Here's an interesting concept. If men and women are equal then why do we need men's rights or women's right... shouldn't both have the exact same rights and therefore any specificity such as men or women's rights is in fact sexist? The only reason for men's right and women's rights to exist separately is if men and women aren't equal and if they aren't equal then they surely don't deserve the same rights, right?
The argument Feminists and MRAs would make (and to some extent they'd both be correct), is that men and women aren't treated equally under the law (or society in general), and we need to rectify this unequal treatment. The problem is (as you point out) that men and women are, in fact, not entirely equal, and thus should be treated differently, if not by the letter of the law, then by society.
The argument Feminists and MRAs would make (and to some extent they'd both be correct), is that men and women aren't treated equally under the law (or society in general)
The issue I have is that this is true; most laws favor women if they a favor a gender at all, yet these so-called "women's rights advocates" are trying to con everyone into believing that they're the equivalent of a 1905 suffragette. The men's rights movement is a direct response to society moving the benchmark past neutrality and into gynocentricity.
This double standard is evident to anyone who cares to pay attention, such as the outcry of "it's never OK to hit a woman" whenever we see a video of a complete bitch assaulting her boyfriend or husband and then he has the gall to fight back.
This is why I dislike MRAs. They actually think men and women are equal and deserve equal treatment under the law. Meanwhile feminists understand men and women aren't equal, pretend they want equality while push for women having better treatment under the law. I can only support men that push for men having better treatment than women under the law.
Here's an interesting concept. If men and women are equal then why do we need men's rights or women's right... shouldn't both have the exact same rights and therefore any specificity such as men or women's rights is in fact sexist? The only reason for men's right and women's rights to exist separately is if men and women aren't equal and if they aren't equal then they surely don't deserve the same rights, right?
The argument Feminists and MRAs would make (and to some extent they'd both be correct), is that men and women aren't treated equally under the law (or society in general), and we need to rectify this unequal treatment. The problem is (as you point out) that men and women are, in fact, not entirely equal, and thus should be treated differently, if not by the letter of the law, then by society.
The issue I have is that this is true; most laws favor women if they a favor a gender at all, yet these so-called "women's rights advocates" are trying to con everyone into believing that they're the equivalent of a 1905 suffragette. The men's rights movement is a direct response to society moving the benchmark past neutrality and into gynocentricity.
This double standard is evident to anyone who cares to pay attention, such as the outcry of "it's never OK to hit a woman" whenever we see a video of a complete bitch assaulting her boyfriend or husband and then he has the gall to fight back.
This is why I dislike MRAs. They actually think men and women are equal and deserve equal treatment under the law. Meanwhile feminists understand men and women aren't equal, pretend they want equality while push for women having better treatment under the law. I can only support men that push for men having better treatment than women under the law.