Red Pilled and Black Listed: The Merits & Misconceptions of the Men’s Rights Movement
- Francesca Howard
- Aug 5
- 2 min read
Updated: Sep 11
As a society, we pride ourselves on protecting the vulnerable—except, it seems, when those vulnerable people are men. Today, simply acknowledging that men don’t always have it easy is enough to get you branded a traitor to the feminist cause. But the real problem isn’t that some people dare to speak up; it’s that most of us don’t even when we should. It’s the way gender equality somehow feels like a lost cause with the never-ending tug-of-war between feminists (who support equal rights for women) and masculinists (who advocate for the rights and needs of men). Most troubling of all, it’s that the radical rhetoric from a small but vocal minority of men’s rights activists has created widespread misconceptions about the entire movement, preventing meaningful discussions about how feminism and masculinism could actually work together to build a more equitable society.
Men’s rights activists draw necessary attention to the plight of men: problems such as educational disparities, family court bias, workplace fatalities, and soaring suicide rates, all of which are often overlooked in mainstream media because of how polarized gender politics have become. The MRM is a loose network of organizations and influencers, each with a unique approach to tackling these many systemic and cultural issues affecting boys and men. Like any social cause, the MRM has its share of radical outliers who have regrettably become the public face of the movement and exacerbated tensions. Unlike feminism, which is not judged by the words and actions of its most extreme proponents, the entire MRM is collectively held accountable for its most outspoken chauvinists.
As a result, the movement gets labeled as inherently misogynistic and cultish. This
double standard is intellectually dishonest and reveals an unwillingness to engage with
viewpoints that challenge the dominant narrative. Indeed, caring about men’s issues is not a form of misogyny. This lazy and pernicious argument prevents constructive dialogue and creates a false binary: us versus them, women versus men, feminism versus masculinism. And yet, gender equity is no zero-sum game. Engaging with the critiques of the MRM is an essential first step toward achieving gender parity.
See the full paper below.
Comments