[dropcap]A[/dropcap] commonly asked question by those on the fence about both men’s rights and feminism is what the difference is between the two movements. Feminism has been around for over five decades and the public is understandably more familiar as a movement.

When people hear the word feminist, even if the first image that comes to their mind is an overweight angry lesbian, they still tend to associate the word with women’s rights. Men’s rights is straight forward with the name. So basically, the average “on the fence” person would think feminism for girls and men’s rights for boys; two movements that are the polar opposites of each other. This is how most people define the two movements and it is understandable how many would come to this conclusion. Of course, all of those people would be wrong.

Recently I have argued with two people over this subject. One was a feminist bigot and the other was another one of those neutral “why can there never be any common ground between Men’s Right’s and Feminism?” observers. These two arguments I had with these two completely different people were interesting for one reason; they both could not argue against the Men’s Right’s Movement without conflating the term MRA with men. When I say argue against I don’t mean arguing against the goals of the MRM…well with the feminist I do but not with the neutral observer. I mean it in terms of trying to refute one of the main differences between the MRM and Feminism that I brought up. The difference is simple and every MRA, anti-feminist, and feminist knows what that difference is, although feminists usually deny it.

Discriminatory laws and policies have been set in place within western governments by feminists influence that allow legal bigotry against men, while not one law or policy that discriminates against women, in any way, is on the books.

The feminist, as one would expect, denied that there is any discrimination towards men within western legal systems and concluded that if there is, it is justified because of what men did to women in the past. The neutral observer, while having the common sense to recognize the discrimination men face still could not drop his stance that the faults within the MRM are supposedly just as bad as the faults within feminism. This is where the arguments from the neutral observer and the feminist were identical.

When I brought up the fact that MRAs have caused no legal discrimination against women and only wish to abolish the unjust laws set in place by feminism the counterpoint from both the feminist and the neutral observer were “but men in the past set laws in place that discriminated against/oppressed women.”

The feminist, again as one would expect, could not grasp the concept that “MRA” is not synonymous with “man,” however, the neutral observer eventually conceded that MRAs are indeed men and women who oppose the legal bigotry put in place by the feminist movement.

This is something that I feel is a major problem; a very large speed bump in the way of progress towards ending feminist bigotry. As I said before, the common thought surrounding both movements is men vs. women and yet this couldn’t be farther from the truth. However, just for the sake of argument, let’s pretend that the MRM is comprised of nothing but men. That still wouldn’t change the fact that not one discriminatory law against women has been set in place, or attempted, by the MRM.

I’m sure these facts have been pointed out before but I feel they need to be explored again for one very good reason. There are still those who oppose the bigotry feminism has spread, whether they be MRAs, humanists, or simply anti-feminists, who still bring up the discussion about seeking common ground between the MRM and Feminism.

There can be no common ground.

I say this because there is only one way common ground can be reached between the MRM and the feminist movement. Feminists will have to first acknowledge that their movement has spread anti-male bigotry throughout western governments. Whether they want to blame it on “radicals” or “second wavers” or feminist subdivision C subsection 12. It really doesn’t matter which feminists they want to point the finger at, as long as they acknowledge that Feminism is the reason these laws exist.

We are quick to forget the still recent and two of the most important victories against feminist bigotry that occurred in California and West Virginia, where all of the male built, government funded domestic violence shelters would not accept male victims, even if they were accompanied by their children who were also victims of female abuse because of the anti-male polices set in place by the feminists who ran them.

Legal bigotry like this is to this day ignored and denied by feminists because covering up the wrongs done by their movement seems to be more important than legal equality for both men and women. When that bigotry actually is acknowledged it is either deemed justified or blamed on men and women who aren’t “true” feminists. Only the old second wavers could champion something as hateful as denying men and their children help from abusive women, right?

But then of course to believe that we would have to ignore how “third wave” poster girl and leader Jessica Valenti would be more than happy to take away every man’s right to due process in court when accused of rape. And yes I do mean only a man’s right to due process. Valenti was very specific about what gender rapists are when she proposed her most recent suggestion of anti-male bigotry. So as I was saying, for there to be common ground between the MRM and feminism there would have to be an acknowledgement that feminism has done substantial harm to men over the last half century.

Does this mean the MRM is without faults? Of course not. That was never the point. I have not agreed with every idea I have seen from MRAs on how to solve the current crisis men face within western nations. However, the main goals of the MRM are as follows;

Default 50/50 Custody of Children After a Divorce: Meaning neither the wife or husband can argue over who gets the kids unless there is an actual case of abuse or misconduct. You know, in the case that one of them actually is an unfit parent, instead of human emotions, spite, and lies deciding who gets to be a parent to children.

