The Gender Wars

Has anyone noticed what I like to call the "Gender Wars?"

There are men who are organizing against feminists. They call themselves the Men's Rights movement while others prefer to call themselves Men's Rights activists(MRA). This movement has spawned "Men Going Their Own Way." Which is a movement of men who refuse to get married and are usually single from what I understand.

The Feminists seem to be the arch-enemies of these rising movements on the web. Some of the MRA opponents are more extreme like the Femitheist who wanted to have an international castration day. There is an element of intellectualism involved in these radical movements. But from what I observed these are generally movements that are not intellectual but are organized bodies of people who hate certain things.

I may be pointing out the extremists but they are very noticeable on the web. In the real world, I think the MRAs have influence in Canada from what I understand. In the real world, they are hardly noticeable.

What is with these "Gender Wars?"

Tophatdoc: It's really the old battle over substantive equality vs perfect equality imo. More often than not these things start as debates over affirmative action and escalate into monsters.

admin: Why do you think these debates in particular start over affirmative action? I didn't think of it as a reaction to affirmative action but I understand why you may associate it with that.

I think the MRAs in particular are a reaction to marital rights and what is expected from it. The MRAs see what is to be expected from marriage is "unfair" in their eyes.

Tophatdoc: Men's rights groups generally tend to favor equal rights. Women's rights groups tend to favor substantive rights. Whether you apply that to a martial context or otherwise it's all really different manifestations of affirmative action in the law.

admin: I am not sure how affirmative action relates to the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Maybe in New Zealand affirmative action is different then. Affirmative action in the United States refers to equal employment and preventing job discrimination.

I think we are referring to two different things. I don't think the groups I am referring to focus on employment discrimination. Nor do I think it has anything to do with their origin because they have started becoming more popular. Here are some examples:

http://mensrightsactivism.com/
http://www.avoiceformen.com/
http://back.mgtow.com/
http://www.the-spearhead.com/

Tophatdoc: I define affirmative action as treating two groups differently in order to treat them the same (for example, due to their disadvantaged backgrounds). Employment rights are part of it, but rights can be extended to anything. Giving people from minority groups extra or special or extra special votes, for example, is generally classed as affirmative action.

admin: I see what you are getting at and what definition you used now. I was referring strictly to the legal definition relating to employment and employment programs.

I know that in New Zealand certain minority groups get special votes. That is not the case in the United States.

Tophatdoc: Perhaps I should have left it at "It's really the old battle over substantive equality vs perfect equality" to spare any confusion

Tophatdoc: Her face.

Pinkie: She seems like a very nasty person honestly. I dislike her and I haven't even met her . Maybe this was a bad day for her, I highly doubt it. LOL

Relevant: http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201404012147-0023610

admin: I will have to search this on a German-English site. I don't trust Al Jazeera. I was on one of their videos once, long ago lol

Tophatdoc: "I was on one of their videos once, long ago lol"
Is that why you don't trust them?

Tophatdoc: Which one?

admin: No lol. Plus I was a democratic socialist at that time in a video with other socialists protesting the war in Iraq. I don't trust Al Jazeera ever since I found out they were sponsored by officials in Qatar. I find that to be reprehensible because it is not a democratic country of any kind.

Pinkie: The cranky red haired woman lol.

Tophatdoc: oh! Lol.

Tophatdoc: Doesn't mean the network can't be unbiased though, just like democratically sponsored networks can be unbiased.

admin: Everyone has a bias.

Pinkie: I've seen Al Jazeera do very pro democracy reportage. In fact right now in Egypt those detained journalists have against them the charge that they were too in favor of democracy for the Egyptian governments liking - a charge not brought against hundreds of journalists from other networks who were there. So basically I think it's fair to say that although each of the journalists have biases, the organisation as a whole is relatively unbiased.