But where is it written that you can’t be a men’s rights AND a women’s rights activist? What about the MRM makes you or anyone else think that we don’t care about women’s rights? Are you making the assumption that just because I care about circumcision that I can’t care about abortion rights and women’s bodily autonomy? Yes I care that women’s rights to their own bodies are under threat, I also care that male genital mutilation appears to be a national institution. I don’t like that women are traditionally viewed as caregivers and drop out of the workforce disproportionately, nor do I like the fact that men make up the majority of workplace deaths. I have a problem with both the idea that a woman of color is imprisoned for standing her ground in a stand-your-ground state wherein a man killed a young man of color and used the pretense of a similar context during his trial, and I have a problem with men being disproportionately sentenced (which could of course be a race issue as well).
Why can the MRM not be intersection as well? What about “Men’s Rights” other than the perceived race and gender of its members by blogs that perpetuate the MLP watching fedora neckbeard stereotype says “White straight men only?”
It’s not “written” anywhere that MRAs have to be ambivalent or actively hostile towards women’s rights. But that’s the way it is. It doesn’t have to be that way. I wish it weren’t, but wishing doesn’t change the truth. The MRM is a reactionary movement almost entirely dedicated to opposing feminism, the movement for women’s rights. Based on that fact alone, the “movement” as a whole is necessarily and by definition not for women’s rights.
But definitional arguments are not always helpful, so let’s look to the actual conduct of MRAs. The entire movement, from its founders, to its highest-profile adherents, to its most prominent websites and blogs, to the overwhelming majority of rank-and-file members, are all virulently misogynistic and hateful towards women and especially feminists. This is not idle speculation - every person or organization to write about the MRM, who is not affiliated with it themselves, has come to the same conclusion, perhaps most notably the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has denounced the bigotry and hate of the MRM and stopped just short of giving it the official designation of hate group. I’m sure there must be exceptions among MRAs, but they are few and far between, and are all but invisible against the crushing tide of bigots in the movement.
"Why can the MRM not be intersection[al] as well?" Good question. And again, the answer is that it doesn’t have to be that way, but right now it most assuredly is. The MRM is overwhelmingly white and male, and displays nearly as much racism and classism as it does misogyny. This is not necessary or inherent in the “movement,” but it’s still very much true.
Much of your post here sounds almost reasonable, because at first blush it looks like you’re asking reasonable questions. But it appears that, instead of taking this opportunity to actually address the issues within the MRM, you’re just asking these questions rhetorically, and using them to accuse people of unfairly mischaracterizing MRAs. The truth, of course, is that everyone sees the MRM as misogynistic, racist, ignorant and backwards for a reason - because it is. It doesn’t have to be that way, and maybe some day there will be an organization working towards solving unique men’s issues that is respectful, thoughtful, decent, and intersectional. But today is not that day.