Who are men’s rights activists, and what do they want?
The Men’s Rights Movement (MRM) is a growing and disproportionately vocal group that believes Western culture and its institutions are contemptuous of men. Men and boys, they argue, are systematically disenfranchised and discriminated against by feminists and their allies. Once dismissed as the looniest and fringiest of the lunatic fringe, men’s rights groups have “gone mainstream” (Salon) and become “frighteningly effective” (Slate), influencing family law and domestic violence legislation, and imposing their views on our national conversations around gender and a host of other social issues.
Today and over the next week, the Good Men Project Magazine will be taking an in-depth look at this controversial movement. Despite the attention they’ve drawn and their relentless effort to make their voices heard, their ideas have yet to receive a thorough and fair hearing by mainstream media. That is, until now.
We’ve invited leading voices in the movement, as well as its outspoken critics, to help us better understand what men’s rights activists believe, why they believe it, and whether we should take their claims seriously.
Men’s rights activists (MRAs) can be easy to dismiss as crackpot extremists. Perhaps best known for descending like outraged locusts on the comments section of your favorite online magazine, newspaper, or blog, bewildering readers with esoteric epithets like “mangina” and “white knight,” they tend not to make a favorable first impression. But if you have the curiosity and thick skin to engage these guys, you’ll find that beneath the hysterical, dogmatic rhetoric lie some valid complaints.
It’s impossible to have a complete discussion of masculinity in the 21st century without acknowledging the men’s rights point of view.
So strap in and leave your delicate sensibilities at the door—it’s time to meet the Men’s Rights Movement.
♦◊♦
Men’s rights and other men’s movements have been kicking around since the 1970s. Many sprung up in response—some sympathetic, some hostile—to second-wave feminism. Like feminists, these movements have taken various forms in the pursuit of various, often contradictory goals.
Broadly speaking, they fall into three categories:
- The weekend-warrior, drum-circle, pass-around-this-wooden-phallus-and-talk-about-your-dad movement, popularized by poet and author Robert Bly. Known as the mythopoetic men’s movement, these groups tend to focus inward, on interpersonal issues around their own manhood.
- The pro-feminist Men’s Studies guys, who like to question and re-imagine standards of masculinity and gender roles. Their conclusions have often led them to take political positions, but their focus is primarily intellectual and academic.
- And the men’s and fathers’ rights activists, who believe that men have been oppressed since, well, a really long time ago. They focus on political, legislative, and cultural reformation, from the unjust family court system to entrenched media bias. It’s these guys—the MRAs—who are making the most noise these days. (The “A” in MRA can also stand for “advocate,” depending on which MRA you talk to.)
According to movement leader Paul Elam, whose website, AVoiceforMen.com, is among the most popular online MRA hangouts, the MRM is largely comprised of “men who have been screwed over by a corrupt and oppressive family court system—and those [who] don’t want to be.” Thus anger and frustration—at the courts, at their ex-wives and women in general, at pervasive injustice—tend to be the animating emotions behind the MRM. The down economy, which by all accounts has hit men hardest, continues to boost MRA recruitment and sympathy.
Dan Moore, the publisher of Menz magazine, has been active in the movement for nearly 20 years. He’s “bullish” on the immediate prospects of social change. “I think it will be less than a decade before these issues are resolved. And yes, that’s largely because of this recession,” he said. “But honestly, I think we’re changing the world.”
♦◊♦
MRAs are well known for their tactical assaults on the comments sections of offending feminist and “misandric” (man-hating) blogs and websites. “If you write about them, it’s like feeding a stray cat tuna fish,” a feminist blogger warned me as I was soliciting stories for this package. “Except more like if you feed 100 cats tuna fish—they just show up and hang out and mewl and will completely swarm the place.”
That warning came too late. MRAs haven’t had many nice things to say about the Good Men Project Magazine since our launch last June. Here’s a representative appraisal:
I believe this site, and the viewpoints expressed within it, are toxic, and EXTREMELY harmful to boys and men. And I find the cynical attempt to paint yourselves as helpful in any way to be most disgusting of all. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Toxic, cynical, disgusting, and shameful. Actually, that’s one of the nicer ones. (A healthy percentage of the comments we get from MRAs aren’t fit to reprint here.) When we started getting comments and emails like this one, we were surprised. We were aware of the existence of men’s and fathers’ rights groups, but we had no idea how angry they were, and we certainly didn’t expect to be targeted as feminist “mangina” conspirators, bent on destroying the lives of men and boys everywhere.
♦◊♦
Initially, I wrote these people off as insane. It was difficult for me to imagine how anyone could believe they were systematically oppressed by women. Put off by second-wave feminism? OK, I get that. Fed up with political correctness? Though this strikes me as very 1994, I know and love men who still feel that way, so sure, I get that too. But under the thumb of the Great Feminist Oppressors? That’s just hard to take seriously.
But to understand MRAs, their fury, and their almost pathological certainty, you have to understand their definition of the word feminism. MRAs believe Western culture is feminist culture, and that culture, whatever you call it, is oppressive toward men. Thus a feminist is anyone they don’t agree with, regardless of gender. And that’s pretty much everyone.
Last week, when Paul Elam launched his A Voice for Men Radio podcast, he put it this way:
Let’s be clear—this show is not and never will be about the hateful bashing of women, and to be clearer, we’re going to often speak harshly of men … [But] our current gender zeitgeist is one that has promoted and enabled such a degree of female narcissism and entitlement that it has now produced two generations of women that are for the most part, shallow, self-serving wastes of human existence—parasites—semi-human black holes that suck resources and goodwill out of men and squander them on the mindless pursuit of vanity. Is this all women? No, of course not.
Not all women are semi-human, just most—and even if you don’t identify as female, you still may be complicit in maintaining the status quo.
MRAs commenting on this site and elsewhere around the Internet interpret the most radical feminists as speaking for women and governments the world over. No one, for example, takes Valerie Solanis, author of the satirical SCUM Manifesto, quite as seriously—with the possible exception of Andy Warhol, for a split second, in 1968—as men’s rights activists.
They see everything through the lens of a zero-sum gender war. Everywhere, men get a raw deal at the hands of women. Anywhere women have made advances, it’s at the expense of men. In their complaints, across gendered lines, about the draft, civil service, sentencing, and suicide disparities, they appear to ignore salient issues of class and race. To be sure, it’s more powerful men, not feminists, who are the ones sending men off to war and prison.
But for MRAs, everything comes back to their definition of feminists: anyone who supports or tolerates the oppressive culture we live in; thus, powerful men are covered by this definition. They’ve set up a tautological circle from which there is no exit—only progressively deeper certainty.
♦◊♦
It would be easy to write these guys off as nuts and not give them a second thought—if they weren’t so damned persistent. As hard as it is to imagine a Vast Feminist Conspiracy, it’s equally hard to see how anyone could be so invested, so irrepressible, if they didn’t have some skin in the game. Like that blogger told me, these guys hang around. There must be some basis for their tenacity.
There can be little doubt that at least some of these guys have been victims—of physically or psychologically abusive women, the family court system, or other painful circumstances. It’s therefore understandable why they don’t see the benefits of being in the “patriarchy.”
Removed from the hysterical rhetoric, MRAs have some valid complaints. Several movement-affiliated organizations—some more legitimate than others—fight for the rights of male victims of discrimination. Glenn Sacks’ Fathers & Families, a lobbying, PR, and advocacy group that has influenced family law policy around the country, is one. Another is RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting), a nonprofit group that argues that domestic violence is perpetrated equally by men and women.
Fathers & Families, like many men’s and fathers’ rights groups, want men to be recognized as good parents who are equally capable of raising children. They want the courts and society to acknowledge that men can be caring and nurturing dads, and that assuming traditionally female roles is not only not creepy, weird, and emasculating, but can be respectable and, yes, even desirable.
Society seems to resist this acknowledgment, if not by word then by deed.
Consider, for example, this post from The New York Times’ Motherlode blog from December, in which Nicole Sprinkle described how, in looking for childcare for her 3-year-old daughter, she found a friendly, well-spoken applicant from her neighborhood who was studying to be a paramedic. His mother owned a local daycare center. He had worked as a summer camp counselor at the preschool her daughter attended, and “got rave reviews from his supervisor there.”
