"Wait I thought the whole point of the MRM is to advance the rights of men and boys, not simply to bash feminism". Male prostitution drama. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
86 ups - 0 downs = 86 votes
275 comments submitted at 17:54:37 on Jul 6, 2014 by Hamzaboy
> Feminism is the major obstacle in the way of men's rights. With it out of the way, or seriously weakened, we'll have a much easier time doing everything else.
These people cannot be serious
Ah yes, feminism is the reason MRA's do literally nothing as far as real world activism.
ohyeahsure.gif
The argument is that whenever MRAs try to convene publicly, crazies flying the flag of feminism shut them down. Which is a decently fair argument because it's happened a few times now. There was a lecture (by a woman) at a Canadian college about men's issues that someone pulled the fire alarm during and the building was evacuated. The AVFM conference was canceled/delayed/relocated (I stopped following this drama after a while so I don't know how it ended) after crazy "feminists" were sending death threats to the organizers and hotel staff.
Personal note: I think there is some validity in the MRM buried under tons of bullshit. In order to sort through the bullshit and actually create a worthwhile movement, they need to be allowed to meet and discuss (and debate/discuss with feminists). Shutting down MRM events is doing nothing good for any side and is only making the movement more extreme/more anti-feminist.
If they really thought they were getting treated as poorly as their rhetoric claims, then anti-protesters wouldn't stop them. Fuck, just look at what the LGBT and civil rights movement had to go through....
Yes, but as a white middle class male I have extensive experience leading me to the eminently reasonable expectation that the entire world will bow its head and listen to my every word. Having to actually struggle in order to achieve social change does not compute, since I have no concept of the history of social justice and in fact think that everyone else has been handed things on a gilded platter.
I don't think the counter-protestors have stopped them. I don't know. I don't consider myself an MRA. or anything really. I don't align myself with social movements because I only get angry because I don't know what moderation means. That and there are still a lot of extremists in the MRA that they haven't figured out how to handle yet.
>I don't think the counter-protestors have stopped them.
But you said...
>The argument is that whenever MRAs try to convene publicly, crazies flying the flag of feminism shut them down.
Schrodinger's Feminist.
>do literally nothing
I know this will get downvoted, but that's not true. Just recently there was a large Men's Rights conference talk in Detroit: https://www.google.com/search?q=The+First+International+Conference+on+Men
When the poster quoted above said:
>Feminism is the major obstacle in the way of men's rights.
He's not exactly wrong. Men's Rights talks have gotten shut down by feminist activists. When feminists blocked the entrance to the talks, feminists literally were obstacles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRWff4gCwTw
http://metronews.ca/news/ottawa/1000093/protestors-shut-down-u-of-o-professors-mens-rights-talk/
Too, the Detroit talk's first venue actually got changed because the hotel said they received threats.
Didn't that conference have like 250 people attend? I mean, I'm pretty sure there have been conferences for My Little Pony with like 20 times times that attendance, it's not exactly groundbreaking.
To be fair feminists have attempted to stop their gatherings before like that one time at the University of Toronto but this guy is overreacting
That's because, as it's practiced, men's rights is vehemently anti-women.
They should have just let them speak and make fools of themselves.
As a feminist that went to U of T the Student Union is a laughing stock and those who pulled the fire alarm are an embarrassment to the school. Protest their gathering sure, shout insults at them if you're an asshole, but don't fuck with the fire code please. There surely had to be other ways to bring the University's attention to the particular track record that "A Voice for Men" has.
So do we finally know who pulled the fire alarm?
I haven't been following but I always figured given the size and circuitous hallways most U of T buildings have they'd never catch the person.
I'm no MRA, but Big Red sure as fuck ain't my spokesperson.
Literally all that woman did was get short and loud with some dudes who were annoying her. People need to stop pretending she's somehow Evil Incarnate.
I'm not one of those people.
