And then there's the problem with the theoretical opposition to feminism, the masculinist movement -
You have people like Captain Capitalism, who commodify sex. He's an economist, so I can sort of overlook this.
But he's an economist who treats sex as a commodity, and behaves as if the ideal is a cartel of women - that women daring to break the cartel are breaking a functioning system. In economic terms, a cartel is the -opposite- of a functioning system.
He has some valid points about the commodification of children and child-rearing, and the government cartelization of these, but then gets it into his head that the sex cartel is a good model for gender relations.
Then you have people like Roissy. I've never read Roissy, except secondhand, but I've read enough secondhand to sum up his view of the sexual marketplace - that its modern form fucks over long-term relationships, and specifically the "beta" males inclined to them.
Maybe Aretae is right. Maybe open relationships are the future. But I do know that long-term relationships are just as viable as they always were, even if the government has eroded their practical necessity. Because a long term relationship based on necessity isn't exactly a great social good.
There's a schizophrenic attitude towards children, among such alpha/beta dichotomists, that simultaneously our society coddles them too much and makes things too safe and and and (an attitude I agree with - children should be treated like adults, or they never get the opportunity to grow into them) - and then this deranged position in complete contradiction to this that relationships exist solely to provide stability for children, and fuck the parents.
As much as Roissy and his ilk riff on older women dating, guess what? Older people are the most successful at forming long-term relationships. Marrying young isn't an ideal we should be returning to - it was a necessity brought on by brutish conditions and short lifespans.
And more, there is neither an alpha nor a beta male. This is clear from the fact that every person asserting their existence has a different definition for what alpha and beta males are. Does John Wayne play alpha characters in his movies? Have you ever noticed that John Wayne was always the seduced, not the seducer, and showed little to no interest in the opposite sex? How does that square with the "alpha" males as described by the likes of Roissy? (Actually, it almost squares well, except he claims that it's just an act to appear more sexually desirable. Apparently alpha males engage in doubleplusgood doublethink.)
Then, on the far side of sex, you have the reactionary masculinists - people pissed off about certain aspects of government or culture. Rape in prisons is a big one.
Now don't get me wrong. Government fucks men over. Rape in prisons, of course. Rape laws which define rape such that women can't rape men, rape laws which deny defendants constitutional rights, the definition of military casualties who happen to be men of military age as enemy combatants regardless of anything else, alimony laws, child support laws which deny the right to challenge paternity, child support laws which deny the right to dissolve paternity status (consider that a major argument for abortion rights is the economic - that women who can't afford children would be forced into poverty, etc), chapter eight laws dissolving successful athletic departments in favor of athletic departments which aren't even desired by the women in the colleges, de facto stricter penalties for men, men being the preferred targets for traffic penalties, on and on and on.
Government fucks women over too, though. Not generally as explicitly, because feminists put up a cry whenever it happens - and I'd add more often when it doesn't, eroding what good the former could have done - but as many grandmothers as grandfathers have been killed in no-knock raids. And as mentioned in the Rejecting Feminism post, everybody has an equal number of male and female ancestors. In the long term, nobody wins, no matter who is oppressed.
Masculinism has at its heart the same fault, the same egalitarian principle which, from its very formulation, is wrong.
Injustice is injustice. The just fight it regardless of label or target - or worst of all, perception of egalitarianism, one injustice to balance out another. Justice is.
The fastest way to identify an Unjust person is by the flag they carry, and the manner they carry it. I've yet to see Justice at work under the flags of either feminism or masculinism.