I'm sorry, you're wrong. Semantics are important because the meanings of the words people use are important. If there's one thing feminism should have taught you it's pay attention to the discourse, because the discourse shapes everything around you. Yet here you are telling me to ignore it.
Also, you have a messed up vision of what "critical engagement" means. Addressing arguments on a logical basis -- which is what I'm doing -- is a perfectly legitimate form of argumentation.
When I tell you that a->b and b->c thus a->c, do you really need me to cite a source?
Saying that "every other group is a men's group" directly in response to the question "why don't we need men's groups?" is very explicitly wanting to prohibit men from addressing men's issues. I do not need to cite sources to show that.
To placate you, here are just a few examples of certain strands of feminism actively blocking efforts by men to organize for men:
"CAFE has attempted to open chapters at several campuses across Canada in the past year, only to be met with heated protests. In June, the Canadian Federation of Students put forth a motion to oppose “men’s rights awareness groups” like CAFE, alleging they “provide environments of sexism, patriarchy and misogyny to manifest and be perpetuated on campus.”" [1]
"The Ryerson Students’ Union (RSU) takes issue with a men’s issues club. If it were not so serious, it would be laughable. An organization that collects hundreds of thousands of dollars in mandatory levies from Ryerson students is afraid of three students—two of them women—starting a men’s issues group." [2]
University of Toronto feminist group pulls a fire alarm to prevent a men's group lecture from happening, since they couldn't stop the lecture by protest alone. [3]
I'm certain that if you warm up your fingers and do some googling, queries like "X university bans mens group" would provide more such articles from around the world.
Also, you have a messed up vision of what "critical engagement" means. Addressing arguments on a logical basis -- which is what I'm doing -- is a perfectly legitimate form of argumentation.
When I tell you that a->b and b->c thus a->c, do you really need me to cite a source?
Saying that "every other group is a men's group" directly in response to the question "why don't we need men's groups?" is very explicitly wanting to prohibit men from addressing men's issues. I do not need to cite sources to show that.
To placate you, here are just a few examples of certain strands of feminism actively blocking efforts by men to organize for men:
"CAFE has attempted to open chapters at several campuses across Canada in the past year, only to be met with heated protests. In June, the Canadian Federation of Students put forth a motion to oppose “men’s rights awareness groups” like CAFE, alleging they “provide environments of sexism, patriarchy and misogyny to manifest and be perpetuated on campus.”" [1]
"The Ryerson Students’ Union (RSU) takes issue with a men’s issues club. If it were not so serious, it would be laughable. An organization that collects hundreds of thousands of dollars in mandatory levies from Ryerson students is afraid of three students—two of them women—starting a men’s issues group." [2]
University of Toronto feminist group pulls a fire alarm to prevent a men's group lecture from happening, since they couldn't stop the lecture by protest alone. [3]
[1] - http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/08/15/controversial_men...
[2] - http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2013/04/01/ryerson-stu...
[3] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2KPeMcYsuc
I'm certain that if you warm up your fingers and do some googling, queries like "X university bans mens group" would provide more such articles from around the world.