But when you're up against Elam and Warren "We Called It Exciting" Farrell and you still turn your protest into a joke, I'm done supporting you.
[deleted]
Protesting Warren Farrell requires little more than giving him an ample supply of rope. And these people fucked it up and looked like idiots.
I don't support any of them. My views on human rights remain unperturbed.
Edit: Are you really saying my dislike for your precious Big Red would turn me off of 100 years of feminist thought?
When MRAs brought up the issue of male suicide, she literally said (sang) "cry me a river".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWuLVtH6vgM
Dude. Cry me a river.
Or, you know, actually go volunteer for a suicide hotline, instead of pretending to care about suicidal men just to attempt to demonize one woman who got pissed off once on the Internet.
I'm pretty sure you don't have to be an MRA to admit that trivializing suicide, regardless of gender, is grade A scumbag behavior. Just because he doesn't work at a suicide hotline doesn't mean that his opinion is null. That whole idea is ridiculous. I don't have to be a cop to have an opinion on crime.
She wasn't trivializing suicide, she was saying men's suicide rate isn't evidence of male oppression or an issue that gives MRAs credibility (since they don't actually do anything about it).
More Comments - Click Here
On the humourous side, I have to flag up the idea that just talking to me might be enough to drive someone over the edge.
Pot, meet kettle. I think you've got a lot in common.
I mean, I work in medical malpractice, so my job is literally to help sue medical care providers who do things like don't take someone's suicidal ideation seriously . . . (Like, I literally have a case that centers around that I do work on.)
More Comments - Click Here
The men's rights movement in it's current form is anti women but the idea of men's rights is not. You can support the later without supporting the former.
And I think the issue with the former in your comment is mainly Internet based. I'm in the psych field, and I know a number of both male and female colleagues who are part of Division 51 of the APA (men and masculinity) and who advocate for men's rights (in addition to being feminists).
It's called feminism.
Wanna get rid of the societal expectation of masculinity? Then destroy traditional gender roles, rather than hanging around TRPers and misogynists wanting to reinforce them.
Wanna help male rape victims? Then help campaign or work directly with an organization to provide support for all victims of rape, rather than overcrowding a school's rape support system with false claims to make a bullshit political point.
Want to help the trans community? Then work with feminists in supporting all trans people, rather than excluding them from your movement altogether since "they're not real men."
It seems like men have a lot to benefit in working with feminists!
The only problem is that with issues that mainly effect men there is a need for a men focused movement to help with these. With feminism the male issues often get less priority because feminism is for helping women mainly. A good men's rights group would focus on men mainly and create a place for men to work on their issues in society.
But I do agree that any future men's rights movement should be working with feminists not against them.
>as it's practiced
Yeah no I'm not getting into this argument. I'm out
Wise man.
Could you expand a bit more on this?
No feminists just assume that men's rights proponents do the opposite of what feminists do. It was clear when that narcissist went around complaining about women and killing people and all the feminists said he was a men's rights advocate.
This is not true at all. I'm a feminist--a fairly militant one--and I am entirely for a lot of the issues the MRM CLAIMS it's about. Then I go onto A Voice For Men and see feminists literally being compared to Nazis and I go "man, they really do hate me." Why would I as a feminist want to work with people who actually think I'm on par with a Nazi?
EDIT: I posted this link deep deep into the comment thread but here's the article I'm referring to...
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/godwins-law/
Many Mens' Rights groups started with perfectly good intentions, but invariably misogynists invade and take them over. The fact that the Red Pill is so large and still growing just confirms that. And now it's so prevalent and people are so used to that being what "Mens' Rights" is that even if you started a new group with nothing but honest good-hearted people who genuinely wanted to work to end things like circumcision or start programs to alleviate the massive male suicide rate, they'd be buried alive with all the hate that people would pile on them. I still believe there's a genuine need for the Mens' Rights Movement, but it's name is synonymous with misogyny and hatred now and the majority of its followers reflect it. What's the solution? There probably isn't one. The people who actually want to solve male issues are drown out against a sea of men who are convinced that Feminism is the root of all their problems.