Abolishing Forced Child Support: This solution would coincide with the 50/50 custody proposal. If both parents have the kids for an equal amount of time then each parent can support them when it is their time to have custody. People, mostly men, are sent to prison because they cannot afford to pay child support and a lot of the time the “child” support isn’t even being spent on the child. In reality, it is just another form of alimony. Neither should exist. However, since ending child support probably won’t happen before we colonize mars there is a simple suggestion MRAs have put on the table.

His wallet, his choice.

Unwanted pregnancies happen. Sometimes it is a man’s fault, sometimes it is a woman’s, but most of the time it is the fault of both. Either of the two can make decisions and choices that lead, or don’t lead, to a pregnancy. The mutuality in choices end here.

Before the child is even considered a child the woman has the option of aborting the pregnancy. The most common reason for abortion is because the woman is not ready/doesn’t want to be a mother. She either doesn’t want or isn’t ready for the financial and emotional responsibilities of being a parent. Lucky for her, she doesn’t have to. This is completely her choice and I feel it should be. It is her body after all. If she doesn’t want to have an abortion for whatever reason and still doesn’t want/isn’t ready to be a parent, she can either leave the child up for adoption or abandon it, legally. Responsibility gone and all is right with the world, right?Well if you are a woman, yes.

Men, on the other hand, have two options; give the mother of their child money or go to jail. Doesn’t seem fair, does it? Well if you aren’t a feminist then no it doesn’t seem fair. Here is how it can be fair? If an unwanted pregnancy occurs and the woman actually decides to tell the guy instead of tracking him down and showing up at his doorstep however many years later demanding money, the man should be given a choice similar to that of the woman. He should be able to relinquish all of his parental and financial responsibilities before the child is born. Before the child is considered a child.

Take note that I am not talking about opting out of taking care of kids that have already been born after a divorce. Simply put, just like the woman has the choice of relinquishing her parental and financial responsibilities before and after the child is born, the man is given the option to relinquish his responsibilities before the child is born.

Now if you can hear some squawking and screeching from the house next door that’s probably because a feminist is your next door neighbor and she/he just read the last few sentences of this article. According to them, a man being given the choice to opt out of any financial responsibilities to a child before it is born is selfish and irresponsible, but a woman doing the same thing with abortion is the most holy of freedoms.

Oh and don’t forget women can and do relinquish their responsibilities after the child is born as well. Just put some ear muffs on or crank up the music, I know all too well how annoying feminist screeching can be.

VAWA Reform: I personally wouldn’t mind the name being changed to the Violence against People Act. But regardless of the name, the standards in which it is enforced need to change. Men are routinely arrested by police who answer domestic violence calls, even when it is men who make the call asking for help, and this is just when they do not defend themselves.

Men who dare to defend themselves when being attacked by a violent female partner have almost no chance of seeing their abuser arrested.

On the other hand, one punch from a man who has had enough of being beaten with fists, frying pans, umbrellas, sticks, hammers, knives, wrenches, and other household items will bruise his attacker and in our society a woman with a bruised face is automatically an innocent victim.

Men with bloody faces and knife wounds are ridiculed and asked what they did to upset their wives and/or girlfriends. Men who have their penises cut off are laughed at and their abusers are showcased on talk shows as heroes.

This double standard that is the law; a law created by our feminist friendly vice president, is vehemently defended not only by feminists, but by chivalrously socialized men, too. Men are stronger than women, therefore men should not hit women in self defense because men can do more damage, therefore men are the bigger problem in domestic violence.

This discrimination must be changed. Men should not be automatically hauled off by police in a domestic violence disturbance just because they are the “primary aggressor,” which to police means the bigger and stronger person involved in the disturbance. If police can not figure out who started the fight then both parties should be arrested. Tears shouldn’t determine which side has more merit.

Intoxicated Rape: If a person drinks too much and passes out and someone else proceeds to have sex with that person, a rape has occurred…that is, if the person who passed out was female. Legally, women could not be convicted of raping a man until recently. Just so there is no confusion, a man can still be given an erection, even when he is passed out. Beyond this, due largely in part to feminist rape hysteria, a man who sleeps with a woman that is intoxicated can be brought up on the charge of rape, even if that man was intoxicated himself.