But he was a man, and that was just too dangerous:
I told him frankly that I liked him best of all and yet still wasn’t sure I could make the leap of letting a man watch my daughter: one who might have to help her wipe, clean her up in case of an accident, who would be alone with her every day for several hours.
I also told him that I felt really awful about having to feel this way, and that it was such a shame that society forced us to discriminate against kind, competent men as caregivers for our kids.
Of course, society didn’t force her to discriminate—she made the choice to discriminate. But it illustrates the point: it’s not just that men are refusing to adjust to new roles, as Hanna Rosin argued in her now-famous “End of Men” article in The Atlantic. When it comes to survival, or the survival of their children, men and women will scramble to adapt. It’s society and its institutions that lag behind.
There are plenty of guys out there who would like to see gender roles not simply reversed—a prospect that has Hanna Rosin twirling with glee and MRAs blitzed on rage-ahol—but obliterated altogether.
♦◊♦
In a recent column for The Wall Street Journal, Lenore Skenazy detailed the very real “Eek! A Male!” phenomenon: “almost any man who has anything to do with a child can find himself suspected of being a creep,” she wrote. “Gripped by pedophile panic, we jump to the very worst, even least likely, conclusion first. Then we congratulate ourselves for being so vigilant.”
In this culture, men who choose to work among (or even just near) kids are suspect. Among the handful anecdotes she presents as evidence: an Iowa daycare worker who isn’t allowed in the room when diapers are being changed and a guy who sent kids running and screaming when he rolled down his window to ask for directions.
Then there’s Timothy Murray, the Massachusetts Lt. Governor, who, while pulling two small children from a burning minivan, narrowly escaped the wrath of their grandmother. She thought he might be a kidnapper. “I was gonna smack him,” she told a local TV station. “I yelled, ‘Get away from my car!’”
MRAs rightly point to this as a troubling phenomenon. But is feminism, as many MRAs suggest, really the prime mover behind it? I suspect we’ll have the chance to debate this question in the comments section, below.
♦◊♦
For “The End of Men,” Rosin interviewed a divorced dad named Darrell—he’d lost his job laying sheet metal, fallen behind on his child-support payments, and was attending a fathering class in order to avoid jail time. Despite getting trucking and bar tending licenses, he couldn’t find work, and lost his house and car. He described sitting at a bus stop, watching his wife drive past. “‘[She] looked me right in the eye,’ he recalled, ‘and just drove on by.’”
Darrell, like so many other casualties of this recession, must feel blindsided by circumstance. And as Hanna Rosin will tell you, he’s representative of a growing number of American men.
We have to expect that there will lots more disaffected, disillusioned guys out there in the years to come, struggling to understand how they fit in to a changing world—which means we can expect interest in men’s issues to grow.
The Good Men Project Magazine is in a unique position to help guys grapple with their evolving roles and what many men see as conflicting and even impossible societal expectations. Our mission has always been to challenge men to think deeply about themselves and their place in the world, and that’s the goal this week.
Starting today, we’ll be featuring articles by leading MRAs about what they see as the central goals and concerns of the movement. MRA Blogger Zeta Male presents the results of a poll he conducted to determine the Top 10 Goals of the Men’s Rights Movement. Paul Elam from A Voice for Men breaks down the critical MRA notion of misandry.
We’ve invited some frequent MRA critics to offer measured criticism. Regular GMPM columnist Hugo Schwyzer—whom Menz magazine publisher Dan Moore calls “the Darth Vader of men’s issues”—argues that MRAs misdiagnose both the sources of, and the solutions to, common MRA complaints. Double X blogger Amanda Marcotte argues that what these guys need is more feminism.
Rounding out the list is our own Tom Matlack, who has endured stints as an MRA punching bag. He explores “Adultery’s Double Standard.”
Later in the week we’ll feature stories by Swedish MRA Pelle Billing, men’s rights lawyer and GMPM contributor David Pisarra, men’s studies professor Kaelin Alexander, and journalist and Man Boobz editor David Futrelle.
Dan Moore will fill you in on the State of the Movement, explaining, among other things, what MRAs have to say about feminists, and why they’re determined to “go their own way.”
We’re looking forward to some spirited, good-faith debate. We encourage everyone to comment, but please keep the discussion respectful and on topic. Please consult our commenting policy, here.
♦◊♦
Other stories in in this special package:
About Henry P. Belanger
Vocalyze
“Some people are just nice”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X8nRxsTgzA&feature=player_detailpage#t=29s
A little more truth than GMPM wants you to read.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/2011/03/13/good-men-project-magazine-ripping-of-readers-and-advertisers/
Henry,
One correction, you said;
“Initially, I wrote these people off as insane. It was difficult for me to imagine how anyone could believe they were systematically oppressed by women.”
MRAs don’t believe they are being “systematically oppressed by women”. rather, they are being systematically discriminated against, partly by women, but more importantly, by men purporting to act on the behalf of women. (For example, Joe Biden via VAWA)
I certainly can’t disagree with that logic.
Paul, People should read this link as well to see what this article disallows – MRA’s: the lone voice for true equality: http://www.avoiceformen.com/2011/03/14/the-unabridged-mens-movement/
Why would any true reporter want to cover that up or malign it? Many do every day.
Let’s just lay out the issues. I really like to know what the male feminists are doing about it?
Men in every civilized country have the right to claim:
1. That paternity be routinely established using DNA testing.
2. That an established paternity automatically enable the same rights and responsibilities as an established maternity.
3. That the default arrangement after a separation be joint legal and physical custody of any children; only to be changed if the parents voluntarily decide to do so, or if one of the parties be determined unfit to be a parent by a court of law.
4. That women’s shelters receive no government grants unless they are transformed into human shelters, where all victims of domestic violence can get the help they need (women, men, children).
5. That all human shelters be run professionally, under the same strict standards as those of other social services.
6. That the military be staffed by people who apply voluntarily, and who receive a fair and reasonable compensation for the risks they assume.
7. That conscription be used only for extreme reasons of national safety, and that such a measure be gender neutral.
8. That the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” be upheld at all times, including allegations of rape or sexual harassment.
9. That gender research be as free from ideology as any other academic field.
10. That male expendability be recognized as a major gender issue.
11. That boys be allowed to be proud of their coming manhood.
12. That schools recognize the needs of boys and the learning styles of boys, so as to give them a fair chance of performing well.
13. That men’s groups be given the same legal and practical opportunities as women’s groups to obtain funding.
14. That male sexuality be portrayed in a positive and encouraging manner.
15. That male circumcision only be legal for adults who voluntarily choose this kind of surgery.
16. That prisons be organized in such a way as to prevent rape and other forms of assault.
17. That meritocracy be the governing principle in the labor market, and that all forms of affirmative action and gender quotas disappear.
18. That misandry be opposed just as vehemently as misogyny.
19. That all legislation discriminating against men be made gender neutral or removed.
20. That the historical sacrifice of the male gender role be recognized to the same extent as the historical sacrifice of the female gender role.
From pelle billing, btw.
We got Pelle for this on your rec, dennis. Thanks. Happy commenting.
1. Unobjectionable, but expensive and not necessary in all cases
2. This is not already the case? Evidence please.
3. Agreed.
4. Problematic. Gender segregation of domestic abuse shelters happens for a couple reasons. First, MRA propaganda aside, the raw number of women seeking to flee abuse is simply higher than the number of men seeking to flee abuse. Women do also abuse men, but they do it at a much lower rate than the other way around. The other main reason for gender segregation is to keep the abuser from claiming to be a victim and entering the shelter under this pretext, only to continue abusing his partner. Of course, gender segregation creates a separate class of problems, for instance, where to send transgendered people who are the victims of DA. Evidence that MRAs care about the problems of trans men and women? Slim to none. Perhaps in the future DA shelters will not be separated by gender. It’s something we should work towards. But for now, I must disagree.
5. Uncontroversial; is there evidence that this is a problem on a large scale?
6. Agreed – but need evidence that this is not already the case.
7. Conscription should be gender neutral, but only if service is gender neutral; IOW, women should be allowed to serve in combat positions.
8. Agreed – but need evidence that this is not already the case.
9. Agreed. Suggested solutions? How about: more feminism!
10. “Male expendability”? As in, men go to war and get dangerous jobs? Agreed! Let’s allow women to serve in combat positions and remove gender-based barriers to dangerous jobs. Then men and women can be expendable to the upper classes in equal proportions.