How are you a militant feminist?
I believe in rape culture and that we live in a patriarchal system, though I believe that those things negatively affect EVERYONE, not just woken, and that men are not at fault. I believe that women do not have equal representation in the most powerful institutions in society, I believe that our reproductive rights are being systematically rolled back, and I believe in working towards equality. I also believe in intersectionality and multicultural feminism--I believe that it is important to recognize other forms of oppression and that we should be working to help women in other parts of the world that have it MUCH worse than American women. I do believe that the same institutions that oppress women are also oppressive towards men because gender roles are inherently oppressive.
Just a note: this is all coming from an American, just for the record.
Dude, that isn't militant. You'd find support for all of that in the Democratic party platform or on an episode of the Daily Show.
I really don't see the point of accepting MRAs' bullshit paradigms and positing myself as some sort of fringe "radical." I believe things about affirmative action JFK said nearly 50 years ago. I believe things about female oppression Mill, a male philosopher, said a century ago.
Absolutely nothing you said above or I've said in my long comment history about feminism or race is even remotely objectionable, let alone original. I'm not going to fucking apologize for my entirely mainstream liberal views because a bunch of misogynist pricks -- sorry, "activists" -- think they can redefine reality and rewrite history.
Fuck them, and fuck their bullshit.
How does the "militant" part play in or was it used to play up the reactionary label given to people who are passionate about women's rights and gender equality?
I was mostly just using it for emphasis, yeah.
Hah, got it!
I was imagining "militant" being a bunch of women roaming the streets with pink rifles enacting vigilante justice on the patriarchy.
More Comments - Click Here
I can't speak for /u/Alexispinpgh, but militancy in protest movements is used pretty flexibly. It tends to describe those who do the most extreme forms of action, in context.
This is often the case when protest deliberately crosses the line of legality; the militants are those who are likely to start the illegal behaviour, and to stick around and wear the consequences.
Well if calling feminists Nazis turns you off the MRA movement, don't you think calling MRAs Nazis turns them off feminism?
If you gender flip your comment:
> I'm an MRA--a fairly militant one--and I am entirely for a lot of the issues feminism CLAIMS it's about. Then I go onto feminist social media and see MRAs literally being compared to Nazis and I go "man, they really do hate me." Why would I as an MRA want to work with people who actually think I'm on par with a Nazi?
That is a lovely hypothetical argument that you just made and it is also entirely pointless because I have never seen an MRA called a Nazi. But yes, in that hypothetical world that would also be wrong.
Pointless if I was limiting the argument to you personally, yes. But there are plenty of other people on this thread labeling all MRAs misogynists, and getting highly upvoted for it.
So again, if some MRAs demonizing feminists is bad because it prevents people from working together ... why are some feminists so eager to demonize MRAs? Doesn't that have exactly the same outcome?
Nazi and misogynist aren't comparable insults...
"MRAs aren't concerned with social justice any more than Stormfront is."
There you go, a bona fide (neo-)Nazi comparison in this very thread!
More Comments - Click Here
"Vehemently anti-women"
Care to elaborate? Or do you just mean hateful loudmouths. I don't accuse feminism of being anti-men based on tumbler users.
Good, I'm glad you do that. In my experience, "tumblr feminists" are mostly younger women who perhaps don't fully grasp what feminism is. I know the MRM isn't composed entirely of rage-fueled neckbeards who violently hate women, but their poster boy, Paul Elam, absolutely is. I try not to generalize the MRM members as hateful misogynists, I know many of them genuinely have their hearts in the right place, but the man that they all apparently stand behind is exactly that. I will not support a movement that has that piece of human garbage as their spokesperson and I cannot stand behind someone who follows that man.
Sorry, I've rambled. Tldr; perhaps not everyone in the MRM is a visciously hateful misogynist, but they follow and support a man who is the epitome of that, which is still pretty fucking awful.
