But that is neither here nor there.

My contention is not that feminism isn’t (or shouldn’t be) nearly exclusively concerned with women, my contention is that a movement (or political group, whatever) that at least attempts to speak for the other gender should not be greeted with the hostility and suspicion it has been…in a perfect world.

My contention is that precisely because feminism has deliberately ignored men (as an ideology/area of study) except as oppressors, it has invalidated itself from comment on men’s issues outside the realm of the generic (ie. going to feminist scholars to determine the veracity of MRA claims is like asking the CBS News crew “who is better, CBS News or Fox?”).

Which of course ties back in with the intent of The Feminist Dissident. There is a certain subset of MRA’s that think we will “succeed” when we manage to break our way into popular “feminist” dialog. There are certain MRA’s who frankly believe the Men’s Movement is destined to be a sort of auxiliary to feminism. There are a much larger number of MRA’s who believe appeasement (for lack of a better term) is the way to go (“You’re right, I don’t mean to make you feel uncomfortable, but what about my point?…”).

These people all share a desire for feminist “validation” of their views (to one degree or another).

But in my view, most of us that support the concept of this column do so simply because we see a lot of mischaracterizations, and a lot of missing …perspective?… in the feminist discourse, and an exchange of ideas can only benefit those involved.

Unfortunately, so far it’s been treated as a way to “educate the unwashed”, rather than dialogue on issues. Which is why I wrote it off as a failure until I found out Lisa was on GS’s blog.

She’s a feminist I respect. She investigated and made her (terribly erroneous) judgments based on a good deal of listening and debating. She set a good example of the beginnings of a dialogue. Of course, she’s not all sunshine and roses (she’s a hairy-legged, man-hating feminist after all), but she at least attempts to look like she is trying to get your point…most of the time.

The long and short of it is this…

To use the vernacular, oppressor classes never think they are doing so. In fact, most commonly they believe they bring a “civilizing influence”, or “improve them, even if it’s kicking and screaming”….n’est pas?

You may disagree that feminism, and adherence to it’s precepts, has hurt men and society. MRA’s disagree.

We should talk about it, but after years of saying so to no avail, I ain’t holding my breath…

Ummm … that might be because, while feminists may disagree about exactly what feminism means, or how to go about feminism, most agree that the point of feminism is to advance the rights of women in society.

Some of us do this while at the same time working for the rights of immigrants, the rights of queer people, people with disabilities, people of colour, and socioeonomically disadvantaged people, or other people, because we believe that these people also have rights, and because we’re capable of working for different, but congruent goals.

What some feminists argue is that achieving some things that are good for women also confers good on men. For example, I believe strongly in and advocate strongly for a national subsidized childcare system, so that families in which both parents work can afford to have children. For me, subsidized childcare is a feminist cause. I believe it’s dangerous and demeaning for women to be dependent on men for support, and that children deserve good care while parents are working. I believe that, since women are disporportionately primary caregivers, subsidized childcare will benefit more women than men, but it will benefit all families, including those with single dads.

Subsidized childcare doesn’t represent a feminist victory, because we don’t have it yet. But it’s a feminist cause whose benefits extend well beyond women.

I have yet to find a feminist group whose stated primary goal is to improve the lot of men in society. There’s room in my feminism for a lot of feminisms, but that? That would be doin it rong.

For what it’s worth, I’m pointing out the need for MRA’s, not the “worthlessness” of feminism.