All feminist should be MRAs

My apologies, source police, but seeing as you didn't even use a single source yet, I'm gonna go ahead and use Wikipedia. My point in bringing up the origins of the MRM is that it hasn't really changed. Movements change, this one hasn't. Also, no source is objective but seeing as you just assume everyone takes your word as law, I'm going to assume I'm right. Get some "objective" source to contradict me and we can have a debate. Jesus Christ. Do I literally have to say not all men before every statement? I even said "Most MRAs" but you said "feminists", as in all feminists! Is this a game you wanna play, buddy? By the way, feminism isn't the focus on JUST female issues, it is the focus on gender equality, and most feminists would recognize the bias against women called the Patriarchy. Our goal: gender equality. Our mission statement: "Down with the Patriarchy!" My "generalization" was an ad hominem, but wasn't an ad hominem fallacy. I was making an attack on their characters, but I demonstrated this. If I were to call you ugly and thus I am right, then I would be comitting an ad hominem fallacy. Please learn the difference before you accuse me of this again. "They [feminists] need to be MRAs." That's what we call in the business a MAJOR WHOPPING DOUBLE STANDARD. You never once mention how MRAs should become feminists to achieve equality either. You must demonstrate why F must become M, and M does not have to become F. If not, then I think we can dismiss your entire premise, which is not about feminism and MRAs, but that F must become M. Here is where you got those stereotypes wrong. One) Al-Qaeda was the specific group behind 9/11, and you can assume members of Al-Qaeda are at least dangerous. Same with whale hunters. The specific group was whale hunters hunting whales, so to assume all Japanese people hate animals is doubly wrong (where did all animals come from?). By the way, if one is to criticize a movement, one must look at it's actions. You bring up Ban Bossy and Sorry not Sorry in response to the Don't Be that Girl (you say we can talk about these later, but you best believe I am gonna refute these right now). Ban Bossy was a campaign to stop girls from getting called bossy in leadership roles. You know, since women are disproportionately NOT represented in leadership positions? YEAH, THAT'S JUST AS BAD AS PUTTING MORE DOUBT ON RAPE CASES. I can't talk about Sorry not Sorry, since you gave no link. Actually, you are criticizing a movement which is the same as I was doing. You then bring up female MRAs (never said there wasn't any, but okay). This doesn't change the fact that the MRM is a largely sexist movement to the detriment of women. And men. Actually, I'd like to see where the MRM has been trying to fix these issues men are up against. Actually, since MRM is pretty much just a response to feminism and not actual male issues, then they are opposing views. Oh, please stop griping on me for using Wikipedia once. Kind of hypocritical coming from a person that is getting their information from the voices in their heads. Before I tackle your next paragraph, could you explain this sentence for me: "Female problems are being addressed now, so should make problems." What are you even saying? Anyway, I find your response to be pretty stupid, since we can address male and female problems by destroying the patriarchy. But yeah, let's help the men get the cracks filled in on their priviledge while the stupid women keep whining about lower pay and not enough representation in Congress, am I right? (Note, sarcasm was used.) OR we can have a single movement (hint, it's feminism) that says a woman is a physically equal competetor and if you get ashamed by being beat by one, it's your problem. Just wondering, if I stabbed you in the leg with a fork (an attack) would you feel better or worse if I expected you to hold the fork in your hand correctly (a standard). Hold the eff up, I'd like a better response to a large chunk of my response buddy. You gave examples, I showed how these were wrong. Now you have to get another example. I'm not doing your work for you, that's not how this is going to go down. By your very definition, an MRA (Male Rights Activist, not make rights activists as you say at least twice) is for the rights of men, but not women. I mean, you admitted to that. A humanist believesin natural responses to human problems rather than supernatural responses to human problems. Basically, if there is a flood, a humanist would like to send money and food for the victims instead of praying. A feminist can be a humanist, and a humanist can be a feminist. "Overall, unless you are saying men have no problems at all, we should all be MRAs much like we should all be feminist." Well men have problems, but until you give some accurate examples, I feel comfortable saying these problems are due to the Patriarchy imposing a value of "manly masculinity" on boys. You haven't shown how MRAs actually strive to see equality between the sexes, and I have given examples of how they have really been a cute little disguise for promoting sexism.