11. Agreed.
12. Agreed.
13. Evidence that this is not the case? But agreed.
14. Agreed—of course, this will also require that we start TEACHING male sexuality in a different way.
15. Agreed.
16. Agreed.
17. Disagree. Affirmative action still has a role to play in leveling the playing field that has been so severely tilted for centuries. Although, currently cis white straight women are most likely to benefit from affirmative action programs; these programs should perhaps be revamped to ensure better inclusion of other, more marginalized groups.
18. Agreed, and who does that best? Feminists, the ones who resist the idea that men are incapable of controlling their sexuality. Feminists, who insist that men should be free to be nurturing or dominating, assertive or shy, sensitive or strong, however it may strike them, and that this doesn’t make them any more or less of a man, whichever the case may be. Feminists, who say that men should be regarded as capable parents who can nurture children as well as any human being. Feminists, who argue for a more equitable distribution of work outside and inside the home between the genders.
19. Unaware of any legislation mandating discrimination against men. Pretty sure that would be unconstitutional. No need for new legislation, just bring a 14th amendment lawsuit.
20. Agreed! Although, I’m pretty sure you think this means more attention will be paid to men’s “historical sacrifices”. In reality, it’s going to mean more attention paid to women’s historical sacrifices.
You’re a feminist ideologue who, so far, has not admitted women do one single thing wrong, or that feminism has gotten one single thing wrong. You refuse to admit that MRAs have ANYTHING of value to say, and reject out of hand any ‘rights issues’ men may have as inferior to the concerns of women.
Again, typical feminist.
That is an extremely poor and reactionary interpretation of SallyStrange’s post.
Oh? Ok, let’s take this:
“19. Unaware of any legislation mandating discrimination against men. Pretty sure that would be unconstitutional. No need for new legislation, just bring a 14th amendment lawsuit.”
To be fair, I live in Canada, not the US, but what do we have right here in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 15????
EQUALITY BEFORE AND UNDER LAW AND EQUAL PROTECTION AND BENEFIT OF LAW / Affirmative action programs.
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Hmm, it’s illegal to discriminate in Canada, it seems…EXCEPT against white males! Written right there into the Canadian Constitution.
And they ‘get around’ this by saying it’s not discrimination against white males, it’s “helping everyone else”. Honest to God.
I’m more than sure there are plenty of U.S. examples for you to be ‘concerned’ about, but don’t give me that crap about Feminist ideology and sexism not being the “law of the land”.
Please. Affirmative action is not equivalent to discrimination against white men. It’s a system of preferences designed to compensate for the preferences already given to white men. Call me when you catch up to the civil rights movement.
Many people conflate equal opportinity with equal results and equal outcome.
Yeah–those people are the imaginary people in the heads of people who oppose Affirmative Action. Rational people realize that “equal outcome” is an impossible straw man invented by people intent on preserving the status quo.
As you can guess from my name, I am not a white man, not even a westerner, but I agree 100% that equal opportunity is a fuzzy guide line that sounds like it is not equal outcome, but if it is not equal outcome, you get sued. Just look at walmart.
So the only way any employer can interprete AA is to ensure Equality of Outcomes. FYI, there are quotas for women as “minorities” elsewhere all around the world. Funny thing is – that goes to show that women cannot compete in the market place against men and need special preferences.
I fully expect an argument about how Quotas are “sometimes necessary” and are “not really discrimation”… so bring it on.
Affirmative action and quotas are two different things. I think quotas may be helpful in some cases, and affirmative action is generally a good thing. It does not, contrary to the myths propagated by those people I mentioned above, the ones who are intent on preserving the status quo, lead to unqualified people attaining positions for which they are unprepared.
As far as Wal-Mart goes, there was discrimination occurring there. The gender disparity in management positions was just one of the pieces of evidence for that discrimination. If the percentage of women in management positions was exactly the same as the percentage of women in menial labor positions, then there would be no evidence of discrimination, regardless of whether the gender balance in management positions was 50-50 or something else.
How about quotas for family court outcomes? Or is that different?
I agree there is discrimination. If you look at the number of military deaths, a disturbingly disproportionate number is male. Similarly, if you look at the number deaths in industrial accidents, they are again, disproportionately male. Heck, if you look at the total number of victims of all violent crime, again, they are all males. We want some action plan from Sally for leveling the playing field
So more military, industrial, violent crime deaths are male. And close to half of domestic violence is against men. Far more suicide deaths are male. Fewer males graduate college or get higher degrees and far more males lost jobs in the economic downturn than women. If the roles were reversed it would be OpEd and Oprah outrage 24 hours a day. Men, we are on our own.
Perhaps not in theory, but certainly in practice. Why is it that some women think shaming a man will drive her point home? It very often reveals the covert nature of the problem. Thankfully, this sort of childish tactic is as transparent as it is expected..
Could people please stop using the word “reactionary”? I don’t think I’ve ever seen it used properly, and those who do attempt to use it when targeting MRAs are dead wrong – men’s rights is all about making positive change toward a more fair society, whereas feminism is all about advancing women’s privileges and entitlements even further at the expense of men while maintaining the privileged and protected status women have always had.
Fannie you are wrong. Factory’s reply is an accurate and fair response. SallyStrange’s post was just more feminist misinformation propaganda.
Factory’s reply was not at all accurate. Therefore, it was not fair, either. If you disagree with me, at least do so honestly. Factory did not, as I detailed in my reply to him.
Sally
I did disagree with you honestly. I stated that your post was just more feminist misinformation propaganda. You reply was amusing.
No you didn’t, Factory. I detailed why your characterization of me was factually false. I note that you are incapable of offering facts as to why you insist on calling me an ideologue who can’t criticize feminism. I take your continued failure to response to my critique with anything of any substance as a concession that your argument lacks substance. Nice talking with you, better luck next time.
Alrighty then, you asked for it.
“Please. Affirmative action is not equivalent to discrimination against white men. It’s a system of preferences designed to compensate for the preferences already given to white men. Call me when you catch up to the civil rights movement.”
This is identical to the bullshit I referred to earlier…the line that it’s not discrimination against white men, it’s help for literally EVERYONE ELSE. So tell me, if I fed ‘everyone’ nothing, but gave everyone but white women food to ‘make up for past injustices’…would the white women starve?
They would? And you can understand that? Well then, your ‘inability’ to see my point is pretty much exposed as a sexist man-hater thinking she’s obtained some plausible deniability when denying official sexism against men.
And why would you do that?
Oh yeah, because you ‘really care about men’…just like every other feminist.
Exactly
Disagree with you Sally.
Factory responded honestly to your attitude more than your comments. The insinuation and mockery in them is unmistakeable. Every point you attempted to make after your purposes became evident was moot. Is moot. Notice how no-one’s considering them to any depth? Factory was absolutely correct in pulling you up for this. Smarminess and sleaziness are not substitutes for emphatic rebuttal.
First of all, the mockery you detect exists only in your imagination. If I wanted to mock Factory, believe me, it would have been a great deal more harsh than that.
Second, if Factory can respond only to attitude and can’t deal with substance then he’s hardly an interesting or worthy interlocutor. Respond to attitude if you like, but if you can’t address the substance of my response then I’m going to assume that YOU are the one whose argument is lacking substance. My tone was mostly civil, with a few gently sarcastic comments. If you or Factory have such thin skin that you can’t handle a bit of sarcasm then you should probably refrain from commenting on the rough-and-tumble interwebs.
There is no substance to your response. It’s boilerplate feminist drivel that doesn’t even stand on it’s own…it requires acceptance of feminist ideology to even APPEAR fair…
It’s sexism and racism, and nothing else. The fact that it’s against your favoured scapegoat doesn’t make it any less real, or you any less of a bigot.
@Sally
OK, you’ve established that you’re Supergirl. Now, it would be peachy if you could learn how to use your powers for good instead of evil.
If there’s any woman left in the Anglosphere who knows how to do that let her come forward and make her case against the MRM.
Let’s begin an intelligent conversation and stop the blame game. I was the first woman executive in the Men’s Movement in Canada, very proud of it and loved my time working with the guys. I think, this Movement is vitally important for the advancement of Society, Men, Women and Children in legal, financial, health and many other arenas.