You're painting a very broad brush there. The type of people who hang out on reddit and rant about feminism in the guise of men's rights sure are, but how is say Fathers For Justice anti-women?
Well, they pulled a fire alarm once, which I gather is essentially violence from the way MRAs talk about the feminists who pulled a fire alarm once.
Btw, they do really useless crap.
I don't get it, why do we buy into the MRA narrative that it was feminists who pulled the fire alarm? These are the people who always jump at the opportunity to shout "no evidence", why give them a pass this time?
The fact of the matter is that MRM is a hateful group, who have managed to piss off a lot of people/groups. Heck, I contend that anyone with a bit of common sense should be outraged at such hateful rhetoric. Anyone could have done it, including one of their own.
Certainly, but how is it anti-women?
I went to U of T while that happened.
MRAs were asking for it
Not to mention the information and letters released today at A Voice for Men.
You mean the one where the head honcho of the movement admits he does not believe feminists threatened their conference? And hasn't believed it since at least the same week the threats were allegedly made?
Even though he raised $32,000 for security costs because of it and continued to blame feminists (including targeting one Detroit schoolteacher specifically) for death threats, calling them terrorists, right up through his conference where he cried to reporters all about it? The conference that spent a reported $10,000 on security?
... the conference where the social media director called reporters whores left-and-right, bragging about it by keeping a "whore score" count? The conference where Molyneux reiterated his belief that women are the cause of all evil, and if women would stop marrying assholes we'd have perfect world peace in just 5 years? The conference that argued "the vast majority" of college rape are "buyer's remorse" false accusations?
Yeah you've proven they're the innocent victims.
Hmmmmmm, personally, I wonder where all that extra security money could have gone . . . no way it ended up in Elam's pockets, nooooooooo, it's not like he (at least, as I haven't checked on its current status) had AVFM registered as a private for-profit company or anything . . . nor has he ever pocketed donations before . . . he totally doesn't have a history of flipping shit on anyone who asks where the money goes or wants receipts . . .
Maybe if people didn't want other people to protest them, they should stop saying obviously offensive bullshit.
Also, the idea that women at a protest must be nothing but incredibly cordial at all times, lest one angry lady become a super convenient way to dismiss their argument without actually substantively evaluating it, is fucking sexist as shit.
Yep, I said it. People who post one woman behaving poorly as a way to discredit feminism and women, as if they're monoliths, are misogynists.
Well... You literally can't say anything that conflicts with feminist narratives without getting cyber-lynched. (See: the graveyard below me)
And the MRM conflicts with that narrative as they claim women don't have a monopoly on oppression.
...so it stands to reason that this holds true, on Reddit at least.
Edit: See?
....Men's Rights aren't going to be advanced via reddit.
"Hey Dave, how's liberating those male child prostitutes going?"
"Not good. I got into an argument on reddit. Got totally cyber-lynched. You know what, fuck the kids, I don't feel like helping them anymore."
"Damn you, feminists!"
The horrific nature of the situation was illustrated best by Billie Holiday's haunting song: "Strange Cyber Fruits".
>cyber-lynched
Wow. Downvotes and comments saying you're wrong? Basically a lynching.
I totally understand how black people in 1950s Alabama felt now.
>they claim women don't have a monopoly on oppression.
Feminists claim women have a monopoly on oppression?
Obviously, that dude said it! And you can trust him, because people who think arguments in forum comment sections are somehow comparable to lynchings are definitely not full of shit!
"Egregiously inappropriate comparison to violent racism" was the only space I had missing on my MRA Bingo Card this week... So thank you for your cavalier use of the word "lynching!" The gals at the office are going to be so jealous that I finally won!
Funny how it pretty much perfectly mirrors the attitude of some feminists re: The Patriarchy Backfiring. Smash the Patriarchy first, then the issues the silly menses are complaining about will go away automatically!
