[dragonwriter]

> I wonder if it's possible to be a men's rights activist without being considered a misogynist.

It would be possible if there was a general perception that men were generally and historically, in the context in which one is an activist, oppressed based on their sex, such that being an activist for greater rights for men was consistent with pro-equality interest rather than anti-women interests.

However, there are very few societies on the world where that view is dominant or even a wide minority view, either internally or for external observers, so it's very hard to be a "men's rights activist" without the general perception being that one is acting out an anti-woman worldview.

[belorn]

That is a black-or-white fallacy. You don't need to have a group being historically oppressed in order for discrimination.

Oppression is about liberty for which there is little proof which gender has more. The number of working profession which is excluded for women is exactly the same number for men in countries where both women and men are employed in similar numbers (such as Sweden). Men are equally or even more forbidden to enter areas which are assigned female roles, and the studies that look at this (such as one about the teaching profession) acknowledge that feminism has made some minor progress to make it acceptable to women to move to typical male roles but not the reverse.

Womens right activist has fought a long time that their movement isn't about anti-men world-view, so why is it acceptable to draw that same conclusion on all men's rights activist?

[mistermann]

You're likely correct, but isn't is a bit sad that this is the case? That unless it is generally accepted (regardless of whether or not it is true) that men are discriminated against based on gender in some situations, that the only other possibility is misogyny?

On whether it matters....I had a long conversation on the phone with an old friend yesterday, he is going through a divorce and has so far been bankrupted, been dismissed from his job (due to being obligated to take too many days off to prepare for court), he only gets supervised visits with his son, etc. I predict he will commit suicide within 5 years.

[dragonwriter]

> You're likely correct, but isn't is a bit sad that this is the case?

Are you suggesting:

(1) That it is sad that people assess the likely motivations of actors based on their assessment of the facts of the context of those actor's actions in general, or

(2) That it is sad in specific that people don't see men as factually being an oppressed group such that lobbying for greater rights for them than they currently is something other than attempt to establish dominance at the expense of not-men.

In either case, I'd have to say that, no, I don't think it's particularly sad.

[mistermann]

It's certainly not one because almost no one I know, even the highly educated, form opinions mostly on "assessing facts".

#2 is closer to it, but it's not completely clear what you mean so I can't say whether I agree or not.

Take for instance:

"Men are an oppressed group: True or False"

To me, that seems to be the question you are asking (pardon me if I'm wrong or putting words in your mouth). To me, that question is worse than useless.