The angry men you describe were not part of the group I worked with in Vancouver, BC.
I was the editor for the their Magazine called The Talking Stick, that phallus you point to in the drumming circle. The largest hurdle our Movement had to jump was getting MEN to understand and realize the need for the work these groups do. Most men I talk to don’t even know about a Men’s Movement and when I talk about it they normally say, “What do we need a Movement for?”
These angry, blaming guys give the feminists far too much power and in my humble opinion, don’t truly understand their own Movement.
“These angry, blaming guys give the feminists far too much power and in my humble opinion, don’t truly understand their own Movement.”
Meh, you’re just bitter your tree-hugging new-agey bullshit didn’t catch on with men. Lemme ask you this, it might help you figure out the best approach.
Who sells more CD’s, Yanni, or Eminem?
Ouch, I’ve never heard of Helyn, it must be a very small group that has never made any impact.
Just wait, someone is going to come here and show Yanni sells more CDs or something….
That’d be embarrassing…
And Eminem sends a positive message how?
It’s not about sending a positive message. It’s about letting people know the time for treating men as disposable beasts of burden is over. There will be a political cost attached to that now. Including on you feminist types.
“These angry, blaming guys give the feminists far too much power and in my humble opinion, don’t truly understand their own Movement.”
Helyn and the Talking Sticks? (eyes rolling here) You are wrong.
MRA recognize how feminists have worked with the alpha males in government to empower and enrich women at the expense of men. Feminist driven laws (fully supported by government) have done tremendous damage to society and males in particular. Feminism is convenient tool of government to use in dividing and conquering its citizens to expand the powers of government and reducing the liberty of the people. Feminism has been a key player in the ongoing male bashing behavior and anti-male school system that is hurting boys, putting innocent men into prison on false-rape claims, the terrible discrimination men face in the Family Courts when going through divorce, and the lack of serious consequences for women who lie about rape and domestic violence cases.
Feminism has been a big proponent for single motherhood with the resulting harm brought to the children. I could go on and on. Yeah, we see feminism for the harm it has done.
Helyn,
Why do you point to vaguely similar outliers and call them evidence of a primary corellation? The executive director of any organisation ought to recognise the drawing of such conclusions as foolish.
This particular post had nothing to do with the personal faults or failings of any individual woman or man.
My other posts–here on this site, posted today!–have addressed mistakes, errors, and bigotry on the part of feminists, both contemporary and historical. So your characterization of me as an “ideologue” who won’t admit that feminists have faults is false.
Also, if I don’t find anything of value in the MRA arguments, why is it that I agree with several of the points listed by the OP?
Ladies and gentlemen, the MRA disconnect with reality, Exhibit X, Y, and Z.
Sally is trolling…
Looks like. =(
This is the opposite of trolling. Note that my post contains several factual assertions for which I can offer evidence. Furthermore, I’m not deliberately trying to rile anyone up but am making every attempt to argue honestly, in good faith.
I think this word “troll” means something different than you think it does.
So you are upset about people dismissively typecasting the Men’s Rights movement and your first response is to label someone as a “typical feminist” ??
Go ahead and google “hypocrisy” for me, would you?
Name calling and tossing around generalizations is not the way to start a healthy discourse about any topic.
Honestly, I’m not upset that much at all about being ‘typecast’…since I know from many years of experience that it’s not the tone, but the subject that is objected to. I have been ‘respectful’ and I have been ‘measured’ and all that time, we were ignored.
Now we’re pissed off, and we’re growing by thousands every month, and getting airplay.
I encourage that stuff, and I have chosen to own the ‘misogynist’ label you guys keep trying to stick on me. There’s no pleasing a feminist ideologue, so I don’t even try. In fact, the only thing a feminist is good for, is to illustrate the moral bankruptcy and hypocrisy of the movement.
As for dismissive attitudes, what bothers me is the attitude towards the issues presented, not the presenters of the info. Casually waving away the lives and struggles of millions of men as ‘irrelevant’ because it doesn’t jive with what you learned in College is the hallmark of a truly twisted individual. And that’s all I see you feminists doing. Ever. For years.
And yes, I have asked for proof otherwise. It’s never been forthcoming.
Feminists are not our market. Manginas and White Knights are not our market. Complacent men are not our market.
Angry, pissed off, fed up, and motivated men? THAT is our market.
All feminists have to do, is make sure there aren’t enough of those angry pissed off men to make a movement on this side. Feminists are the Establishment after all… It should be easy, after all you all ‘really care about men’ and I’m sure you’re doing everything you can to mitigate their pain.
And if not, then people like me will be there to make sure that pain gets put to good use.
So really, the fate of the Mens Movement is in your hands Feminists. Are you going to keep recruiting for us, or are you going to learn?
Factory speaks the truth. Feminism is the child abusing mother of the MRM and gives birth to new MRA’s on a daily basis. Feminist ideologues have talked about a phantom “backlash” for decades, but a real one is coming.
2. This is not already the case? Evidence please.
It is not the case. I am a victim of unprovoked aggression on the part of my first wife, including attempted homicide in front of our children. Because I am make — that was explicitly what the cops said — I was thrown out and there was no way to press charges. Therefore she has had no investigation of her crimes and I have been the Designated Perp….. which in my humble opinion is kind of in conflict with a few fundamental principles of justice.
The family law system in Canada and the US is Kafkaesque towards abused men.
So, this sounds less like a case of lack of equality vis-a-vis parenting rights, but more a lack of equality vis-a-vis domestic abuse law. As I have said several times already, I support the equalization of domestic violence laws. In most states, AFAIK, laws on domestic violence are worded in a gender-neutral fashion, but that doesn’t mean that the enforcement isn’t sexist–that is, cops & members of the judicial system tend to dismiss and devalue the statements of men who say they’ve been abused by their female partners. Changing this will, I believe, mean changing the culture so that men are no longer shamed for expressing weakness and vulnerability. Classic feminist position.
No, the classic feminist position is to deny that women abuse men, and to manipulate the legal system so that the crime of domestic violence is only a legal liability for men.
“Over the last twenty-five years, leading sociologists have repeatedly found that men and women commit violence at similar rates.
However, despite the wealth and diversity of the sociological research and the consistency of the findings, female violence is not recognized within the extensive legal literature on domestic violence. Instead, the literature consistently suggests that
only men commit domestic violence. Either explicitly, or more often
implicitly, through the failure to address the subject in any objective
manner, female violence is denied, defended and minimized.
How is it that our general legal understanding of domestic violence as defined by the male abuse of women is so squarely contradicted by the empirical reality? Honestly answering this question requires tracing the history of both the theory and practice of domestic
violence law. Undertaking such an exploration, one quickly finds that
the “discovery” of domestic violence is rooted in the essential feminist
tenet that society is controlled by an all-encompassing patriarchal
structure.
This fundamental feminist understanding of domestic
violence has far-reaching implications. By dismissing the possibility
of female violence, the framework of legal programs and social norms
is narrowly shaped to respond only to the male abuse of women. Female batterers cannot be recognized. Male victims cannot be treated.
If we are to truly address the phenomenon of domestic violence, the
legal response to domestic violence and the biases which underlie it
must be challenged. ”
http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/304/kelly.pdf
The problem with DV is that police, social workers are trained in feminist patriarchal theory of DV, as well as dominant agressor gender profiling.
There is no denying that feminists have full credit for discriminating against male victims of DV.
” As I have said several times already, I support the equalization of domestic violence laws. ”
Have you done anything to make that happen?
I’ll bet she won’t be in favour of redressing past injustices, such as mine; thereby guaranteeing safe passage of the cycle of domestic abuse to the next generation without the pesky interventions of the loving father.
“The other main reason for gender segregation is to keep the abuser from claiming to be a victim and entering the shelter under this pretext, only to continue abusing his partner.”
I’m fascinated how that would work:
Staff: Gather round everyone. I’d like you all to meet our newest resident, Henry.
Jane: Hey, that’s the man I’m here to get away from!
Staff: Oh. So you know each other! Great. How about we put you in adjacent rooms since you’ll have so much to talk about.
There already is violence, drugs and prostitutes in women’s shelters and they get ejected if their caught.
Keeping all men out is blaming all men and creating an atmosphere of fear and instituting staff bias.
What’s next, shelter’s for victims of racial violence?
