A few years ago I learned that some feminist talked about feminisms (plural). The idea resonated with me because it described a reality that I’ve seen but couldn’t put words. There are many feminist, but feminist disagree about different takes and feminist topics. And for me that is perfectly OK. You can be an imperfect feminist who are let's say “capitalist” and don’t believe in paid maternity leave. From my perspective that is wrong (I believe in paid maternity and paternity leave that is not shared but that can be joined if it is a single parent), but I can agree with that kind of feminist on being pro-choice (for example).

I disagree about feminist not being about men’s rights in the sense that women rights are human rights. If women get choice about their bodies, it doesn’t make sense to me that suddenly men won’t (I won’t exclude trans men from that). If women get equal pay, that would end benefiting the family. Paid maternity leave usually benefit children, doesn’t discriminate among boys and girls.

Rights have impact beyond the direct subject of those rights.

The thing with MRA is that the most vocal (or known) men in there are like Julie Bindel. Polemist at best. So instead asking for logical things like paternity leave, they complain about laws against domestic violence. And call those laws misandry. Because in their opinion, that a women can sue his husband for beating her, is “unfair to men”. Notice that men can also sue if their partner beats them and we might talk about how for men is more difficult to sue due social expectations for men (that is a problem), but then again, MRA vocal people attack the men who complain about those social expectations that put pressure on them. For example, in my country catholic priest raped boys, those boys weren’t believed and deemed “unmanly” by the “official” MRA here. Think about it, (vocal) MRA here complains about paternity leave and the laws that would prosecute the boys rapist because those same laws would also help women. While I’m tempted to call it madness, there is a logic behind it: the people who use the MRA label, is not for men’s rights, but against women and LGTBI rights. Basically.

The comments about the men’s curfew sound like “reduction to absurd”. I’ll try to expand. Whenever a girl or women is missing, raped or killed, police advice is to “stay home, not walk alone at nights, wear modest clothes”. Well, stay at home at night (in winter that could be as early as 6 pm) is in fact a curfew. So authorities have no problem to impose a curfew to all women who are innocent instead of making streets safe and actually putting rapist in jail. The comment of the curfew is meant to point out the absurdity and unfairness of specting all women to stay in their homes and blaming them for going out if they are raped/abducted/killed. It seems that when you read that out of context, is like coming in the middle of the conversation.

The “men are trash” sound to me similarly to the “women are sluts” or “women are bitches”. I can see a group of men saying things like that when a girlfriend cheats on one of them. Then the group of friends say things like that to show support/solidarity. But it is expected that they don’t really believe that, that they shouldn’t say that in public (internet is public) and that when some time pass, that the wronged man move on from that phase (or it would become toxic and abd for him). Usually the “men are trash” is said when women are venting about being wronged. But as I said, internet is public and is not like being in a bar taking out the wronged friend for some beers so he/she can vent and get over it.

Sure, some people would say that for real (see the toxic part). But to be fair, most people would just distance themselves from that person, not challenge them because it is pointless. Once they become toxic, they stop listening and it is a waste of energy that you would only do if you really love that person and want to save them from their own toxicity. (I don’t love Julie Bindel by the way XD).

So I focus my energy in things that I think might work. Like explaining how paid paternity leave improves all the family’s lives. Or how equal pay means less pressure to be a breadwinner. On the other hand, it also means less control over the family, since they are no longer as dependant on the men’s income, so it might be more difficult to justify spending lots of money without explanations or imposing their will on certain economic decisions.

Many things are good or bad depending on perspective/priorities. But to be fair, chances are that if you don’t see many women challenging Julie Binden is for the same reason that you won’t see many men challenging Daryush “Roosh V” Valizadeh when he says that rape should be legal. Yes, he has said that. And the men in his forum vocally agree with that. Do I think that most men agree with that? No, it is absurd. Do I even think that most MRA agree with him? No, again, I think they are fringe. Does he have many followers? Yes, internet is like that. Same with Julie. Click bait makes more money than rational discussion.

I get it, it is tiring when we complain about things that bother/annoy us but that have “been like that” for a long time. And worse, when we do it bluntly, without the typical cooing that women have been taught to do with men. But on the other hand, in the medium-long term is positive. It means that we trust men enough to listen and try to improve things. I mean, take the “dreaded” “mansplaining”. What do you prefer, that we remain silent (while still annoyed by that and just avoid the men who do it without telling why we are avoiding them) or that we complain in the hopes to be able to have more enjoyable conversations? I don’t say it is easy to change or that “all men” do it. If you don’t do that, then ok, perfect. If you don’t, then they aren’t speaking about you.

For me it is better that people say what they think/feel (yes, even Roosh). That way I know where I stand with them. I would avoid the people like Roosh (or Julie). Try to reach agreement with reasonable people. Letting them speak their mind help me identify in which group are each person. You can even use “association” to do that. If they say “Julie Binden is right” you know that you should avoid that person.

I’m practical, I don’t expect men to challenge most misogynist like Roosh (won’t make sense for them even if they disagree with him since I would get them nowhere). I would expect reasonable men to avoid him and his followers. Your time is limited and is better used asking for, I don’t know, better emotional education for boys, more ways to help isolated men (who are not toxic) since loneliness is one of the reasons many men commit suicide. There are plenty of better things to use your time that going to return of the kings and tell very toxic people that rape is wrong (and can also happen to men). But the same happen to feminist, discussing with the Julie’s is a waste of time and fighting for body integrity, equal rights in practice (not just theory) and opportunities is difficult enough. So no, we aren’t going to prioritize pointless discussion with the Julie’s of the world over saying other things. Not because we hate men, but because we give them enough credit to avoid the Julie’s. She is clickbait, so we don’t give her visits (and as a result we won’t comment either). Clicks are money. Don’t feed the troll and all that XD I hope that make sense.