#NotAllFeminists #NotAllMRAs
Do you understand the concept of patriarchy?
Reasonable, like the traditional gender roles, or what some feminists believe in and call it the Patriarchy instead of "traditional gender roles"? I understand both, what about you?
Not quite. gender roles are a product and enforcer of the patriarchy, which is itself a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from said power.
LOL
I mean, really, white cis women are the worst. If you were allowed to vote, you would've elected Hillary instead of Obama, you racists!
#SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen
You can't actually make a point, can you?
OK, suppose for a second that women were allowed to vote. How long would it take until the state side of the Patriarchy is dismantled, ten years, twenty? Just as a thought experiment, of course.
The biggest opposition to men's rights I've seen on reddit has been feminism.
In my experience, feminism exists to promote female privilege. Now, you might say they want equality... And deflect the point that they haven't ever helped men (okay, they passingly support men when it doesn't require more than words... Also the whole trickle down gender politics, "helping women helps everyone!" nonsense) but they also fight tooth and nail to justify existing female privilege. Areas where women are clearly given an advantage due to their gender.
I could list examples but there's the old no true feminist fallacy just waiting there.
In the end, feminism exists to propagate feminism. And pointing out the (obviously) noble start feminism had doesn't justify what it is today, just like pointing out the KKK started out as a band of do-gooders doesn't excuse what they are today.
I'm not an MRA by the way. But "mansplaining" is, after all, a word invented by feminists to disregard men when they bring up problems that men have...
>just like pointing out the KKK started out as a band of do-gooders
excuse me
/r/MRMorWhiteRights
No they did. They started out as a vigantee justice group that did what the law refused to do (like knocking sense into wife beaters)
It's all on the wikipedia page.
I mean maybe they did those things, but they always had a distinctly racist and confederate bent. Like, a group isn't a nice group if their founding tenants were always "keep the community together, protect our families and be super fucking racist"
I think you might be confused with me saying the KKK isn't so bad. They're awful racists.
No they didn't. Their primary purpose was always intimidation of free blacks (along with Catholics).
You're either willfully ignorant of history, or a racist piece of shit. Either way, fuck off with that nonsense.
Yeah I'm not really sure why you'd take their word for it seeing as they have a long history of being incredibly disingenuous about their motives and activities. See all the times they lynched people or ran them out of town claiming to be protecting white women from sexual assault when the actual motive was economic.
Explain why "helping women helps everyone" is nonsense? How does equality not help everyone?
No offense, but if you're a Red Piller I really don't want to get into this as I fundamentally disagree with all of the principles you hold but respect your right to have them..so lets leave it at that.
I'm no red piller, though I do feel bad for those guys to have lives that have made them so cynical and to actually make them hate women.
I don't hate women, I respect them as equals, and I'm more middle of the road when it comes to equality. Its as ridiculous to be a feminist as it is to be an across the board republican as it is to be an MRA as it is to be an across the board democrat. Pick your own problems that you give merit to, not some for-profit group with its own agenda.
That being said, a few decades ago there was this hilarious scam Reagan pulled called Trickle Down Economics. The idea was that you gave all this money and all these tax breaks to the rich, and in turn, they'll invest that money and it will create jobs and help the economy. Well, as it turns out, when you give all these privileges to this one group without any rules attached, you ~~annihilate the middle class and get the wealth distribution between rich and poor to look like a sheer cliff~~ get a group of people who only want more for themselves and couldn't care less about people who weren't them.
Now, to go back to my point, (the one where feminists don't fight against female privileges and only push for more of them) can you give me a direct tangible example contrary? I asked /r/askfeminists but that went exactly how you'd think it would. I'm genuinely open to the idea, but have never seen it happen.
No rhetoric please. A personal story or a news link or something.
I'm convinced the second wave was the last group of feminists who deserved respect. Third wavers argue, with remarkable doublethink, that misandry both is justified and isn't a word. They're a hate group.