Restraining orders are also real easy for women to get with absolutely no evidence required.
Categorically false assertion.
Uh…categorically true assertion. Or do you think David Letterman really WAS controlling that womans mind through the TV set….?
“categorically false assertion”
Seeing as you have been banging on about evidence, evidence please!
Your answer to 10 is very … “interesting”… You speak about “letting women” which as I understand means “let them if they wish”. Men during WWII were not “let” to go to fire hell… They were conscripted and sent there with no any one asked them if they wish so. That will be the only real equality – if females will be conscripted exactly like males (with no asking them do they wish to conscripted) and sent to same dangerous places as males. Giving females some additional privileges and enabling 2-3 females to conscript (if they wish so) while millions males are conscripted forcefully will not create any equality. It is ridiculing of idea of equality…
Those are all things that need to happen sooner rather than later, and will benefit everybody. Let’s make them happen.
I was hoping for an answer from the “Male” feminists, since GMPM is attempting to influence other men.
What’s up guys, don’t you care about your own gender?
Okay. As a man who freely identifies as a feminist, I’d say I agree with most of your list. Sally did a superb job of showing how the nearly all the goals you listed are well-aligned with the goals of most feminists.
If those are the goals of MRAs, then they’d do much better off teaming up with feminists rather than painting themselves an opposing force.
It seems, however, that the vast majority of MRAs here and elsewhere, are attacking a strawman version of Andrea Dworkin as the “typical feminist.” See Factor’s reply to Sally’s entirely reasonable post, for instance. This is why it’s difficult to accept that the goals you posted aren’t the whole story. Because if they were, we’d all be on the same side.
Alright Patrick, tell me the name of a typical feminist. You?
You just lied out of your teeth. Feminists claim they are for equality as Sally just did. But facts and actions are totally contrary to them. Heck, feminists cannot have ANY feminist theory without Patriachy.. which is based on hatred towards men.
You say we should team up with your ilk? No thank you. We can do this on our own.
“Heck, feminists cannot have ANY feminist theory without Patriachy.. which is based on hatred towards men.”
Yeah, Patriarchy is based on hatred towards men… Sigh.
Please point me to where I “lied through my teeth.”
I will point you, but you need to get your eyesight back and understand the difference between SAY and DO.
Yes, Patriarchy is based on hatred of men.. ALL MEN. It is interesting that all you can do is Sigh. Is that all they taught you in Women’s studies..oops, my bad GENDER studies?
Patriarchy. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
What is “patriarchy” if not “male power”?
Why is male power so bad? Should we be slaves? Should we seek female approval before we so much as move?
How exactly is male autonomy and agency bad?
And if “patriarchy” isn’t simply a way of restating “male power”, what exactly is it? Remember, if you can’t say it without jargon, you’re not saying a thing…
No, we shouldn’t be slaves. No, we shouldn’t seek the approval of a member of the opposite sex before we so much as move (unless we’re moving in on them).
There’s nothing wrong with autonomy and personal agency. In fact, I think it’s such a great concept that I think it should be extended to *everyone*. Then it wouldn’t need to be *male* autonomy. It could just be autonomy, period.
Patriarchy does not mean “male power.” It means “male rule.” And that’s the issue.
“Patriarchy does not mean “male power.” It means “male rule.” And that’s the issue.”
Even as far as semantics go, the difference between the two is paper thin…
And this assumes the need for this shift in the first place, which, again, I reject as a notion.
Folks – reality check – PUH-lease: patriarchy has always put others first, community first, women and children first and that is how patriarchy built civilization/society, not by evil against women and children at all, but by making men expendable while putting women on pedestals.
That’s patriarchy, self-sacrificing, self sacrificing, sad as that is. maybe it really is time to end the patriarchy so we can finally have equal rights for males:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/2011/03/14/the-unabridged-mens-movement/
Women have proven they no longer need the protection and pedestals provided by the selfless patriarchy…
@Factory – Just so we’re clear, you are asserting that women should be socially subordinate to men?
At least, after all this pretense of just wanting to return a pendulum you thing has swung too far back to the middle, you’re clear here that you “reject the notion” that a shift from the social superiority of men is desirable. Thanks for your honesty, at least.
@Tom M
Sounds good. This is what feminists have been struggling for for decades.
Yes, Patrick, because only feminists know what Patriachy means. It means whatever YOU feminists want it to be at any point in time.
Oh, you’re right. I looked it up in the dictionary, and you were right all along…
PA*tri*ar*chy (n.) – hatred of all men.
[rolls eyes]
What is asserting that all men have conspired together ( a completely unprovable tenet) for all of history to control all women but hatred of men?
At the very least,it falls under the category of “whininess” that your side routinely assigns to our side. You claim we blame women for all our problems (false in the extreme, we’ve always said male politicians and lawmakers were complicit in making the radical goals of FEMINISTS,not women,possible, and without such intervention by oftentimes well-meaning men we would not have the situation we have today) and yet you blame “patriarchy”,i.e.,ALL MEN for EVERYONE’S problems, it’s the core belief that connects all your other beliefs.
You call it “whining” when you imagine (and that’s all it is,your imagination, or you know better and you’re deliberately lying,I haven’t decided which yet) that this is what we are doing, and yet when you do it, you call it “social progress”.
I call that the very epitome of hypocrisy.
Does hating racism mean hating white people?
Patriarchial theories in DV research and extensive application in training of social workers, police and judges affect all men.
Does wanting equality mean incessantly campaigning for the convictions of innocent men without any evidence in rape cases? Feminists have done this for years. We want equality!
Sigh
roll eyes
tut
Well, the proof is in action and not words and I would be very wary of teaming up with feminists since my experience with them tells me that they are opposed to true equality and don’t care about men at all.
If feminists ever start becoming true to their words, with matching actions as proof, I will definitely team up with them.
As long as feminists will not ceed any real estate on the victim high ground to men, then they cannot work with MRAs.
Don’t miss tonight’s show, it’s going to be awesome:
Violent Women and Government Lies
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/avoiceformen/2011/03/09/violent-women-and-government-lies
by Haffley Randall Paul Jacob on his facebook
DEAD BEAT DAD LAWS ?? what about dead beat mom’s they put dads in jail not caring for their kids,withhold visitations because they dont care for kids, well what about the damn mom’s ? 3 cases welfare fraud she created + 2 years of federal income tax fraud + no care/support for kids,+ gross …medical neglect reported by pediatrician+ psychological/emotional abuse but noone pushes against her they say not worth it.what the hell..only thing they say is i got them go on, well gee so she gets all the thousands an car an i struggle i glad to love care for boys but also bit hurt cause if men did such FORGET IT their fried/grilled by the system,
i struggle without any car in the country, i was denied assistance for boys, i can barely get to doctors an struggle wit my 700 month workers comp disability to supply for all 3 us and they say jus go on, i am but damn hard.
“Despite the attention they’ve drawn and their relentless effort to make their voices heard, their ideas have yet to receive a thorough and fair hearing by mainstream media. That is, until now.”
A true statement and a good promise – half fulfilled, Mr. Balanger.
I do appreciate what you got right with this article, which you took obvious pains to write objectively. But I also feel compelled to address a couple of things you missed the mark on, in my opinion.
Yes, men’s activists are a vocal group. With the mainstream media failing to give us a fair hearing “until now,” we have had to be. Picture the strident, brassiere burning gender feminists who were at first dismissed by the general population during the 60’s for the appropriate corollary. Or better yet, envision the same from the civil rights movement at the same time. It was a time when antiquated ideas and a few cities went up in flames.
The fact is that all social movements begin with small, generally ignored groups of people who grow increasingly belligerent until people take notice. Adjectives like “hysterical” are too easy an out, especially with redundant use, for explaining the current phenomena.
I would also assert that your characterization of the conduct in the comments section is biased and incomplete. For instance, when my piece on marriage ran here, the overwhelming amount of invective and ad hominem attacks were from non MRA critics of the article. You yourself removed some of them.
Clearly these are issues that evoke strong emotional responses regardless of who is discussing them. It makes no one a crackpot.
I also point to the fact that one of my articles, critiquing the content of an anti-rape PSA, also just posted this morning with the MRA special. The first comment was one that contained a set of inflated rape statistics and a personal insult directed at me.
