she mounted him and attempted to strangle him, and after the police came, he was removed in handcuffs (with some bruising on his neck). After this incident, he was required to take anger management classes, despite being the one who was attacked. I'm no MRA, but, the issue of DV is not a feminist issue, it is a men's rights issue. A man is more capable of doing grievous harm, but, women are quite empowered to batter men by policies like Duluth, a model which could actually be useful if it wasn't couched in feminist theory (the principles in it are a sound model for abusive behavior, but, the model defines men as abusers and women as victims)

[mizakzee]

I always thought "Women live longer than men" was brought up to point out that there are plenty gender gaps that feminists ignore. That if the wage gap is unacceptable then surely a life gap is too.

But where it's being used as a bare point without context, I can agree that MRA's are dropping the ball.

[ThePharphis]

"feminism is still needed elsewhere"

This comes from a very rosy look at older waves of feminism, as well as a simplistic thinking of gender issues around the world. (despite him claiming the opposite)

Feminism specifically frames all issues as resulting under patriarchy, men as privileged, and that all issues will be fixed by "addressing patriarchy" or "toxic masculinity".

This guy presumably thinks that feminism will solve issues like boys being slaughtered in the tens of thousands because they are boys, while the girls are instead kidnapped.

[SuperSaiyanMaze]

I get the feeling that Cogent Canine was trying to rationalize his feelings of not caring about men's issues in that video. Assuming it was a one-off miss on his part (I've never even heard of him before), I would assume he _feels_ like men should "man up, " but is self-aware enough to realize that's not a rational argument. So, he made the video, and faltered because he was driven by emotion and not reason.

[LittleMissAnonymous]

I've said that middle eastern countries don't need feminism. Not because I don't think they need equality, but because I think equality is achieved through egalitarianism. Not by gendering issues, and focusing on one while leaving the other behind. It's very apparent in "equal" countries that feminism was never concerned with equality for all, but improving the quality of life for women, which is fine, if there's a balance. That is why the Men's Right's Movement exists. To fill in the gaps feminism ignored while crusading for women.

[maailmanpaskinjatka]

1:44: "Another bad faith claim, in my opinion, is the often cited fact that women live longer than men. Now this is true, but what MRAs always fail to mention is that this happens across the animal kingdom [...]", 2:12: "Holding up this statistic as evidence of oppression or just hardship is, I would say, as ignorant as the argument that women are paid 77% of what men are paid [...]"

I don't think you're beign fair here. Most often I've seen the gap in life expectancy brought up in the context of arguing against feminism: to highlight "inequalities" using the same mindset as the feminists, ie. arguing against them using their own logic. In mainstream feminism in the west (especially in the media) any minor "inequality" is brought forth as a grave injustice, while this previously mentioned universal and well-known fact is completely ignored. And why shouldn't you call it a hardship even if it is caused wholly by biology, or nature? How would that make it any less of a hardship? Nature is unforgiving, you can't live without facing hardships.
Having a five year shorter life expectancy is in my opinion a far worse thing than receiving 23% less wages. (This dichotomy is of cource artificial, because men do more work on avarege, meaning they also pay more taxes and because they die younger they receive less pensions. Without even mentioning divource setlements, alimony payments and the question of who gets to make the money and who gets to spend it in an avarage household.)

If you do know, then how do you know the optimal gender gap in life expectancy? Even though women live longer in every country, there are still significant differences in how much they outlive men country by country. In Latvia women live nearly 10 years longer than men, the numbers are also closer to 10 than to 5 in many other ex-CCCP countries, like Estonia, Ukraine, Kyrgyztan, etc. In Russia itself women live nearly 12 more years than men on avarage. Interestingly, there are many developing countries where the gap is closer to just 2-3 years (Ghana, Niger, Afghanistan, Togo, etc.). So it seems that societies do have a significant impact on this gap. Maybe the gap would shrink even in western countries if society better prevented male suffering (more even handed socialization, mental and physical health funding, gender-neutral conscription etc.) To say that the currently existing situatuon is the optimal one because of nature, to say that we live in the best possible world, seems fatalistic.

