I don't think we have quite the same understanding of a movement, maybe because I used the term "rights" in my original post. Men don't face institutional discrimination; honestly, I'm hard pressed to find a single example of institutional discrimination towards ANY group in the West.

The only oppressive force at play here - whether it be for men, women, racial minorities, etc - is social expectations. How are people in this demographic perceived, how are they expected to act, and how do those preconceptions affect them directly? A social movement is concerned with educating the public, bringing problems that may have gone overlooked to light, not exclusively those problems which stem from legal policy.

Social expectations are a twofold threat. Firstly, they impact how a group is treated in day to day life, which is significant enough on its own. Secondly, social expectations can influence those in power when they create policy. A male politician probably won't introduce a law to deny men voting rights, but he may dismiss laws aimed at addressing female-on-male rape.

What do you think the catalyst was for this resurgence in sensationalism and identity politics? I can't think of a single event or trend that would have given reactionaries so much pull.

I think that your analogy is much more indicative of centralized vs dispersed societies than economic systems, but it's still a good analogy.

One thing I struggle with in considering political ideologies is that they all face the pitfalls of one strategy or the other. Yes, I want individual autonomy, but not at the expense of the higher standard of living and broader range of experiences offered by a centralized society. Yes, I want a higher standard of living, but not at the expense of my ability to pursue self-actualization.

Ideally, there would be some tertiary option where a fleet of small boats travels together in the same direction, sharing resources, but all are able to break away if they don't agree with the main group's heading. The real world equivalent would be a society with the benefits of centralization, but where smaller groups or even individuals can opt out of the social contract. The closest example I can think of is the early US, where the disillusioned could just head west to the frontier. Besides that, it's more wishful thinking than a realistic proposition.

Using empirical demonstratability as the metric by which everything is judged presents the same issue as pursuing rationality for it's own sake: both empiricism and reason are mere tools to serve the individual. Yes, tangible evidence validates most information, but what is the ultimate point of validating information? To ensure that decisions based on that information have the intended effect, of course. That's why I will never understand people who do the opposite; adjust their decisions to reflect a principle like rationality.

I think the comparison between the two (ethics and aesthetics) is valid insofar as both are subjective and abstract. Both are externalizations of our perceptions of things: good and bad are not inherent characteristics of people, just as beautiful or ugly are not inherent characteristics of an artwork. Those descriptors to not refer to anything materially real, but rather our reactions to a real thing or phenomenon.

In other words how can I get behind a movement about my gender when I'm still facing a battlefront of what I look like? — Anaxagoras

These things aren't mutually exclusive. The point of social advocacy for a certain group is shifting perception of that group is a less restrictive direction. You can simultaneously challenge expectations based on your race and your sex, because the goal of both is the same: making it easier to live as the person you are, and not the person some may see you as.

And who's to say that reproductive rights is a uniquely female issue? What about men forced to pay child support for children conceived without their knowledge, because a woman lied about being on birth control?

Several of the issues I listed are exclusive to men, and all affect men disproportionately. Being coerced into military service only happens to men; women may join, but there has never been pressure for them to do so. Women are never discouraged from seeking emotional support; they're expected to seek it, and that support is almost always available to them. This should not be a competition for which sex has it worse.

Thanks for your response, I totally agree with you. A few others have brought this up, and I didn't mean to imply that people are incapable of understanding the opposite sex. I meant to say that understanding begins when a group (in this case, men) makes their struggles known, and others listen; we can't just expect everyone to intuitively know what others face without first being told.

No, men aren't a homogeneous group with a uniform set of experiences. Like you pointed out, no demographic is. But there are enough issues which uniquely or disproportionately affect men that I think a dinstinct movement to address them may have merit.

One more thing, I actually really like your last paragraph. I feel that people have a tendency to think only in absolutes; "essentialism has caused issues for people, so essentialism is bad and constructionism is good." The truth is much more nuanced than that. There ARE essential differences between men and women which make it sensible for them to fill different roles, the danger is in letting those roles become rigid expectations. Something that works for most individuals and society as a whole may not work for certain individuals: some men aren't suited to combat, some women aren't suited to family life, etc. I think it would be so much easier to discuss these sorts of topics if people took outliers as a given.

