Lenona,

This is exactly why I don't see men's rights groups as a viable path to equality. Neither White supremacists nor Black supremacists offered a viable path to equality. And they don't balance or cancel each other out. Instead a third path had to be found. The path of MLK. Similarly neither female supremacists nor male supremacists offer a path to equality and they certainly don't balance or cancel each other. A third path must be found. One that we are still looking for.

Dr. King was a great man who gave his life in the struggle for the EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY for everyone.

Today, too many black activists don't understand or will not recognize that is much different from the EQUALITY OF OUTCOME based on race or gender.

Ben, most men's rights groups aren't male supremacists, they're fighting actual injustices against men to try obtain equal footing. (The same is not true of most feminists ... most modern-day feminists aren't for equal rights at all.)

@Ben

Read this list of some of the issues and tell me in which of these this group is arguing for male supremacy or dominance:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/activism/about/

Lobster,

The existence of real and pervasive governmental discrimination against men doesn't disprove male supremacists any more than Jim Crow disproved the Black Panthers.

There is also a political angle. Just like the civil rights fight included a large number of white people I expect gender equality will require a large number of women supporters. Terming things 'Men's Rights' instead of 'Equal Rights' comes with a price.

I do agree with you that the US has pervasive governmental discrimination against men. And that virtually all active feminists are blatant female supremacists. Unfortunately there are male supremacist MRA groups out there. And the entire movement will be tared by the ugliest and most outspoken members.

Ben,

@"This is exactly why I don't see men's rights groups as a viable path to equality"

So what do you propose as a solution to the pervasive discrimination against men then?

I mean, I get that 'men's rights' and 'women's rights' are really just 'individual rights', and that if one is for individual rights, one must (ethically) be ideologically for both men and women's rights. However, there's a simple practical problem: In terms of advocacy efforts, human resources can only stretch so far - e.g. if everyone involved with any sort of rights group were to constantly expend energy on every single class of rights violation in existence, everyone would be stretched too thin. So it makes sense to me to have essentially a kind of division of labor with 'specialization', e.g. some advocates can specialize in, say, decriminalization of sex work, others may 'specialize' in advocating for decriminalization of marijuana, others may 'specialize' in advocating against gender-related injustices, and so on. This doesn't make anyone necessarily a 'supremacist', e.g. groups advocating for decriminalization of sex work aren't 'sex worker supremacists' demanding dominance and power over non-sex-workers ... they just want the rights violations to end.

You have a political problem once you label things 'men's rights' Lobster. You have immediately eliminated 50% of your voting base and lost the moral high road. You are also fighting basic human nature. Men are just more comfortable giving things up to take care of women. So getting men who haven't been harmed to fight back for those who have becomes difficult.

There is also a future expectations issue with the label. Back when women had little power 'feminist' were pushing for equality. But understandably once the objective was archived all of the sane people dropped out of the movement leaving the crazy and the power mad to continue. People have the same expectations from 'masculinists'. The movement won't stop in the middle.

Both of these are issues of labeling. Look at how MLK achieved his success. Black power groups were going nowhere. They focused solely on their problems. They neither offered anything to outsiders nor even welcomed their support. MLK by comparison ran a big tent campaign. While race was always in the background MLK tried to always focus on the benefits for everyone, including those of other races. Blacks stood the most to benefit from MLK's policies but they had insufficient numbers. So he broadened the appeal. If MRA groups want to achieve their goals they need to do the same.

1. Do as Amy does and call yourself a humanist or an egalitarian. Don't cede that moral high ground straight from the beginning.
2. Don't focus solely on men's problems. Show how women are adversely affected by these exact same policies. Cut the female supremacists off at the knees by showing how they harm women. That more men stand to benefit than women is irrelevant. Frame the problem as an issue for us all and highlight that minority on the other side that is harmed.
3. Control your media. Rosa Parks wasn't the first Black person arrested on a bus. She was the poster child specifically selected for that purpose. People interested in MRA issues need to do the same. Find a poster child for their issues. Film the heck out of that situation. Yes the MSM will ignore you and try to shut you down. So what. The internet provides other avenues to get your message out. You tube it. Go viral.

Alinsky's tactics also work great for MRA issues.

There is a huge audience out there just waiting for the right movement to get things started. As your list shows the abuse is pervasive. Everyone knows someone treated unfairly by the system. You just can't hide it. But as long as you limit yourself to Men's Rights you won't get anywhere.

@"If MRA groups want to achieve their goals they need to do the same."

But they DO. You are the one labeling them as being supremacists, with no evidence - I've spent a fair bit of time reading up on 'men's rights issues' and I've virtually never encountered anyone supremacist. Come to think of it, I've only ever *once* encountered one individual in one forum on one website who advocated male supremacy (and it wasn't even a men's rights website). One. Ever. I guess we have somehow been reading entirely different sites or something, I'd be interested if you could post some links to men's rights sites/groups that are openly supremacist.

@"2. Don't focus solely on men's problems. Show how women are adversely affected by these exact same policies."

Many of the men's rights advocates I've read or listened to precisely do this.

Too bad none of Dr King's 4 kids have ever done shit.

What can I say Lobster. If you want the MRA skeletons ask Lenona. She seems to collect them.

I still say as long as you are under the Men's Rights label you are going to have a major branding problem. MLK would have flopped under Black Rights. Instead he went with Civil Rights.

As you point out, there is a tremendous demand. Hoff Sommers amply documented the institutionalized sexism in our schools. Only ideologues believe family courts are impartial. So, where are the MRA success stories? I've heard of small scale interpersonal stuff. But I don't hear about legislation or even administrative changes. Amy quotes the continued advance of title IX and affirmative consent. I'm not seeing a lot of success on the other side of the scale. Maybe I'm missing it. If so please point things out. I would appreciate the hope it would inspire. But so far I hear of more success from random locations than I do from the MRA community. If the tactics aren't succeeding then something needs to change. I'm not saying give up your goals. But politics is marketing. To me the MRA label is inherently toxic. You need a rebranding.

@"I still say as long as you are under the Men's Rights label you are going to have a major branding problem."

So honestly, what would you label it?

Equal rights? To most people that means precisely more power to women and against men.

Civil rights? To most people that conjures up the civil rights movement.

Individual rights? That's an extremely broad label already in use.

The 'men's right movement' is something that only basically just started very recently, it's very small and niche, most people aren't even aware it exists as a 'thing' - of course there aren't going to be dramatic changes overnight, these things take time, you chip away very slowly in the beginning, until what starts as one or two tiny voices in the corner starts to gain more followers.

How long did it take to get rid of slavery and segregation? Well over a century.

Most news-media organizations also pander primarily to women. Universities and colleges are still biased too. They churn out e.g. 'journalists' who write still more biased articles pandering to women (e.g. the constant barrage of articles perpetuating the myth that domestic abuse virtually always is a male abuser and a female victim, in face of the actual statistics which show males are at least equally often the victim and women the perpetrators). The cycle continues, e.g. all those brainwashed young girls who read those biased media articles go study (or go on to teach) at those colleges, then go on into society as journalists, lawyers etc. who practice their male discrimination openly. The women who are 'getting 50% of everything' even after THEY are the ones destroying their marriages aren't complaining either, as the system works in their favor.

They are also the sons and daughters of George Wallace, one of the most despicable humans in American history. I did not realize how much until I read his obituary: apparently he was not really a segregationist, he was faking it to get himself elected to public office.

While I understand pretending to be better than you are to achieve something, pretending to be less than you are?? Pretending to be filled with hate to impress other haters?? Boggles the mind.