I think it's "mens' rights". And no, from what I can tell, politics is secondary at best, not primary.
I don't think a snapshot of one subreddit is enough to judge their core values. Perhaps your right that we just see it from different perspectives. But let me state how I perceive the mens' rights movement:
Mens' rights came about because feminism became so dominant that some men felt left behind. The feminist movement is almost equal parts political and social while mens' rights is primarily social.
I think the success of a leftwing/feminist men's movement depends on how you resolve the paradox (whether apparent or real) of the "feminist man".
I think it's near impossible to resolve. My reasoning is that for projects like these, the scarce resource is focus, and focus by definition must be undivided, not divided. Feminism seeks to improve the status of women, a men's group seeks to improve the status of men, and this means focus will be divided, if not conflicted.
However, any obstacle can be overcome with sheer willpower, which is even more scarce than focus.
How can you put politics before men in a mens' movement? Men's rights IS politics. Feminism is politics. Politics isn't some abstract separate entity to society.
Try and detach politics from these things (a contradiction, but people try to) and you have nothing left but discussion and complaining that can go nowhere.
Getting away from centralized megacorporate platforms is important, so we've launched this Mastodon server targeted at voluntarists, freedom-loving anarchists, libertarians, listeners of Free Talk Live and LRN.FM and the members of the Shire Society.
Want freer real-time chat rooms? Join our Matrix server.
Considering migrating to New Hampshire or already here? Please also visit the Shire Forum.