comment: >
  
  You have already indicated that there is non-toxic MRA in the form of egalitarian advocacy. Why are you lumping everything together as toxic?
  Why not say anti-feminist MRA is toxic and the MRA that seeks equality is not?
context: Yea, but he also spent a good amount of time perpetuating misogynist myths. >
  
  The article did not really show evidence of Earl doing this.
  Can you provide evidence of him personally spreading any myths? >
  
  It did, but because he died almost 10 years ago the links are broken. 
  It's hard to find unbiased information a decade later, but he did, for example, claim that men are as likely as women to experience domestic abuse. >
  
  You didn't read the article, and you too are perpetuating the myth implying that it poses a much higher risk than it actually does. 
  It's true that that male victms of IPV are much more prevalent than previously thought, but over 80% of intimate partner homicide victims are women, as well as similar percentages of female hospitalizations as compared to male. >
  
  That's just because men can take a beating better, so less die when abused. >
  
  Some are, but that doesn't mean they all are. It's like claiming that PETA members are terrorists because of what some of them do.
  
  My point is aimed at how the MRA communities online dont seem to do much to deal with their complaints
  
  This is every online community. >
  
  
  This is every online community.
  
  r/ MensLib is a great non-toxic, non-misogynist community that focuses on men's issues without hating women. >
  
  I was saying every online community talks about problems but doesn't actually do anything to solve them. >
  
  Providing resources, advice and sharing information is absolutely "doing something".
  At the very least they're part of the solution, not part of the problem, and that's more than most. >
  
  Can you name a problem the community has solved? >
  
  ...the bar for doing good is to completely solve a complex societal issue that has existed for thousands of years? 
  k. >
  
  Can you name a problem that they have done something to solve? >
  
  The online arm doesn't exist in a vacuum, it translates into plenty of real world impact. >
  
  So there's a real issue with group mentality that exists in every cause. The problem is that in order to belong to a group you need to conform to some of its more radical points that are often brought about through hatred and spite. Often these groups will get members during very dark times of the members life and then upload all of their one-sided hatred towards them, instead of just giving them a place to rebuild and leave. This isn't something that just happens towards men's groups, but feminist and LGBTQ groups too. 
  When it comes to men's issues, MRA's are the only real place to go; which is the worst part. Looking at men's lib, you can see that it's controlled by a feminist ideology that all men's issues are caused by other men, and sure a lot of them are, but once you get into issues caused by women you're getting into a point of taboo which can be exhaustingly isolating to deal with. 
  So let's get to the point here. Are all MRA's rebranded misogynists? The first thing is that I feel like these binary terms are more problematic than anything.  The 87% of people who would never sleep with a trans person are by definition transphobic and grouped together with people that actually want to do harm to trans people. The same goes with misogyny. If I had kids, lost them in a custody battle to a brutal mother, and had to advocate for more equality in the court system I'd be a mens right activist, but would I be a misogynist? I'm sure there's definitions out there that would state I am, even if I don't internally feel like women should be subservient to men. That's the problem with branding and groups, some are crazy and some aren't. 
  Often when you have something taboo happen to you, you're either told to take on the burden of that event alone or feel a sense of unity with people you don't fully agree with. You can rebrand these things however you want, but it's not exactly helpful to anything. It just ostracizes people to conform to something that we might otherwise feel is unethical and wrong. >
  
  The problem is unless you are in a situation like you are in then you dont have anything to go on other than whats online, and IMO MRAs just come across that way to me online (i.e misogynists) 
  The only other time I have interacted with them directly was over a post on a mens health subreddit and I got a bit harassed by someone active on /r/mensrights trying to get me to sue a doctor due to the health issue >
  
  That’s online behaviour though. I’ve had people from r/politics follow me around reposting stuff I’ve said out of context. That doesn’t mean there should be a totally negative rebranding attached to those who loosely share their ideology. 
  Negative overarching rebrands contribute to polarization and doubling down on the negative qualities of the group. Going back to my transphobia example, I’ll never entertain the idea of sleeping with someone who is trans. If put into the situation where there might be social shame via calling me transphobic, would you want me to find solace with a group of people that might have harmful intention towards trans people because they’re trans? The problem is if I endure shame to a crippling point I might have to. It’s not wrong to say I’m an anti trans advocate under the specific context of maintaining my own sexual preference against their pre defined taboos, but it’s wrong to say that it’d be a hate group when 87% of people have the exact same sexual behaviour as me. 
  There’s a point where your rights push up against the rights or demands of others. You can’t really fight that in isolation and no matter what you take on the label that further polarizes you from society. 
  Also I generally believe it’s intellectually limiting to not explore taboo that come across from radical groups >
  
  I don’t know anything about online MRA groups but it seems like quite the blanket statement. There are definitely some areas in which men should advocate for themselves because no else will, and I’m sure there are organizations and groups that undertake such advocacy while still thinking that feminism is great and Andrew Tate is a shithead. >
  
  Do you believe it's possible for a feminist to also advocate for equality for men where applicable? And if so, isn't that men's rights advocacy that isn't misogynistic? >
  
  Yes to the first point 
  MRA has become toxic due to the behaviour of the online form of it, I know some use the term Egalitarian as a result