This is wrong, plain and simple. People, young people especially, have sex while intoxicated all the time. I understand that there is a point when someone drinks too much and their perception gets thrown off, I’ve been there many times. However, I was still sensible enough to know if someone was trying to rip my pants off. Of course that doesn’t mean everyone can drink and remain aware of what is going on around them. However, the general public and the law only seems concerned when women are the ones drinking themselves into oblivion.

A woman who has had too many drinks and decides to go out on the dance floor of some club, find a guy, jump in his car, go home with him, and have sex somehow becomes a rape victim when she wakes up with a hangover and doesn’t know who the guy is sleeping next to her. That same guy could wake up with the same hangover because contrary to the rape hysteria, men drink too. That same guy could have a foggy memory about what happened the night prior and be wondering just who the hell the woman is laying next to him.

Both of them could have several reasons to feel that what happened that night was a mistake, however, the woman is the only one with the option to use rape as a cover story. Men having sex with women that have been drinking are not rapists. I cannot say it any more plainly than that.

False Rape Accusations: Feminists are sick to death of hearing about this growing problem. Those who oppose feminist bigotry, myself included, haven’t heard enough. Whenever I see acknowledgement from feminists that women actually do lie about rape for reasons other than “rape culture” induced slut shaming, it is usually a nonchalant and brushed off as not important.

Recently I read an article from a feminist posing as a masculinist advocating that everyone should stop raising awareness about false rape accusations and the next to nothing punishment women usually receive for making them. Why? Because raising awareness about false rape accusations and advocating that the women who file them should receive harsher punishments actually increases the number of false accusations made.  Well, at least he acknowledged that the rate of false rape accusations aren’t stuck at 2-8%. It’s a start…right? One step at a time.

The truth of the matter is false rape accusations have seen men’s lives destroyed and killed,  throughout history. It was, in fact, legal to kill men accused of rape not too long ago and it is socially accepted today. And when I say accused, I do mean accused, not convicted.

Now you would think that something so bad it could get a man killed would be given stricter punishments by a fair and just legal system to discourage its practice, but no. According to chivalry the law, false rape accusations are not serious enough a crime to merit a long prison sentence. One could argue that not all women who falsely accuse men of rape do so out of malice or to seek attention and you would be right. Sometimes women make mistakes about who they accuse and no one would want to send someone to prison just because they made a mistake.

So maybe that is a good reason to not give women who make false rape accusations a long prison sentence. But hold on…aren’t innocent men falsely accused of rape sent to prison for several years? Some over 20 years? I understand that with our not so perfect legal system that the innocent will sometimes suffer and the guilty will sometimes slip through the cracks but the way I see it is chivalry the law is set up to ensure that when the accusation of rape is concerned, innocent men are more likely to receive punishment as opposed to innocent women.

The MRM advocates that men accused of rape are not “perp walked,” and kept out of the media like their accusers are and considered innocent until proven guilty. The MRM advocates that women who falsely accuse men of rape are given long prison sentences similar to the sentences those innocent men would receive if convicted.

For those of you who do not wish for women that simply make a mistake to be sent to jail while her actual rapist is still free I have a suggestion. If her accusation is proven false it should then be proven whether or not there was an ulterior motive for the false accusation such as “teaching the man a lesson,” covering up infidelity, winning a custody battle, getting back at a guy for not giving her a ride home, getting back at a guy because he cheated on her, getting back at a guy because he insulted her, seeking attention, creating an excuse for being late to class, creating an excuse for being late getting home, or because she just felt like it. If none of those or anything similar are the reason she accused an innocent man of rape then hey, no need for jail time.

Male Genital Mutilation: If you’re wondering what this is then my point has already been made. MGM is legally and socially accepted. End it. That is all.  Calling it “circumcision” and adding it to the hospital bill doesn’t make it legit.

These are the main legal reforms MRAs seek to invoke and not one of them, I’ll type it again, not one of them, if made law, would take away any rights women have. Now compare that with the constant bombardment of new policies that strip more and more freedoms away from men put out by feminists and you will begin to see how different feminism and the MRM truly are.

Are there bigots within the MRM? Damn straight there are. Do any of those bigots have any type of governmental influence at all? No. Have any of them been allowed to create laws or policies that deny women any of their civil rights?

Not. Fucking. One.

So for all of you men and women who support the MRM and to all of you neutral parties who can’t seem to figure out why MRAs and feminists can’t find common ground; to everyone who thinks The MRM and Feminism are two sides of the same coin, take a closer look at the damn coin. One side endorses legal bigotry while the other seeks to end it. You can’t get any more different than that.