I would love to give you an example but I'm genuinely baffled by the concept of female privilege. Some women certainly are more privileged than men, or indeed other women, but that has more to do with their race or socio-economic class.
I'm curious to know, do you think birth control is a female privilege? Do you think women pushing for their employers to cover birth control is an example of female privilege?
I think getting 40% the sentence as a man for the same crime is privilege.
I think if the numbers were flipped and women outnumbered men in prison 20 to 1 there would be riots. (And the #1 response I get to that is "well don't you think that's because men commit more crime?" Which is my favorite because racists say exactly that about black people in prison.)
I think things like alimony and bodily autonomy are held sacred when it comes to women and when men want it (not even talking about parental rights, talking about circumcision, which is a crime if you do it to a girl anywhere in the west) they get sneered at.
Or something as simple as how seriously feminism is taken opposed to how seriously the MRM is taken.
Or the Violence Against Women Act elevating hurting a woman to a hate crime instead of just cracking down on all violent crime...
Or how instead of going for the plausible change they push(ed, 30 years ago) to repeal the institution nearly every country has always had rather than getting women to sign up for the selective service.
Or pointing out how they're nearly immune from domestic violence charges or rape charges.
And there's little junk like sexism in the workplace (lift that heavy thing and do more work, man) and how illegal things like ladies night are given a pass.
And how the very concept of female privilege baffles some people because they think all the advantages they have are their right but when men ask for the same things they're jumped all over.
Please. Please tell me you have the wherewithal to at least understand that men have privilege and oppression just like women have privilege and oppression. It's just silly to think otherwise.
I have the wherewithal to understand that all people have privilege and oppression.
I have the wherewithal to recognize that women being given much lower sentences than men, statistically, is equally damning for women as it is men. Some reasons given for the disparity is because judges treat women more leniently because women are more likely to be primary caregivers. I think that's wrong and inherently sexist. Feminism does not support this, feminism is about equal rights, even if that means women getting sentences equal to men.
Circumcision? Yeah, men do deserve to have bodily autonomy.
This is the inherent issue. Men have issues, women have issues. Giving women increased protection against FGM (female circumcision is the incorrect term) doesn't decrease men's protection. They're completely separate. A woman rescued from FGM doesn't oppress a circumcised man.
So now that I've pointed out a whole list of female privileges...
What are feminists doing to stop them? Specifically, no vague rhetoric please.
My overall assertion was that they push for more privilege instead of fighting any. That's a loooong list you can pick from.
>What are feminists doing to stop them?
A recent success is fighting for the right to serve in combat roles in the military.
Yeah but, other than that, what have the Romans done for us?
More Comments - Click Here
I think the issue with prison sentences has more to do with a) women being more likely to be primary caregivers (a mitigating factor in sentencing) and b) more likely to be educated, or at least to have finished high school (I think that's the correct statistic now, right?) If you can find data that accounts for those two factors that says that men are still getting royally screwed, I would love to see it though.
And yes, I think that both of those issues need to be addressed. But you can't address them effectively if you keep arguing that prison sentences need to be changed if one is systemic of the other. Get to the root of the problem, and it will be much easier.
...so...
You do think ~~black people~~ men are just more predisposed to be criminals...
I'm... We're done. You aren't worth the feminist circle jerk down votes.
Uhh what? I'm not saying that at all, I'm saying that as a person with personal familiarity with the sentencing process, those are two factors that make a HUGE difference in your sentnece. Like, probably the biggest two after prior records. I'm also saying that those are areas where mens rights activists have legitimate complaints that something should be done to get more men access to their children and to finish high school. I'm also saying that if you've got all of those things on your list of things you're fighting for, it's most effective to fight for the ones that cause the other ones.
But if you know more than I do about sentencing convicted felons, please, correct me.
I love how you point out something that somebody interested in equality could really use (I didn't know about the primary caregiver impacting sentencing thing, though it makes sense) and it just gets ignored.