I don't think it's fair to say that the MRA as a whole uses this issue to argue dishonestly. But since this claim can be currently supported pretty much only by anecdotes, it's useless to further argue about it. I just wanted to report my experience on this issue, which was different to yours. Definitively we don't know either way.

[DIVAD]

i actually disagree with the idea that women get the short end of the stick around the world and that feminism is needed to help solve that.

the problems that men face in third world countries are kind of swept under the rug in the same way the problems males face in first world countries are swept under the rug.you really aren't told that male problems exist in first world countries so people barely figure out that men have problems. so when you reduce the amount of knowledge we have of the overall situation by putting it in a third world country its even easier to miss the problems men have.

the problem really is that gender roles are enforced more on both gender in third world countries...and thats a problem for both men and women but i think thats almost exclusively a result of them being poor so i think doing something about their economy is what matters. "feminism" is going to be a result of their economy getting better and not the cause of those changes.

anyways regarding his analysis of domestic violence.
sure it could be that 1/3 women are knocked to the ground by a punch while 1/4 men are scratched slightly. but the definition is the same for both men and women...so why does he make it sound like the definition is only flawed for men?
its a flawed definition for both sides right? so you can't just assume what it does to each gender based on what fits what you want to show because your proving your conclusion with your conclusion and you can't do that.

[maxdecimus]

I think you miss the mark with your criticism of MRA points.

I don't know much about the MRAs and how they use it but those points are often specifically used as bad examples of statistics in isolation. I don't think many people are really up in arms about 91% of workplace deaths being men, it's more as a comeback against the idea that the workplace if geared towards benefitting men. It's far more complex than that.

[LeftCoragem]

I never saw people complaining about the death rates in the workplace as some ill men were suffering, but as a point to show that yes, if you won't take the choice of carrer in consideration when talking about the paygap, then why many more men die in the work?

As a way of showing that in average, men earn more because they are more willing to risk their lives on the job.

[gamemotron]

3:00 I really wish you would define choice there, I know several people who work dangerous jobs because that's all they can get and need to support their families, the women, in this case, don't work those jobs because they don't want to endanger their children's upbringing, so if it is a choice for the father to work a really dangerous job or watch his family starve then is it really a choice?

[JellyMyst]

A word of advice to fellow MRAs: The lifetime and job fatality gaps are indeed no conclusive evidence of discrimination. If you must bring them up, do it in relation to things like the pay gap. Make feminists see that giving women extra money means women have to give men extra life. Don't lower yourself to their level by saying a discrepancy in individual choices is automatically discrimination.

[baneau]

Did he actually use the word "tooken"?

[DekuLord]

One thing I think is important, at least from the MRAs I have heard, is that the basis for their arguments is slightly different from feminists. Feminists base their arguments on the claim that women are oppressed. MRAs base their claims on the fact that people don't care about men suffering. It's a small distinction in practice, but it can often be important in understanding what they are advocating.

[warptens]

3:24 venaloid is talking about the wolf who is talking about shoe who is talking about some narrator woman who is talking about katherine spillar

[CJCroen]

Is Shoe an MRA? I'm pretty sure she's not.

[horribleandstrange]

I'm not upset that women live longer, I am opposed to women's health issues receiving vastly more funding than men's, while women already live longer.

I think the point about women living longer than men is the following. Fact, women do live considerably longer. Embarrassing question, why are we spending more on breast cancer than prostrate cancer?

[RayPoreon]

Venaloid, you also forgot to mention conscription in your list of rights that discriminate against men.
Also love Canine's deflection to "muh third world countries". Not to mention that he accused everyone else of "using buzzwords" while asserting that people that don't think the third world need feminism are just not "thinking globally". What they need is human rights activism(so mens and womens rights activism), not some Marxist-esque theory of society(I say this unironically, the word feminism was coined by a socialist after all).

[AngryDuck]

I don't think it matters how severe a violent assault is, whether it's something as minor as a slap to being beaten into a coma. Attacking your partner is unacceptable; scale is irrelevant.

[Pasttwelveproductions]

I'm on board with a lot of the issues MRA's talk about, if certain feminist issues were also taken seriously. Good video.