I already explained why delegating men's issues to feminism is impractical. It's insignificant whether feminists try to address men's issues or not; the fact remains that the feminist movement is female-dominated, and unless you would be comfortable trusting women's issues to a group that's male-dominated, I'm sure you can understand the need for seperate movements.

It seems that whenever social activism for men is mentioned, people invariably try to make it a universal cause. "That's not a men's issue, that's just a human issue," etc. This is problematic in several ways: firstly, it implies either that there are no challenges unique to men, or that men don't have unique authority to speak out about such challenges. Secondly, it implies that there is something threatening and/or undesirable about a movement for men's issues, presumably that it's "divisve" or an instance of "identity politics."

The double standard here is that none of these arguments are made for feminism. Everyone recognizes the existence of women's issues, which uniquely or disproportionately affect women. Everybody recognizes that, as the ones experiencing these challenges firsthand, women have a unique authority to speak about them. Almost nobody dismisses feminism as identity politics; intellectual circles recognize feminism as a valid movement, not compensation for a lack if individual identity. I'd just like to know what's different between advocacy for men and advocacy for women which makes the former unnecessary and the latter commendable.

The fundamental problem is that our culture teaches us to pursue ephemeral pleasure and avoid commitment whenever possible. Of course a healthy, intimate relationship is more fulfilling than a constant stream of one night stands, but people have been conditioned to give up on the former and glorify the latter. This lack of delayed gratification is a problem in all areas, not just relationships, although relationships are one area where it becomes painfully clear.

If I had to prioritize one thing, it would be expanding resources that offer men emotional support, things like outreach groups, group therapy, etc. The most severe issue at hand is probably male alienation and suicide.

Referring back to my full question, there is no "distinct, credible men's rights movement." The existing quote-on-quote movement is a joke, because most of the people in it are trolls rather than activists.

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but there are gnostic and agnostic iterations of both theism and atheism. Gnostic means that they profess certainty, which I agree is strange and rather dishonest, while agnostic means that they admit uncertainty but lean one way or another for whatever reason. Personally, I'm an agnostic theist.

If feminism were equally inclusive of both genders, it would no longer be feminism, it would be egalitarianism. I definitely don't think that the modern feminist movement is equally driven by men and women, even if many feminist are concerned about men's issues. IMO, having seperate movements would be far easier than trying to equally represent the two perspectives within one movement, but I'm open to debate on that point.

Also... just disregard the two people above who aren't adding anything to the discussion. They're definitely not on the same page, and I'm getting a moderator for one of them.

The sexes are definitely able to understand each other, but that's only possible with the kind of discourse I'd like to encourage. Feminism is perpetuated by women who make their negative experiences known; I'd like to see men do the same, and hopefully start a narrative between sexes which isn't one sided.

I didn't mean to imply that women don't face comparable issues to the ones I described, but they aren't the same. The intention isn't to give close minded people a "defense" again feminism. That entire mindset is the issue; a movement dedicated to helping women is not an attack on men, and a movement dedicated to helping men would not be an attack on women. They should be two sides of the same coin.

My point wasn't that men are the only ones who go to war, but that they're the ones expected to do so when it becomes necessary. Not discounting Senator Ducksworth's sacrifice, but she chose to serve of her own volition and without a social obligation to do so, while the same can't be said of many young men in service. The danger of gender norms is that they coerce people into decision that they might otherwise avoid.

As I said to Bitter Crank, most "rights" movements now are misnomers. There are few, if any, legal rights possessed by one gender but not the other, at least in developed western countries. If not exactly men's rights, the movement in question would fight for men's self-determination in the same way feminist movements do for women.

As you pointed out, because there are few commonalities within a sex, political movements based on sex are not universally appealing. However, I think there are enough common interests for men to warrant some kind of political attention, or at the least, a social movement that recognizes their struggles and offers support. Community support is something troubled men aren't taught to seek or expect.

Yeah, maybe not rights per se, but some sort of "meninism". I think rights movements stopped focusing on legal enfranchisement a long time ago, now it's just a catch all for the self-actualization of a social group.