>You do think ~~black people~~ men are just more predisposed to be criminals...
Nothing of the sort was posted. Your desire to deploy your excuse and bail is glaring.
what?
It's amazing how people can't see that the same rhetoric used by those on the right to maintain the privileges of the upper class is used everyday to keep women from truly being equal.
It almost makes me think reddit 'progressives' just want free shit
> The biggest opposition to men's rights I've seen on reddit has been feminism.
Well, the MRM has been anti-feminist from pretty much the beginning, so yeah, feminist dissent isn't all that shocking here. More of what I perceive, though, is that feminists oppose this anti-feminist aspect of the movement, not the organizing around specific issues that harm men. Sometimes there are indeed particular aspects of feminism that have negative consequences for men, and the MRM should be critical about those things; but the MRM conflates these particulars for feminism as a whole when it advocates for anti-feminism.
> The biggest opposition to men's rights I've seen on reddit has been feminism.
Noooo, the biggest opposition to the MRM you've seen has been feminism. Achieving equality for all men is a noble goal. It's a pity that's not the MRM's goal. The MRM is a hate movement that places harassing women above helping men.
> but they also fight tooth and nail to justify existing female privilege
Examples? Also, please don't use the whole "opposing joint custody by default" chestnut...it's just a bad idea, since it would force many people divorced from abusive spouses to continue to interact with their ex-spouse.
> I could list examples but there's the old no true feminist fallacy just waiting there.
Tidy excuse for your baseless accusations.
> In the end, feminism exists to propagate feminism.
That makes no sense. Is feminism alive now? Has it learned to replicate itself?
> just like pointing out the KKK started out as a band of do-gooders doesn't excuse what they are today.
That's...really not true. The Klan was started in the 1860's to terrorize black people.
> I'm not an MRA by the way.
Just a misogynist? That's cool.
> But "mansplaining" is, after all, a word invented by feminists to disregard men when they bring up problems that men have...
That's not mansplaining at all. You don't understand the definition of mansplaining. Mansplaining is when a man explains to a woman shit she already knows solely because she's a woman. Typically, it happens when men of equal or lower experience than a given woman in a field explains something basic that he should know full well that she already knows. For instance, if some random dude were to take it upon himself to explain the First Amendment to a female law professor, that's mansplaining.
Sometimes, one can accidentally mansplain if you don't know a woman is familiar with a subject. In that case, a simple apology should suffice, if you subsequently treat her with due respect. For instance:
Man: So, in chess, a pawn moves one space unless...
Woman: Dude, I've played chess for ten years.
Man: I'm sorry, I had no idea! Wanna talk mid-game strategy?
Mansplaining is when men try to explain to women what a woman's problem is. A man explaining male experiences isn't mansplaining.
> In my experience, feminism exists to promote female privilege.
or...equal rights for women? Meh, what am I saying, you're probably never going to accept that as an answer.
The movement of feminism isnt an obstacle to mens rights, just the feminists that discourage discussion of mens issues.
Feminism is anything you say it is. Because it really is. There are no feminist leaders... No written down rules to being a feminist... Just... Label yourself one, and run with it. Some people go so far as to call other people feminists (like myself) even after we identify ourselves as anti feminist, because we hold ideals that we point out they lack.
Feminism is the glittering, untarnishable ideology that equality can be reached if we stretch out our fingers just a little more.
Feminists are a mix of people who range from genuine, cool egalitarians (1st and 2nd wavers) to the incredibly awful, myopic sexists (3rd wavers).
Its not feminism that hates men. Feminism isn't a person. Feminists hate men. Feminists are the ones who blame the ~~manocentric manocricy~~ patriarchy for all their problems. Feminists collectively gasp at female circumcision and collectively shrug at male circumcision.
Its like the Gandhi quote- I like your Christ but not your Christians, they're so unlike Christ.
Feminists label anyone who disagrees with them as woman hating misogynists and bury them in down votes.