The Way I Am: The Difference Between Men's Rights Movement (MRM) and Feminism

At first glance, the question, “How do Men’s Rights Movement and Feminism differ?” may seem obvious and idiotic. It’s easy to assume what each side stands for. Men’s Rights are for men, Feminism is for women, and both sides just want equality. However this seemingly obvious assumption is not correct. The word Feminism is often associated with the term, women’s rights. However feminism’s focus is not truly dedicated to solely bringing equality for women. It is also about oppressing men. Granted there are different types of feminists whose beliefs differ based on their levels of extreme. I believe most well-intentioned individuals who stand for women’s equality do so because they feel there are parts in society where women are treated unfairly. Women do get paid less than men for working the same job and I absolutely see that is an injustice. This is evidenced as seen here: “According to Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report GAO-04-35, the weekly earnings of full-time working women were about three-fourths of men's during 2001” (Longley). The argument that women should get paid less for doing the same job is simply because, “Women in the workforce are also less likely to work a full-time schedule and are more likely to leave the labor force for longer periods of time than men, further suppressing women's wages” (Longley). The fact that they shouldn’t be paid more because they are likely to take on maternity leave is purely an excuse to keep women oppressed.

Those supporting women’s rights should be commended. However, the term feminist is not the same as women’s rights advocate. The difference is something that all men’s rights activists feel strongly about while hardcore feminists strongly deny: the fact that there are unfair laws and policies set within our government by feminist influence that allow legal discrimination against men while there are no longer any laws or policies that discriminate against women in the books. According to the law, men and women are supposed to be compensated fairly although in reality, it is not exactly true. Just as how the discrimination against women in terms of compensation should be changed, so should the discriminatory laws against men. Many feminists, not women’s rights advocates, vehemently deny that there are prejudiced laws or policies in our legal systems. Some feminists justify their rationale that if there are unequal laws set against men, it is excusable or justifiable since laws against women were allowed in the past.

Most men’s rights advocates (MRA) want to get rid of the discriminatory laws that are unfair to men. Unlike hardcore feminists who wish to oppress men, MRA is not looking to oppress women. An interesting note to make is that most hardcore feminists conflate the term, MRM or MRA, with the word men. Hardcore feminists tend to view the Men’s Rights Movement as men in general, and not men and women who are against bigotry of men. Just like how Women’s Rights Activists can be both women and men, so can the MRA. Hardcore feminists tend to be against men in general. They are not pursuing equality. They are seeking for oppression of men as men oppressed women in the past. This is the ultimate problem however. Most average people without much knowledge of either movement believe that it is simply men versus women and not about bringing equality to both genders. The Men’s Rights Movement has not attempted to set discriminatory laws or policies against women, whereas feminism influence in our government has set discriminatory laws against men.

Many ask why reaching common ground between feminists and the MRM is so difficult. The fact is that no common ground can be reached because hardcore feminists will not acknowledge the fact that their movement has caused discrimination against males. Until then, there can be no common ground.

One of the discriminatory laws that favor women over men automatically is the fact that women overwhelmingly get custody of children after a divorce. “According to some estimates, only about 10 percent to 15 percent of divorced or single fathers have sole custody of their children. The remaining fathers have either joint custody or no custody of their children” (attorneys.com). Courts today use the “best interests of the child” method to determine which parent is best suited to care for the child. One of the factors to determine this is the parent’s bond with the child. Usually, the younger the child, the closer the bond is with the mother than that with the father. This is not an analysis of the characteristics and personality of the father but the following of a stereotypical parenting role. Another factor that determines who should have primary custody is the primary caregiver factor. The parents who takes care of the child’s daily needs such as feeding, bathing, playing, and so on is the one who is seen as the primary caregiver and the courts favor. As one may see, these two factors are automatically unfair to men and is one of the goals of the Men’s Rights Movement. Men’s Rights Activists urge for an initial 50/50 custody of children after a divorce. This means that the wife or husband can debate over the custody of the children unless there is at least circumstantial evidence for abuse towards the child. Custody of children is often used as a weapon against men in divorce because women know that they have a much higher chance to win custody. God forbid, if your marriage didn’t work out, and your wife filed for divorce (majority of divorces are initiated by the wife), that you would very likely lose custody over the children you worked so hard for raising them simply because the two factors: caregiver factor and parent-child bond automatically favors the wife in most cases. You’ve never abused your child by any means, yet because of the stereotypical male gender role of working to bring money in, the husband is very likely to lose custody battles. 50/50 custody is the only fair way unless there is evidence for abuse towards the children.