I urge you to consider that the reason your advice to people to maintain thick skins around MRA’s is so valid is because they are entering the proximity of people who are forced, almost every day of their lives, to have their own thick skins.
We don’t develop callouses from dealing with each other, but from our contact with the public at large. Perhaps it would be better to encourage people to bring an open mind and a tolerant attitude, thus rendering the need for thick skin at least slightly less likely.
All that being said, I do commend you and the staff at GMPM for having the openness and the courage to put this discussion forward, even if part of the introduction sounds a little like “Meet MRA’s, crazy people who have a few valid points.”
Thank you, Paul, for a eloquent reply to a really terribly biased article.
Wrong…. there have never been Bra buring feminsts. PLEASE get your fact straight.
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/burnbra.asp
So instead of strident bra-burning feminists we have strident girdle-trashing feminists. Is there any difference at all between the two that makes any practical difference? Not in my view. The fault I see with these people is they sought (and seek) “equality” through reverse discrimination rather than seeking true equality by the removal of discrimination.
@Erm You’re right. Burning bras would have been bad for the environment.
So, today, Feminists just want to go Topless. I think I had enough of that from National Geographic. Do they hang low? Can you tie them in a knot? Can you tie them in a bow?
One thing is certain: I the face of dissent, you should keep your shirt on.
I do. And I’m a guy! 8-{D
Great summary by Mr. Belanger.
One item I would question is that “Fathers & Families, like many men’s and fathers’ rights groups, want men to be recognized as good parents who are equally capable of raising children. They want the courts and society to acknowledge that men can be caring and nurturing dads, and that assuming traditionally female roles is not only not creepy, weird, and emasculating, but can be respectable and, yes, even desirable.”
I think that if Fathers and Families stood for this, this would be great.
I think it doesn’t stand for this, though, but for a type of isolated-from-women, combative fatherhood, not done in connection with the mother, that often becomes authoritative and/or exploitative (the man makes the child, especially a daughter, into a companion, or competes with the child, especially a son).
While mothers parenting alone may also be abusive or neglectful, I don’t think the answer if for these guys to reject Western Civilization and take us back to medieval times.
Other fathering groups and authors have taken a much better approach. For example, I see no reason that a man who takes the approach John Badalement in “The Modern Dad’s Dilemma,” Marc Vachon in “Equally Shared Parenting,” Stephan Poulter in “Father Factor,” Jeremy Adam Smith in “The Daddy Shift,” Kyle Pruett in “Partnership Parenting” or “FatherNeed,” Joshua Coleman in “The Lazy Husband” and others such as the director of “The Evolution of Dad” documentary cannot get these better situations with their families, including in divorce. Of course, these men tend not to be divorced because they have done the work first.
But, Glenn Sacks and the MRAs reject this approach and instead try to operate from the outside in a position of all-encompassing hostility to women. They are weak and ineffective at holding other men accountable (except for men who actually like and respect women), and instead blame women.
The only problem with your quoted statement is there are more single dads, and single dads are almost becoming the norm, so it’s not like there’s still a struggle for men to win child custody. The only reason women in the past have received children is because it was once assumed that women were more nurturing, so men had no reason to fight, or they fought less. The court gives child custody to whoever fights the hardest (excluding abusive parents, ect), and women today still fight harder then men because men still have this attitude that the court won’t let them win anyway. However, that does not explain why there are fathers who do win child custody cases: it’s because they fought.
Men at best win shared custody, if they fight very hard and are lucky enough to not have a false domestic violence or sexual abuse claim thrown at them.
I know a guy whose wife cheated on him and spent all her time getting drunk and going to bars. She was asking for full custody and knew the judge. Luckily, his lawyer was one of the most ruthless (and expensive) and was able to get a new judge and 50/50 custody. Of course, the guy still has to pay “child” support for some reason.
This is not an aberration. This is all too normal.
Claiming that dads have a fair shot in custody battles is extremely ignorant, and claiming they just don’t try hard enough is asinine.
My situation was worse: my ex tried to kill me in front of the kids, and THAT wasn’t enough for them. They threw me out that time, and on two other times she attacked me (I never attacked her). She got full custody and has totally alienated my children from me, and there is nowhere to go for help.
I’d urge you to share your story on A Voice for Men Radio sometime. They just had a domestic violence episode, but I believe March 22nd is an episode on crazy women or something. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/avoiceformen/2011/03/09/violent-women-and-government-lies
In sum, what they often characterize as “misandry” is a correct assessment that these men are lacking in something they need to function. The cliche of the “fragile male ego” is accurate in the case of men who do not have the ego strength, emotional availability, ability to self-confront, etc. to function in adult relationship with women.
They are unable to hold abusive men accountable for the same reason. As Terry Real puts it they seek merger into something more powerful than themselves rather than differentiating because they are lacking in these basic aspects of human development – while they ironically bash the very civilization that makes those aspects of development possible for many other people. and could make it possible for them as well.
So, why are feminists unable to hold abusive women accountable?
Apparently MRAs also want to eliminate reading.
You say “why are feminists unable to hold abusive women accountable?”
I said “While mothers parenting alone may also be abusive or neglectful, I don’t think the answer if for these guys to reject Western Civilization and take us back to medieval times.”
No, you said:
“They are unable to hold abusive men accountable”
I think there are a lot of services already to hold abusive men accountable but very little action or interest to hold abusive women accountable.
Exactly. I can attest to that.
Psychotherapy?
If a woman actually physically assaults you this is a crime.
If you imagine it – it is not.
Dr. Tara Palmatier is great, she understands what women can be like.
However, you’re still avoiding the elephant in the room. The fact that police, social workers and judges are trained in disproven patriarchal FEMINIST theories of domestic violence and dominant aggressor gender profiling.
While, it is easy to blame feminists and dismiss the feminist movement outright (many do), I think you have the wrong idea about what we are actually about. Police, social workers, and judges are not trained in patriarchal feminist theories; they are trained in the cultural/social construction of hegemonic masculinity and how that affects a man’s ability to be victimized. By requiring men to be the strong, dominating individuals in society (or at least portraying them in the mainstream media as such), the idea that a man can be abused by a woman is devalorized because of, both, the assumed role of man as aggressor and assumed role of woman as victim. What needs to happen is not to disregard the feminist movement, but to work towards changing laws that express gender-bias in any form AND towards changing society’s preconceived notions about masculinity and “real men”, as well as, femininity and “real women”. Only then will the laws that express gender neutrality also be enforced in the same way. Feminism is not the enemy, but the ally.
Maybe you should read up on it:
For over thirty years, the public policy response to the problem of domestic violence has been defined by activists as the socially sanctioned dominance of women by men. This view of patriarchy as the sole cause of domestic violence is the underpinning for a policy/practice paradigm that has dominated the regulatory, legal, and policy discourse of the United States, Canada and other countries (Gelles, 2001; Maiuro, Hagar, Lin, & Olson, 2001; Mills, 2003). It has influenced legal policy including arrest priorities (Sherman et al., 1992), prosecutorial decision making (Ford & Regoli, 1993)and post arrest intervention (Maiuro et al., 2001).
http://www.nfvlrc.org/docs/DuttonCorvo.policypaper.pdf
“instead of ‘treatment because the Duluth model deems assault to be a willful exercise of male privilege, a choice made by men acting in concert with the norms of a sexist society”
My point is not that there are no biases when it comes to DV. I completely agree that there are. There are biases in both directions that seek to undermine those on each side of the field. What I am saying is that feminists are not the ones to perpetuate these stereotypes and biases, and if there are some that do so, they are not in line with what many feminists believe, or at least what I as a feminist/queer theorist believe. I am saying that these “norms” are the problem that needs to be done away with. The people making these policies are not women, considering women are not the majority in government and even if all the females in Senate and the House were to vote for a piece of legislation it would not pass. There is male collusion at work as well. What we need to do is present a united front against these norms that treat all men as the empowered, dominant aggressors, and all women as the powerless, dominated victims. By erasing gender roles for both sexes and allowing for the definition of characteristics that should be used to define both males and females as being the same, and allowing characteristics necessary for being a human being to become the “norm” rather than a gender, we will remedy many of the problems at hand keeping men disadvantaged in DV cases and child custody battles, as well as the ones keeping women out of powerful positions within many institutions. The same of people of different races, social or economic classes, etc. No one should be expected to act this way or that (violent or non-violent, aggressive or passive, abusive or victimized) because of gender, race, nationality, religion, etc. That is the problem. Not feminism.
