Men's Group

However it does present a certain conundrum for them.

They are not telling us in any concrete way what feminists they do support, which planks of the feminist platform are dear and to which they take issue, or even what the basic tenets and principles are. To be a movement, you have to throw your hat in somewhere common. However, to do so would concretize the movement into agreed upon principles, which can be an impediment to some forms of advocacy, specifically like the one you describe.

Personally, I've got no real problems with the idea of advocacy, in and of itself. What I have a problem with is if you won't just come out and say precisely for what it is you are advocating.

For example, some radical feminists have pushed forward the idea that all sex is rape, primarily using the reasoning that in a "patriarchy", women are incapable of giving legitimate consent, therefore, by definition, any time sex has occurred, rape has occurred even if the woman initiates it or responds in the affirmative to an advance. That would be defined as consent, which as they go off at length to say, in a patriarchy, this is not possible. Some have gone further saying that the mere indulgence, even in the mind, of male sexuality is oppressive (the ubiquitous male gaze and other such nonsense).

But what is the advocacy from that statement? Is the statement meant to advocate the idea that all men are rapists who have had sex? By corollary, is the suggestion being made that those who haven't may have thought about it, and thus must be assumed to be? To the extreme some embrace, that all men are rapists because all male expression of sexuality is oppressive in some way, shape, or form?

Maybe this is the argument as put forth, but advocacy is about advocating for something.

If we take this on its face, what is the mandate from this statement? What action follows? Incarceration of all men at birth? If rape is a crime, and all men are rapists, then all men should be punished according to the legal proscription for the commission of said crime.

Logically, this is the advocacy. It follows from the linkage from sex to rape to crime. In fact, no linkage is required, all are the SAME THING according to this line of reasoning.

However, you will never hear that this is the advocacy.

Moreover, if someone actually DID come out and say that "yes, this is exactly what we want", most well-reasoned and sane people, male and female alike, would run screaming from whoever that was for fear of being sucked into their particular no-zone hell dimension. Others might stick around for a bit of terrifying amusement.

And, let me make this clear, I do believe that when someone says "that's NOT what we're advocating" in regards to something like this, that is PRECISELY TRUE.

OK. Fair enough.

Then the question remains, what ARE you advocating for through such principles and statements? What is your end goal? Just tell us so we can understand better. Otherwise, how can we, in good conscience and with willing and open arms EMBRACE IT?

And I think that's just it. I don't think feminists understand feminism anymore. It's ballooned into a sketchy set of principles surrounded by a haze of vitriol and rancor that sense, reason, and most importantly, purpose can no longer penetrate. How precisely the fuck are they going to explain it rationally and cogently to anyone else? How can you advocate for the end of sexism, when all you speak is precisely sexist? How can you advocate for equality when you bristle at its mention? How can you engage reasonable people to your cause, when you refuse to see or speak reason yourself?