Another related issue that the MRM wants to draw changes to is the forced child support payment of the non-custodial parent, which as shown before, is most often the male. “Every state allows a court to order a non-custodial parent to pay child support after a divorce” (lawyers.com). Alongside with the 50/50 custody of the child idea, MRA feel that since both parents have the children for an equal amount of time, then both parents should support them when they have custody. Right now, many men who cannot afford to pay child support are sent to prison. Child support is meant to cover means that the child needs, however, in many cases, child support isn’t directly used on the children. It’s really another form of alimony. An interesting case that depicts men who are forced to pay child-support is of television star, Jon Cryer, most well known for Two and a Half Men. According to an article written by Robert Franklin, Jon Cryer must pay child support for his son who he has sole custody over. “Yes, it’s true. Jon Cryer has almost sole custody of his son with Sarah Trigger Cryer. She has 4% of the parenting time; he has the other 96%. So you’d think she’d be paying child support to him, but no. It’s the other way around. He’s paying her because a Los Angeles trial court ordered him to and the appellate court upheld the order. As you read the appellate opinion, continually ask yourself that tried and true question ‘what would happen if the sexes were reversed?’” (Franklin) Frankly, to answer the question posed by Franklin, I highly doubt Sarah Cryer would have to pay child support and take sole custody.

When “accidental” pregnancies happen, the man should be given an option besides paying child support or going to jail. Hang with me here. When undesired pregnancies occur, it is the fault of both. Men who do not want kids should use a condom. To have unprotected sex otherwise is completely irresponsible. Women who do not want kids have many options. Women have the right to choose whether they will have a baby or not. Men do not have this choice. There are no accidental births. If a baby is born, it is because the woman has decided to have a child. If a woman becomes pregnant, it is the woman’s choice, not at all the man’s. Women have 12 different forms of birth control available, there is also morning after-pill or RU486, and abortion available to them. Women in our society are allowed to make the choice of having a baby or not. If abortion is not an option for her due any reason, she can still leave the child up for adoption or abandon it legally. Men do not have any of these options. Men’s Rights Activists support an option for men to be able to abdicate the financial and emotional responsibilities of being a parent before the child is considered a child, just like how women have the option of abdicating her financial and parental responsibilities before and after a baby is born. Most hardcore feminists claim that for men to do this is selfish and irresponsible but a woman doing this through an abortion, legal adoption, or legal abandonment is a freedom that they should have as a form of “female empowerment”.

Men are also highly likely to be the ones arrested during domestic violence calls. This is true even when men are the ones who call asking for help. Husbands who defend themselves when being attacked by an angry wife and ends up bruising the wife, will almost certainly be the one hauled away by the police. While a woman with a bruise is treated as the victim. The argument is that men are too strong for there to be a fair fight against a woman, thus making men the issue in domestic violence calls. Men are arrested in a domestic violence case because they are bigger and stronger than the wife regardless of who was being the actual aggressor. MRA reasonably argue that if police cannot find out who the aggressor was, both the man and woman should be arrested. Obviously if the man was the aggressor and the man was injured while the woman was trying to defend herself, the man should be arrested, but only if the man was the primary aggressor. Size and tears should not be the factors that determine who should be arrested.

This may be the most unfair policy there is against men that is influenced by feminist movement: false rape accusations. Similar to domestic house disturbances, men are falsely accused of rape by women because women know they can use this to their advantage to get back at their men. False rape accusations have destroyed the lives of men accused. Unsurprisingly enough, false rape accusations are not given a serious prison sentence. Now one may argue that this is done to prevent the falsely accused from being punished too long as those raped may accidently accuse an innocent of being the rapist out of making a mistake and not malice. The problems with this is that innocent men accused of rape are often sent to prison for many years while women accused of rape often slip through the cracks of our legal system. The case of Brian Banks, an ex-high school football star was accused of rape by Wanetta Gibson is a perfect example. “It was his word against hers and prosecutors threatened him with life imprisonment if he went to trial, so he pleaded guilty to a rape that he did not commit. He spent five years in jail. When he was released he was surprised when his “victim” asked to befriend him on Facebook. She later admitted that she made the whole thing up but did not want to give back the $1.5 million that she won in a judgment against the school district for her alleged rape. She retains the money despite admitting to lying about the rape” (Turley). Men’s Rights Activists suggest that the men accused of rape are kept out of the media like their accusers are and are innocent until proven guilty. The MRM also supports the notion that women who falsely accuse men of rape are given equally long prison sentences as those innocent men would receive if convicted.

Equality is what the MRM is about. It is about the removal of laws and policies that discriminate against men. The Men’s Rights Movement is not about oppressing women. This is the difference between the MRM and feminism movement. Feminism movement has allowed the empowerment of women but is also focused on oppressing men. Was it fair that women were oppressed by the laws men created? Of course not, and feminists want pay back. Do I understand why feminists are angry? Yes, I do. We all struggle with inequality in our lives. Right now in America, there is a staggering income inequality between the 99% and the top 1%. Many people who support feminism may be doing so without complete realization of the fact that feminism isn’t truly about equality for women. Women’s Rights Activists are about equality for women. Feminism is not.