I think the confusion stems from people only being exposed to one or very few types of feminism. There are many out there and they do not believe the same things or approach the feminist movement in the same way. You should read up on queer theory, if you haven’t already. Some good pieces are: “Making it Perfectly Queer” by Lisa Duggan, “Must Identity Movements Self-Destruct: A Queer Dilemma” by Joshua Gamson, “The History of Sexuality” by Michel Foucault (kind of the basis upon which the rest lays it’s argument), and “How Many Opposites?: Gendered Sexuality” by Judith Lorber ( a personal favorite of mine). Gender roles and the dichotomized thinking that informs so many people’s lives are what’s really to blame. There are more than two ways to be and your genetics do not determine it for you.
Feminist researchers only research violence against women and patriarchal theories are extensive in social policies.
nfvlrc.org researches violence against men and women.
Who’s biased?
But the vast body of stats and studies show that fathers are the safest and most stabilizing family member, not the most abusive by any stretch. I do agree with one thing feminists claim, though they are supremacists: A parent more likely to abuse their children is likewise more likely to abuse their spouse, and vice versa. Is this why both genuine child abuse studies and stats (not fake feminist ones) show that it is women who initiate and abuse their partners more in dating violence, partner violence and spouse abuse. That sure matches the studies and stats likewise confirming that women murder and abuse their own children considerably more often than fathers do. See, FEMINISTS CAN BE RIGHT!
“Psychotherapy?
If a woman actually physically assaults you this is a crime.
If you imagine it – it is not.”
(4,4): Have ‘Issues’. This bingo thing is fun.
So, let me deconstruct your comment.
I am a male who claims to have faced attempted homicide (and many other crimes) perpetrated by my first wife.
Since I have not been taken seriously by police, who used a bruise she had on her leg which she got when I PUSHED HER OFF MY NECK FROM HER UNPROVOKED HOMICIDE ATTEMPT as justification for scapegoating me, she concludes *I* must be delusional.
Because feminists know that no action against a man on behalf of a woman is EVER wrong, because of course all men are rapists/abusers/murders/__________.
Clearly, any man who objects to this based on someone else’s experience has been misguided; any man who objects based on his own experience is a looney! Why, of course that’s true.
Because any human being who is abused and then scapegoated for their own suffered abuse will be driven insane. It might take a year; it might take a decade; but they are screwed in any case. And since this is the de facto standard treatment for male IPV victims, the most likely outcome for a man facing an abusive spouse is death — by her hands or by suicide, or by some other effect resulting from the echo-chamber effect of traumatization. I have seen all of these in the past 12 years… to be perfectly honest I do not understand how I am alive today.
Reread my earlier post. Again, reading is important.
I imagine you say things like that frequently, in writing and in speech. No doubt becoming increasingly more shrill as time goes on. I, for one, pretty much ignore your comments instinctively at this point.
It takes a special sort of arrogance to presume to present the feedback of the “Female” and I say that as someone who is speaking for all Hispanics and all Males.
Amen! Many fathers and I have surveyed countless divorced fathers and find that fully 3/4 of them had false abuse allegations leveled against them which was/is always coupled with ongoing and very destructive parental alienation child abuse. These are twin crimes of abuse on top of these women already being among the most abusive women. These twin abuse crimes ironically do not show up in ANY abuse stats or studies, on top of all the abuse women and mothers already dominate in (initiate and commit more of than men) according to the lion’s share of real legit stats and studies.
There’s little to NO accountability for abusive women, but they are however coached, encouraged and rewarded in their abuse of men and children by feminist/manginga(“good” men)-structured govt programs including the “justice” system which is dictated by, you guessed it, supremacist feminists and their mangina chivalrist lapdogs.
Gee, and people wonder why MRAs think Feminists are all a bunch of hateful bigots….
See: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rethinking-men . You call The Third Reich of feminism ‘civilized’. I beg differ.
That’s right – downplaying, marginalizing, maligning men is destroying the family and thus civilization which cannot be built or remain standing in the absence of men and fathers whoa re the primary builders and protectors, not abusers.
Sorry, I misused a word.
I meant to say “I think it doesn’t stand for this, though, but for a type of isolated-from-women, combative fatherhood, not done in connection with the mother, that often becomes AUTHORITARIAN and/or exploitative (the man makes the child, especially a daughter, into a companion, or competes with the child, especially a son).”
I have yet to see an MRA post that uses a feeling word. They don’t even say “I’m angry” much talk of other emotions such as sadness, happiness, fear.
No way, no how would I have a child with a man like that or, if I worked in the judicial or law enforcement system, consider a man (or woman, for that matter) with this inability to be capable of parenting without abuse/neglect.
Many mothers use emotional blackmail in order to control their children. Emotional blackmail is as violent as using your fists and weapons on your child.
Emotional blackmail statements come in the form of:
‘Don’t you care about my feelings?’
Children don’t, in fact, need to center the feelings of their parents; it’s their parents who are responsible for providing children the emotional nurturance they need to grow. Children who are expected to tend to the emotional needs of their parents are just as damaged as children who are expected to tend to the sexual needs of their parents.
Men, and fathers, have the strong tendency to remove appeals to emotion from dialog and instead rely on facts, logic and reasoning.
These three things are the foundation of a democratic, civil society. The fact that you find those drawn to dialog using facts, logic and reasoning and not emotional bullying is deeply telling.
I don’t think a man should have a child with you nor should the judicial or law enforcement consider you capable of parenting without emotional abuse/incest.
The FRA groups are against parental alienation, for equal shared parenting, mandatory mediation and unbiased DV services.
“A child-focused analysis of child custody determination must also include a careful consideration of the issues of child abuse and family violence, which warrants against a ‘one shoe fits all’ approach, even though the majority of contested cases of child custody, including high-conflict cases, do not involve the type of “intimate terrorism” necessitating the removal of a parent (as a routine parent) from a child’s life via sole custody. Contrary to current practice and dominant socio-legal discourse, children are not shielded from post-separation violence and abuse by means of sole custody. Although it is clear that shared parental responsibility is contraindicated in cases of established family violence, research shows that inter-parental conflict increases with court-mandated sole physical custody in cases with no previous violence, as fully half of first-time battering occurs after separation. New research evidence makes clear that inter-parental conflict decreases within a shared parental responsibility custody arrangement, as neither parent is threatened by the loss of the children and parental identity. The current framework of primary residential custody in disputed custody cases, contrary to dominant discourse, exposes both parents and children to violence”
Dr. Edward Kruk, FIRA
I am so happy to see someone doing this…I believe there is some truth in what I’ve read in the MRA literature, and the point is anyway that all of us are in this together. The challenge is how to find a way where are voices are heard and considered. Many thanks for taking this on. I will be avidly following the discussion
Marla,
Thank you for your open minded support. In the past few days there have been several well respected MRA leaders advocating clean up of some of the most egregious language and the over-the-top nasty posts. These tend to drive away most women and many other men as well. Yes, men are angry, but too much whining and contempt is off-putting. I hope you venture into the Manosphere, but of course it is still a male domain and being blunt, crass, and confrontational is the way of men. Men usually don’t get their feelings hurt and don’t care about hurting the feelings of another in a debate.
“Come in. This is Liberty Hall. You can spit on the mat and call the cat a bastard.” –A Bertram Chandler
CSPB ~ thanks for the encouragement! It does feel kinda scary in these waters! What I am wondering is why it is so difficult for some to say that everyone has a piece of “right,” instead of so much black and white? It’s like the parable of the blind men and the elephant…each one defines the elephant by the piece of the elephant they are touching. I think everyone has been hurt by the system, in all the ways (and more) that have been mentioned in here and elsewhere. What I would love is a voice (or voices) that synthesize and acknowledge all these disparate voices.
I, for one, as a woman would like to acknowledge the ways that I have been unfair to men: I’ve used them, manipulated them, let them do the dirty work among other things. When I look back at my lineage and my conditioning, all I can say is “no wonder.” But as I become aware than I can do something about it. I can ask myself what kind of world do I want to live in and take the time and energy to understand things from the male point of view. Again, we’ve all been hurt. But to continue to stay in our camps, sure that we are “right” and blame the other gender without acknowledging our parts in the whole thing, well, that only serves to perpetuate the very things we are complaining about. It remains the closed system that it is.
