Trigger words: equal (5) equally equality (2)
Indicator sentences: You're misunderstanding the type of equality in question.
Negotiation parts: Two things can be equal in some respects but not in others. When feminists argue for equality between men and women they are not (usually) claiming that men are identical to women.
Trigger words: feminism (6) feminist movement
Indicator sentences: feminists might agree, in theory, that there are some areas where men are disadvantaged but they are not going to advocate for those issues to any noticeable extent because that isn't what the movement is about.
Negotiation parts: You have to remember that feminism has a very large political/agend-ized component to it and the ultimate goal isn't to be as ideologically consistent as possible with regards to "equality", which is why you don't see feminists going to bat for "men's rights" issues. There is a reason why many feminists prefer to be called feminist than egalitarian; the focus is on women's issues. Hmm. I suppose I equated feminism with gender equality. I guess when I think of MRA they only focus on the mens issues rather than women. ∆ However this seems to only apply to my draft argument. They simply haven't addressed the issue. However with domestic abuse and rape issues feminists have taken a stance and I dont think it can coexist with men and women being equal. I don't disagree that mainstream positions on issues like that can definitely be a little inconsistent, but again you have to remember feminism is primarily about women's rights. Your rape example, yes there is definitely a double standard. Double standards aren't equality. An even better example for your first one - female on male domestic violence. There's a huge double-standard there but you don't see advocacy for that in the larger feminist community because it isn't a women's issue, which in large part supersedes the fact that there are some highly inequitable issues in our society. Many/most feminists will pay lip service to those kinds of issues, but the proof is in the pudding - the fact that there isn't really any *action* on those issues shows you that it is really about (beneficial) equality *for women*, not just "equality" as an altruistic goal.
Trigger words: rape
Indicator sentences: This is also false.
Negotiation parts: In reality mainstream feminist thought acknowledges rape of men only if perpetrated by another men via penetration. Mary Koss, who literally informed the FBI definition of rape, is on record saying that women can not rape men. This is also the most prevalent view of the general public.
Trigger words: feminist (3) feminists Feminist
Indicator sentences: Ultimately I think this really comes down to how we define feminism
Negotiation parts: Is feminism an academic definition as written down by a team of well respected sociologists? Or can feminism be understood as the aggregate beliefs and actions of everyone who says "Im a feminist" ? I think people will readily come to defend the academic definition of feminism which basically states that feminism wants equality for men and women, and that gender issues are important on both sides of the spectrum. It would be hard to have a problem with feminism if we define it like that. However I think people who have a problem with feminism specifically have a problem with the alleged proponents of feminism, who very clearly are more likely to be biased towards women's issues. It is true that in spirit, Feminism is supposed to be about equality and justice for all, but when we make claims like "95 % of all feminists are concerned with equality in equal measure for both men and women" , we are being dishonest to the reality that the majority of people who call themselves feminist are concerned almost exclusively with women's issues. Now you can argue that people like that aren't "true" feminists, but how is a layperson supposed to distinguish between the two? If we looked at the beliefs of everyone who claims to be feminist, we would find that most of them are disproportionately concerned with womens issues. So sure, you could push that group aside and say that they should be ignored, and they arent part of feminism, but they will still go around telling everyone they're feminist, and more and more their beliefs become associated with mainstream feminism, and it eventually becomes impossible for an outside observer to understand what feminism is, since half of it's proponents seem concerned with equality, and the other half is obsessively concerned only with women's rights. "Feminism" in the way you are describing it exists only as an idea, that intelligent, educated, critical-thinking individuals may understand, but ultimately your perception of feminism is not representative of the general beliefs of the millions of people who describe themselves as feminist. If mens issues are truly as important to you as women's issues, why don't you describe yourself as an egalitarian, so there can be no confusion about your beliefs? If you tell someone you're a feminist, there's no way for them to immediately know whether you believe strongly in equality, if youre only concerned with women's issues, or if you're some sort of radical ideologist, all of those people shortsightedly choose to identify themselves under the same blanket term "feminist", making the statement literally as meaningless as saying "I believe in politics" , "I am a feminist" literally does nothing to narrow down exactly what your beliefs are, the only thing that can be said for certain about people who call themselves feminist is that they dont think men are superior to women. Is that belief seriously specific enough that everyone who holds it needs to be grouped together into a single ideological group? There is definitely logic behind what you're saying but the reason I think it doesnt perfectly apply to feminism is that feminism tries to describe itself as THE global movement for gender equality. As such, as a whole the movement should be equally concerned with men's issues and women's issues. Naturally some people will be more concerned with one or the other, after all people can't possibly focus on every aspect of something they wish to study. You are an egalitarian who happens to focus on race, so one might call you a racial egalitarian. Similarly, one might call a feminist a gender egalitarian. Just as you wouldn't exclusively be concerned with one races issues, a feminist should not exclusively be concerned with women's issues. Egalitarianism requires acknowledging and dealing with inequality on all parts of the spectrum. You could argue that one person could believe in gender equality, but choose to focus on women's issues for the sake of choosing a more specific area of study, and that is a fair point. But when the vast majority of people in a movement that describes itself as egalitarian, focus solely on half of the issues within the movement, although these individuals may still be described as having egalitarian values, the aggregate effect of the movement on society becomes less and less egalitarian, and more biased towards the "segment" of equality that is most commonly focused on within the movement. For a movement or ideology to be truly egalitarian, the proponents must treat all aspects of equality with equal importance, and quite simply put, feminism is a force that claims to be about egalitarianism, but as a whole is more likely to address issues within one half of the spectrum rather than the spectrum as a whole.
Trigger words: rape
Indicator sentences: [No](https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3i395g/this_is_how_mary_p_koss_one_of_the_most_prominent/cud097h). If a woman drugs a man and has penis-in-vagina sex while he's unconscious? That is not rape, it is unwanted contact - according to Mary Koss.