system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: MRAs are wrong when they argue that feminism is the mainstream perspective

This past weekend, I watched the documentary *The Red Pill,* a film that features interviews with many prominent MRAs as well as feminist critics of the men's rights movement. I appreciated the film for identifying a lot of important issues that disproportionately affect men. However, I was perplexed by some of the films other claims.

For full disclosure, I am a cis heterosexual White male working in the field of men's studies, and identify politically and theoretically as a feminist.

Several of the film's key voices, such as Paul Elam, argue that feminism is the "mainstream" perspective on gender. For example, they point to the apparent dominance of a view of women as victims and precious and men as oppressors and disposable.

My objection here isn't that this view isn't a predominant perspective. My objection is that this view is actually an *anti-feminist* perspective, one that trades on the sexist stereotypes that once justified preventing women from becoming lawyers or politicians because those careers were too cut-throat for women's supposedly gentle temperaments. I'd argue that most feminists actually oppose the view that women are always passive victims and men are always active aggressors.

Of course, there *are* self-identified feminists that claim that all men are oppressive. Feminism is an incredibly diverse movement. But this view is by no means representative of most feminists and by no means a mainstream view.
gpt
> I'd argue that most feminists actually oppose the view that women are always passive victims and men are always active aggressors.

It isn't about *always*.  Everyone will agree that there are exceptions to the general rule.

But the "general rule" for feminism is that women are oppressed and men are the oppressors.  In fact, that the *whole point* of feminism.  If that isn't the case, then feminism has zero purpose.