"Dude, you're still

"Dude, you're still telling me to go for the cape."

I'm not telling you to attack or chase or fight anything. What I'm trying to do is get you to provide an argument as to why feminism is better for men than men's rights activism, which you seem to want to avoid doing. And please don't refer to me as "dude." This feminist obsession with calling men "dude" is getting really wacky.

"The day MRAs stop blaming feminism every time a bouncer kicks a man out of a titty bar, I'll consider become an MRA."

Um, this is something barely on the mra radar, so I don't know why you've chosen it as your deciding factor. It makes me wonder that deep in your heart you know the mras are right, but will look for the smallest excuse to avoid allying with them because of the personal social ramifications of doing so.

"Unless you can look me in the eye and tell me that Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, John Roberts, Rupert Murdoch, Dick Cheney, Vikram Pandit, Pat Robertson, Pope Benedict, Joe Biden, etc., are feminists then feminism isn't the status quo."

If that's your criteria for deeming something status quo, than nothing ideological can be considered status quo. Feminism has significant influence in politics, government, social institutions and services, and the culture at large. It's part of the status quo along with its oppositions. The men's rights movement is still gaining its legs, which is why almost all mras have to use the internet to find other members, and so obviously not status quo.

"You can't look me in the eye and tell me their interests coincide with men's interests either. "

I've probably told you about half a dozen times now that mras, especially younger ones, generally despise socons. It's not fun discussing a topic with someone who's insistent on forgetting everything you've just said.

"Feminism wants to take down a system that oppresses men and women."

Pure marketing. No one's buying it.

MRAs, imagining that if they could just take down feminism the system would take care of them, just want to take down feminism. 

No they don't. They do consider feminism a huge part of the problem, but they wouldn't be okay with circumcision, the draft, or violence against men if those enabling it weren't nominal feminists. And keep in mind the fact that I'm an mra that talks with other mras. You are not correct in your assessment of their motivations. Part of the reason feminists get so much flack is due to their hypocritical pretense of fighting for gender equality. Socons are upfront about their unequal ideas about gender. 

<i> Which is why I get so

<i> Which is why I get so impatient with people who say feminists are the problem...</i>

Let's look at that for a bit.

While I agree that feminists didn't start the problems that plague men I can understand people getting mad at them when you have those among them that say they are the ones working on the problems mixed in with those who are not only not working on the problems but are actually feeding into them.  When you look at how when some feminists say that men who don't take up and do their part to fight the patriarchy are supporting it (however indirectly)  doesn't also stand to reason that feminists who aren't doing their part to address these problems are also supporting them (however indirectly)?

OK, Fig, but what's your

OK, Fig, but what's your empirical proof for such a statement? I mean, it seems to me that this is the sort of conclusion one arrives at through philosophical or ideological ponderings. Everyone whom I've ever heard talk about this before doesn't have much of a base in either history or anthropology from which to draw this rather sweeping conclusion.

So what's your argument?

As an anthro, I'd say you're trying to put the cart before the horse: you see as cause what's really effect. Almost every feminist anthro I've read of any stature who's looked into this sees patriarchy as an outgrowth of the formation of state-based, agricultural societies. You seem to be making essentially the same argument as Engels, Maine and Freud regarding family structure as percursor of social structure when, in fact, most recent historical-anthropological work shows that there's a dialect between these two phenomena.

What I find ironic about this position is that it seems to me that you're basing your theory, ultimately, on the philosophical musings of some very patriarchical victorian gentlemen.

So where's the beef, man? What's the empirical proof that patriarchical family structure became the basis for everything else, the wide world over?

I DO agree with you that the beefs of the MRAs are not fundamentally caused by feminism. Some of these beefs have been aggravated by certain types of feminism, however. In particular, the beef that in order to be heard, MRAs have to shout because otherwise they'd be completely ignored.