is this about the gender-balanced cabinet thing or has he done more stuff that you dislike

the problem with the article is that a lot of people are going to read it and think "this is what the racist people i interact with are thinking" and then when they go to communicate with racist people later, they're going to be talking to the strawman behind them instead of to their face. People's beliefs are incredibly diverse and trying to condense "racist ideologies" into five general archetypes is doing more harm than good when it comes to facilitating real communication.

Let me help you then. Common MRA agendas:
• Protection from the genital mutilation of boys.
• A more fair civil court system for divorces.
• Better abortion rights.
Those are probably the main ones, but I'm sure there's more, like less discrimination in the school system and punishment for crimes, and a lower ignorance towards the struggles of men (high suicide rates, monopoly on workplace accidents and their treatment in rape and domestic violence incidents.) It's a common MRA sentiment that the pendulum of gender equality has swung too far, and that males are now the oppressed gender. However, more than anything, I think that they just want recognition of the struggles that they do face in society (and that it's not "men can't show their emotions.") Your own lack of awareness towards their agendas can be shown as an example of what they are trying to restore, because MRAs are for some reason painted as women haters, which is no more fair, or possibly even less fair, than calling Feminism a man-hating movement.
I don't know what an MRA type argument is. Typically, it's either "that's not what the statistics show" or "you don't speak on behalf of all women", because it's very easy for them to point towards factual discrimination, while Feminist talk points are commonly rooted in perceptions about society (e.g. internalized misogyny and patriarchy theory), or sometimes flawed (interpretations of) scientific papers (e.g. college rape statistics and the earnings gap.) MRAs are probably also more inclined to argue that men and women are biologically predisposed to behave differently, while Feminists will more often say that the reason we behave differently is because of culture (that has been created by males to oppress women) internalizing stereotypes. (Which is not to say that either of the parties argue that it's exclusively one or the other).

Discrimination in the past does not validate discrimination in the present, unless you want me to bring up the old "give black people a white slave" argument.


Well, that is the embodiment of his views, isn't it?

When you asked me if I wanted to run for office, I asked when I could start.

Just checked the front page of /r/mensrights. Of 25 posts there, none of them are about genital mutilation, one of them is about divorces, and none of them are about abortions. 9 are about allegedly false accusations of male sexual assault.

Also, if you think that the problems you listed that affect men can and should be solved, shouldn't you be in favor of a cultural perspective over a biological one? After all, a purely biological perspective on the issues that affect men would come to the conclusion that the problems are an inexorable result of men's biology, and that suicide rate and workplace accidents are just natural parts of having a y chromosome. If you think these things can and should be changed, don't you have to admit that there's a significant cultural component to gender roles?

I wouldn't say that's a problem with an article. It's not a thesis or an exhaustive research paper. It picks five arguments and dissects them (it would be like saying Star Wars is flawed because it doesn't go into the Empire's motives enough). I would argue it's a problem with people in general and on all sides of discussions. The inability to think flexibly. The article isn't claiming to be definitive or to encompass all reasons/perspectives. It simply analyzes five common responses and provides potential reasons there are barriers to discussion. I get it though...as a HUMINTer I talk to plenty of SIGINTers and "roll my eyes" when they think they can read someone based on some Kinesics or body language book they read and they don't understand the concept of establishing a baseline.

Those are the exact reasons I won't argue against the idea of actual MRA organizations. There are ways in which society is unfairly biased against men. While society tries to balance the inequalities between men and women, both sides need to be looked at. It can't be "all women are oppressed in all ways" but on the same end it can't be "Men are oppressed in some areas so we should change those first."

My outreach into the wide world consists of three things: Cracked, Facebook (and here), and my job. My experience of MRAs is what my buddiess post on facebook (which mostly consists of pick-up artist "women are lesser creatures primarily for sex and raising babies" speak), Cracked articles (which mostly only discuss the vile spit at female gamers), and my job (which mostly consists of normal people and therefore don't ever involve the topic of groups designed to fight for the rights of men, but does discuss issues with the right's of men in mind)

He is a feminist, yes, but he is far from what i would call an extremist.

The article itself is fine, the issue is what I imagine people will take from it.

Mens' rights are important and I am happy that they are being fought for. I took a look at the reddit cato was talking about and it did not seem to be the kind of movement PoS made it out to be.

Men's rights aren't important but neither are women's rights. Human rights are important.

We need to stop drawing lines. Only then will we stop fighting over them.

men's rights and women's rights are both subsets of human rights.

i agree that too much effort is put into categorizing stuff though

Nah

Maybe it's changed in the last few months, but people seemed determined to own the term.

I agree, SJW is a pejorative and should be treated as such.

that is a generalization but i assume there is some truth in it, which is unfortunate. There is a lot of misandry associated with feminism and i would expect there to be a lot of misogyny associated with men's rights movements, but based on what I have seen after a little bit of reading men's rights organizations in general are probably heavily problematic right now. Men's rights are important and they should be fought for though, so I can only hope that things will get better over time.

Good lord do I ever like this door fella

Male rape is probably both under-reported and under-prosecuted and there are probably a lack of services available for male rape victims.

It is probably true that many parental rights including custody cases favor women over men because fathers are generally seen as less attached to their children than mothers in society.

I am sure that there are a lot of problems that men specifically face that should be addressed.

I am not saying that men are in a disadvantaged position in society compared to women, but both men and women are subject to unique forms of discrimination or have unique needs because of their gender or their biology and both men and women should have those things addressed.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the underlined statements are false by many current theories of society. In order...

1) Misandry does not and cannot exist in feminism
2) Men HAVE all the rights. There is nothing to fight for.
3) and 4) It is not possible for a female to commit rape on a male. It is possible for a male to commit rape on a male, but these crimes are likely reported and prosecuted at normal levels
5) Men do not have systemic problems. They have a monopoly on power.
6) Men are not discriminated against and do not have 'needs'

These are legit tenets. Accepting this as true is how you pass Cultural Studies 101. There are dissenting theories which will usually be regarded as misogynistic. There are more extreme frameworks, but those that accept those points and go beyond them are more acceptable/mainstream than those that reject them. It is more acceptable to take as a concept that all heterosexual sex is a form of rape (Because the societal power dynamic favors men, making all consent effectively obtained under coercion) than to suggest that a woman can rape a man.

Can you elaborate on that one a little? I follow the rest but that one is just rubbing me wrong. Maybe it's the wording? Why doesn't/can't it?

i would have trouble believing that real people would agree with many of those statements.

Every "society" has its norms. I live in North America where our governments observe Christian Holidays. That's "normal". Therefore we live in a Christian society, whether or not we are Christian ourselves.

Basically because it's impossible to have a true equivalent to misogyny: the opposite viewpoint can never be as destructive, and thus it would be wrong/inaccurate it to label it in the same terms. In short, to claim misandry exists is inherently misogynistic.