Well that's a buzz title if I've ever written one, so let me start by doing this:
To the radical feminists: Yes, I am a pig-headed man who enjoys rape, who's in favour of rape culture and women behind the kitchen to make sandwiches for me. Women are CLEARLY inferior to men!!!
To the radical MRAs: Yes, I am a traitor to my gender who was indoctrinated by the feminists to believe that men are nothing but evil rapists who want to rule the world. Women are CLEARLY far more manipulative than men!!!
So yeah, if any of these thoughts entered your mind by just reading the title, don't bother commenting. I'm not going to respond.
EDIT: To clarify: these thread is about feminism and the MRM in the Western world. That means North-America, Europe, Australia and Isreal and South-Africa to lesser extents. I know that not everyone is as priviliged as we from the Western world are, nor do I have any idea how we should try to help those people. Hell, I'm not even sure whether we SHOULD help them, considering that we're not dealing with people who share the same thoughts, socializations and philosophies.
But suffice it to say, I am not a fan of either of these ideologies and I would go so far as to say that I reject them and the solutions they're advocated to bring. I do not believe either of these ideologies would bring about gender equality (for as far as that is even possible) and I identify myself as an egalitarianist.
Now, there are so many things that can be said about these things and so many studies and statitistics that can be given to back up arguments. I'm not going to address any of the mostly radical things these ideologies do and will rather focus on the core aspects of both one gender ideologies.
As I said before I reject both ideologies because they don't bring about gender equality. The main reason for this is a common criticism: both ideologies are solely interested in the issues of their own gender. Any interests they may have that could advantage the other gender still have their main motivations in helping their own gender.
Example: feminists are interested in paternal leave because it could help women advantage their career while the men stay home, instead of it helping women advantage their career AND allowing men to form that necessary basis relationship with their baby and toddler children.
Example 2: MRA are interested in changing divorce laws because that way men would have more power during a divorce, instead of it giving men more power during a divorce AND the fact that a child needs both their original father and mother to still be active and present in order to enjoy the best possible mental growth, provided both parents do a good job at raising the child and don't abuse it.
It is my personal experience that most feminists and MRA tend to argue rather one-sided in potential solutions to gender-based problems. In order to achieve the closest thing possible to gender equality one must deal with all the gender-based problems that exist in the 21th century, regardless of what gender we're talking about.
Now, there are two forms of reactions that I've received on average (so there is room for exceptions) to statements similar likes these and I do believe they tend to belong to one of the two specific groups within the ideologies:
1) "The gender our ideology stands for is the real victim and/or their problem far exceeds the other gender's problems!" I would assign this sort of reaction to the radical feminists and MRAs. The reason why I'd argue that these people are the radical ones is because I genuinely believe that the gender problems in the 21th centuries are not that simple that one could just label one gender as the real victim. A joke that I've made often before, and that is rather sexist on both fronts, is that men rule the financial and political world like women rule the courtroom.
Granted, it's an extremely simplistic statement that a great many statistics and studies can try to and possible will refute, but what I'm trying to show by that statement is both genders tend to enjoy advantages and disadvantages. Some of these advantages and disadvantages are unfair and even dangerous, others aren't.
Of course, buzzwords like patriarchy or male slavery don't tend to put many points in these people's favour.
2) The second group of people, whom I'd consider the more rational or moderate feminists and MRAs, have often given me the argument that they are in fact interested in both genders, that they understand that both genders have their problems and that they all need to be fixed. They've joined their ideology to try to work on that.
But the irony to that statement is that both feminism and the MRM have never been designed to achieve gender equality. Granted, it's a very common and popular connotation amongst the members of the two ideologies, but feminism is and has always been an ideology designed to "define, establish and defend a state of equal political, economic, cultural and social rights for women".
The MRM has always been designed to "contest claims that men have greater power, privilige or advantage than women and focuses on what it considers to be issues of male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression".
And to some extent both of the ideologies were necessary, though arguably the MRM far less than feminism. Feminism came about in the 20th century, in a society where women were second class citizens in aspects that didn't make sense anymore. The first wave (and to some extent the second wave) feminists did fight for causes that had to be fought. But come the 21th century and the ideology has become largely outdated because at its very core it still focuses on the problems of women, not human beings. The MRM was a reaction to feminism in the 70's and while I do agree with some of the things they say (similar to how I agree with some of the premises of feminism) I don't believe you need an entire seperate ideology for that.
So I would argue that the more moderate feminists and MRAs who make the claim they have an emotional investment are actually egalitarianists who simply don't realize it or don't choose to assign that label to themselves. There are also people who assign themselves as both feminists/MRAs and egalitarianists, but to me that is nonsensical and at best a tautology.
But why would you call yourself a feminists or an MRA instead of an egalitarianists?
1) Well, the first reason is that both feminism and the MRM are better known and carry more weight in society. It can't be denied that feminists and MRAs tend to have better organisations that garner more money and therefore can protest more and organize better events.
2) Another reason is because of the aforementioned connotation that both ideologies are interested in gender equality when they were never designed to be. The same goes for all the positive PR they're trying to get in order to be seen as a good and necessary ideology.
3) And a third and incredibly vital organisation is that people tend to have a more emotional connection to the two ideologies. Egalitarianism is not well-known and I must confess that at best I know of a few human activist organisations, but no organisation that describes itself as egalitarian. But most people know feministic and MRM organisations, most people might even know or have been raised by others who call themselves feminists or MRAs. People also generally learn about the two ideologies before they learn about egalitarianism or human activism. So I would argue that the socialization of people and the society play a big role. It sells better, it's better known and therefore most people consider it more logical to invest emotional attachment to both ideologies. Two negative consequences of this of course are that lots of people do have difficulties accepting criticism (mostly the radical part) and that some of the people that do acknowledge the shortcomings of the ideology choose to support it due to emotional reasons.
4) And a final reason is the bias by gender. It must be said, but on average men are going to be more interested in male issues and women are going to be more interested in female issues. That is not a bad thing in itself, it's simply natural.
Edit: I should mention here that not every person who considers themself to be a feminist is a woman, nor is any person who considers themself a man. This argument was never meant to say that, however. I'm merely arguing that there is a bias for this, as I have heard from self-defined feminists and MRAs that is one reason, even if they weren't always that willing to admit it. That doesn't mean that I think that every woman who joins the feminist movement is biased because of her gender, nor does the same count for men and the MRM. It is one of the many factors, not just the one.
Phew, that was quite a forum thread, wasn't it? So now we come to the part where I invite people to give their opinions on the matter.
But, I'm going to make a rule about answering them. I know about the emotional attachment that these sorts of discussions carry and I'm not particularly interested in just creating another warzone for pointless insults and arguments.
I will only answer your comment if it fulfills three prerequisities:
1) No insults, no accusations, no ad hominem attacks,...
This one is fairly self-explanatory. I don't want to start trading insults with people.
2) You must show that you have read my entire forum thread and that you know my arguments. I know that people in these forums don't appreciate long texts and I do know that I'm inviting trolls to come and try to annoy me, so this rule will be there so that these people hopefully have less chances to do so. A hint I can give here is that you'd better adress certain points I make and that your explanations should probably be longer than one or two sentences. Addressing my entire explanation under the argument of it being nonsensical or bollocks won't gain in points in my favour either.
3) If I find that the discussion we are having becomes too hostile I will suggest to end it and that at best we can just "agree to disagree". I've been guilty of this as well, but a lot of discussions that start polite and genuine can also turn into huge fights.
Thank you for reading this and have a good day.