I recently had another long and unproductive debate with an MRA, which lead, unfortunately, to nothing good. However, this post is not about him. It can apply to feminists, MRAs, and the religious people.
It’s known that women want one thing from men, and men want something different. One can say that an ideal fantasy life for a man would be sex with lots of hot women, and perhaps love on the side. For a woman, it would be, perhaps, serial monogamy with hot men (or just one awesome man). To give the other what they want, a person has to give up something they wanted. It is true on the individual level.
But does it have to be so on the grand scale? One can say feminism is on the side of women, working to give women what they want, at the expense of men. Not to mention they frame the female fantasy as moral, and the male one as immoral. A sexually expressive woman is confident, a sexually expressive man is an objectifying pervert. We consider it wrong, when feminists throw men under the bus for the sake of women’s happiness. Should the opposite be considered good, then? Or is it just more of the same?
I got this reply:
“It seems we agree that male and female sexuality conflict, and therefore we have two choices – getting male sexuality to conform to female sexuality, or getting female sexuality to conform to male sexuality. I say men and women would be happier if women could be like men, you say civilisation would be better if men could be more like women [not an accurate representation of my opinion, see next paragraphs – EE]. Well this is a men’s rights site, existing in the context where men are forcibly being made to conform to female sexuality, so I have no apologies about choosing male sexuality over female sexuality. We have also suffered numerous feminist troll ‘feMRAs’ using the old trick of suggesting that feminists are ruining civilisation for men and women and…guess what? Men should be more like women, instead of women being like men (which feminists supposedly suggest).
If our sexualities conflict (which evolutionary psychology, common observation, and it seem we ourselves agree) then there is no avoiding a men’s rights being ‘like feminists’ and choosing the side of men. How we can differ from feminists is in telling the truth and being honest.“
Do we really have only two choices, when it comes to the big picture? Either make men’s sexuality conform to the female one, or make women’s sexuality conform to the male one. How about a middle ground, where both give something up (lifelong monogamy)? Or perhaps choose a hands-off approach, where men can freely earn money and status without affirmative action in their way, and let women choose whom they please?
First, I will explain why I think lifelong monogamy is a compromise for both sexes. I was surprised when my conversation partner said that lifelong monogamy was a way to make male sexuality conform to the female one. Depending on whom you talk to, lifelong monogamy is interpreted as
a) Men being subjugated to women’s will
b) Women being subjugated to men’s will
c) Both being limited
I believe c) is correct. While this arrangement does give benefits to the woman, it also locks her in without access to men she would normally “test drive”. She might be stuck with a boring beta man, who otherwise would not have gotten her. While my conversation partner will say monogamy is just a way for older women to eliminate younger competition, I will say it is also a way for each man to have at least one woman close to his own attractiveness, and not lower. I think it makes men calmer and stabilizes society.
I will also say, to clear up any misunderstandings, that I’m not pro enforcing strict monogamy, but would rather let the free market fix it.
Now, onto the discussion of female interests vs. male interests. The man I debated with admits that, like feminists, he is willing to elevate his sexuality over the one of the opposite sex. However, he at least doesn’t lie about it, and isn’t willing to use forceful, oppressive measures to make it happen. I’ll give him that. But I see issues with the goal itself.
1) Feminists do exactly the same. They say “we just want equality between the sexes, not female supremacy”, but they at the same time define male sexuality as lower than the female one. Then they either demand men turn into women (because it’s better for women AND men), OR they simply pretend men are ALREADY like women (like when they say their reaction to waking up to sex with a woman is the same as a woman would have).
2) If you admit you want to remake the other sex into your own image, you are on the same level as those who demand the opposite. Technically, both are insolent to demand such things. They are simply two rival factions, two among thousands, who want people on Earth to have sex in the ideal way they created in their heads. It becomes even worse, when your enemy has strength, and you don’t. Then all it is, is one selfish faction wiping out another selfish faction. Neither memorable, nor a tragedy.
When one fights for freedom, justice and truth, and against REAL abuses, one at least has something on the selfish enemy, even when they are much stronger. A higher moral ground. When one fights for those things, yet would like them more for themselves and somewhat less for others, all one has is those who want the same things – and the same number of people who want exactly the opposite. It’s like a war, where everyone fights for resources, and no one is really right or wrong. Although I admit it can still help free people, if the new winners can live up to their promises and not exploit their new position of power.
At last, I will say that I have no problem at all that the MRM is mainly about men’s issues. It is in the definition. It is as it should be. Those things need to be done. However, since I don’t suffer from internal inconsistencies, I frown upon any side (MRM or feminism) when they try to grab more than they earned; more than justice, truth and freedom.
What do you think?