All feminist should be MRAs

Before I continue allow me to accentuate the flaws with my oppositions argument 1) you are adding arguments midway through the debate which is fine but you are treating those arguments as if you said them before. You need to elaborate more on your arguments rather then just produce short bursts of arguments. 2) No, Wikipedia is objective as anyone has the power to change it to fit their agenda. 3) Your argument seems to be appealing to emotion over logical debate which is the common route for argumentation in both MRA and feminism. This is just further discrediting your arguments and does not hold any ground in this debate. 4) You ignore a lot of my reasoning ( eg definitional reasoning, grouping on basis of a definition which you even approved of ) and instead you debate the superficial statements I make rather the analysing what I send across as my message. This is crucial in this type of debate as it is primarily definitional yet you are going on tangent and not bring back to the real picture. 5) You agree with my contention and arguments on multiple occasions like when you say that feminism does not only adress female rights. If it does not only address female rights, it must address male rights which makes them MRAs b definition which I have provided. 6) I would also like to point out how much you rely on pure angst to convey your argument rather then taking a neutral sophisticated tone. You have attacked me which I theory is fine if you do it critically but you attack me on such weak and superficial basis such as " rape doubting " that you only mock your own legitimacy. You are actually making it worse for feminist as this is what they are stereotyped as. 7) The assumptions made are not strengthened rather then just flamboyantly pushed upon us to accept as fact. I even mentioned that I want MRA activist to be feminist yet you continue to attack me for what I have not even said. This is not even debating anymore rather then just you rehashing rebuttals that I have already rebutted. 8) Your rebuttals don't address anything for me to address as you don't understand the very argument I proposed. For example your rebuttal to my al Qaida example completely ignores that I said Muslims and not al Qaida members. Sure, al Qaida is bad as an organisation but MRA is not an organisation as it is simply just a belief or doctrine. They are nots the same as they have nothing to connect them together definition wise. All they are is people who are activist for male rights. 9) this is an honest question, have you read my argument or did you just respond in haste as you had no time or you were busy? I really did respond to everything you said pretty well and I have faith that you have decent comprehension skills to see the logic over emotion., 10) Why do you constantly come back to feminism? I can understand your patriarchy argument requires a rehash of feminists but this debate is about being a MRA and you still have not once refuted my logic rather then just pandered over emotions and attacks to take away the civilised though play I expected from this website. 11) Your main logic is based on the same logic as racism and sexism. You cluster people as a group and you still can't prove that definition wise MRA's are sexist. Not all MRAs are the same, it is not some Organisation in sync. MRAs are just as different as every other group. Also MRA's have been defined by me. I have defined them as people who support male rights, I never said they don't support female rights but they support male rights and gender equality. In my definition they are the mirror of feminism. I have already pointed out that MRA started as a response to feminism but has evolved over time making it different to before. You also need to look at it in individual sense, if feminist were to become MRA activist then wouldn't you say that both MRA activism and feminism would become less sexist as they could understand each other better? Also they would be able to introduce problems that both sides have experienced to the opposite gender making them appreciate what they have. I have define MRA as someone who believes in gender equality and activism for male rights I have defined a feminist as someone who believes in gender equality and activism for female rights They both believe in gender equality making them by definition, one of each other Gender equality means equality for males and females meaning you cannot be a feminist and a supremacist nor can you be MRA and a supremacist. You are a MRA when you become a feminist as you believe in this gender equality and the same goes for MRA. That is why feminist need to recognise themselves as MRAs. Btw the main reason I talk about feminism becoming MRA is because that is the debate topic. The only way you could rebut this is with the patriarchy argument or that men don't have problems. You agree me have problems and I addressed how it is more efficient to target men's problems individually then wait until patriarchy is gone. We are constantly improving women's rights as the days go one and feminism is spreading more awareness, they can achieve all of this without bring down patriarchy yet . We should do the same for men so they start to recover from their problems before the patriarchy is brought down. If you are really picky on the terminology Then treat humanist as gender equaliser Finally Stick to the definition MRA : for male rights and gender equality Feminism : for female rights and gender equality ( I have justified both these definitions in my last argument ) See the similarities?