Although written in the 90s, I really liked the book “Gender Wars, Gender Peace” by Kipnis & Herron (also published as “What Men & Women Really Want’). Very even handed.
Women who have an open mind are really refreshing. Here’s one man who you might enjoy: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rethinking-men. Where there’s smoke there’s usually fire.
Good link, Anthony Synnott is awesome.
Thanks for this link…I felt he was even handed and clear.
Just a quibble: I don’t equate the mythopoetic or MRA “movements” with Men’s Studies, which you seem to do at the beginning of the article. I am a woman, a feminist, and I teach Men’s Studies, which I consider an essential component to achieving justice, peace and equity in the world.
Regardless, I love your site and project and am looking forward to reading the articles in this series.
Mens Studies = Feminist Male Auxiliary.
Yay, sounds appealing.
What gets me is how you people insist that one must accept and agree with Feminism before one can be heard on ‘gender issues’.
Autocratic rule, in whatever sphere, is still autocratic rule.
You’re a woman. What gives you the right to say what masculinity is or isn’t?
Semi-human! Fantastic stuff, there. No women bashing, though, no sir.
I’m a bit disappointed that he has adopted the same feminist rhetoric of Michael Kimmel (not-fully-human) and Tom Matlack (neandrethal). However, it doesn’t surprise me that MRA’s are adopting the same tactics that feminist have used for years.
Which feminists, specifically, have specifically alleged that more than half (“most”) men are subhuman, semi-human, or otherwise less than human?
Andrea Dworkin. Margaret Atwood. Catherine MacKinnon.
Mary Daly.
Actually, pretty much every ‘luminary’ in feminist writing. You guys SAY these people aren’t revered…but then, you study their writing, and believe their ‘theories’ (ie, that ‘men oppressed women’, for example).
In fact, the whole of feminism is so suffused with male hatred, that if it were removed from the ideology there would literally be next to nothing left.
That’s great, you know the names of a few prominent feminists. Got some direct quotes where they specifically assert that men, or “most” men, or possibly “more than half” of men (going by a generous interpretation of the word “most”) are less than human?
Pro-tip: Noting that men (as a class) oppress women (as a class) is not the same thing as asserting that men are subhuman.
Pro-tip: Noting that men (as a class) oppress women (as a class) is not the same thing as asserting that men are subhuman.
But trying to attribute the status of the few men that hold power to the entire gender is a pretty unfair generalization.
You’re confusing class with gender. Yes, upper class men hold more power than lower class men. But if you think being a working class man is hard, try being a working class women. Within classes, men typically hold more power than women. It’s not the fault of individual men; we are all caught in this toxic system. It’s easy to see things that way, though. Just like systemic racism still exists despite the fact that the majority of white people are not consciously bigoted towards black people.
It’s not the fault of individual men; we are all caught in this toxic system.
Its not me with the confusion. Its those who tell me that because I’m a man my life is only good. Its those who tell me because I’m a man I don’t know what oppression and sexism is. Its those who tell me because I’m a man I’m the one that needs to take responsibility for the actions of people who I only share gender with. In short feminists.
Also how is it that some feminists tend to dimiss men’s complaints as just whinning about lost privileges? At one point I really really, REALLY tried to communicate with feminists but after a while it became apparent that in order to be included I had to blindly accept what they said my life was like.
I’ve been told by feminists that my gender has nothing to do with the fat hatred I’ve dealt with.
I’ve been told by feminists that while the system does harm men there is no such thing as female against male sexism (and no such thing as female privilege).
I’ve been told by feminists that I need to put my pains aside and make women the only priority because helping them will trickle down to me.
I was in the place that some MRAs are in now but I’m working my way out of it, however they’ve hurt me badly and its going to take a whole hell of a lot more than the occasional parroting of “Patriarchy Hurts Men Too” (lip service if I ever heard it) to convince me that they as a whole (I’ve seen some individuals that do but they tend to be minority voices among the movement) actually do care about me.
But for now I’m done with feminism, land of “We won’t do it for you but if you do it yourself you have to do it as a femnists or else it doesn’t count.”
Oh I forgot the quantifiers. Its certainly true that not all of feminism is negativity. However there is enough of it (and enough of others who would rather pretend its not there) to turn me off from it.
Its those who tell me that because I’m a man my life is only good.
Well whoever said that is an idiot. Obviously, the existence of male privilege doesn’t mean that every man lives like a king. Duh.
Its those who tell me because I’m a man I don’t know what oppression and sexism is.
I suspect those people were trying to tell you that you don’t know what it’s like TO EXPERIENCE sexism and sexist oppression. Clearly any intelligent person is able to identify oppression and sexism.
Its those who tell me because I’m a man I’m the one that needs to take responsibility for the actions of people who I only share gender with.
Uh… what? No, you don’t have to take responsibility for other men’s actions. You have to take responsibility for YOUR OWN actions, including whether to try to mitigate the effects of male privilege, or to continue to reinforce it. Hint: inaction reinforces it.
I’ve been told by feminists that my gender has nothing to do with the fat hatred I’ve dealt with.
Fat men get shamed differently than fat women do in this culture, I suppose. It’s my impression that fat men get a TEENY TINY bit more of a pass than fat women do but then I’m neither fat nor male so I’ll defer to your experience.
I’ve been told by feminists that while the system does harm men there is no such thing as female against male sexism (and no such thing as female privilege).
Sociological-speak: what they mean is that prejudice against men by women simply doesn’t have the same power to make men’s lives miserable in the way that prejudice against women by men does, thanks to our history and culture, etc., etc. Women get a few perks from being female–custody of children is the main one that springs to mind–but then that “perk” is balanced out by being saddled with a disproportionate amount of child-rearing work, which is unpaid and which damages a person’s ability to advance her career and maximize her earning potential.
I’ve been told by feminists that I need to put my pains aside and make women the only priority because helping them will trickle down to me.
Well, as has been pointed out over and over again in these comments, the interests of feminists and the alleged interests of MRAs often coincide. “Trickle down”? No. More like, “We’re all in this together.” Although, “put your pains aside is pretty insensitive. Nobody said feminists, or women, are always sensitive. Are you going to disavow feminism because a feminist hurt your feelings at one point? Really?
I was in the place that some MRAs are in now but I’m working my way out of it,
Not sure what this means–bitter because of a personal experience with a woman perhaps?
however they’ve hurt me badly
Feminists? Women? MRAs?
and its going to take a whole hell of a lot more than the occasional parroting of “Patriarchy Hurts Men Too” (lip service if I ever heard it)
It’s not lip service if it’s the fucking truth.
to convince me that they as a whole (I’ve seen some individuals that do but they tend to be minority voices among the movement) actually do care about me.
Um… what to say. Look, either you agree with the premise that sexism and patriarchy are damaging to both women and men, or you don’t. If you agree, then a few negative experiences shouldn’t turn you away from the movement, at least not permanently. If you disagree, then you’re just looking for excuses to slam feminism. This is not about your feelings.
I suspect those people were trying to tell you that you don’t know what it’s like TO EXPERIENCE sexism and sexist oppression. Clearly any intelligent person is able to identify oppression and sexism.
And that’s why its wrong. If it were “you don’t know what its like to experience sexism as a woman” I’d fully agree but to tell me there is no such thing as sexism against men is just wrong.
Uh… what? No, you don’t have to take responsibility for other men’s actions. You have to take responsibility for YOUR OWN actions, including whether to try to mitigate the effects of male privilege, or to continue to reinforce it. Hint: inaction reinforces it.
I try not to reinforce it but at the same time when people go on and on about how men are responsible (just throwing us all together) it turns me off.
Fat men get shamed differently than fat women do in this culture, I suppose. It’s my impression that fat men get a TEENY TINY bit more of a pass than fat women do but then I’m neither fat nor male so I’ll defer to your experience.
Many thanks right here. Even if you don’t know it or experience you at least acknowledge that it happens.
Sociological-speak: what they mean is that prejudice against men by women simply doesn’t have the same power to make men’s lives miserable in the way that prejudice against women by men does, thanks to our history and culture, etc., etc.
Now that I (and other men) have managed to start speaking up I’m not so sure about that. I’m ready confront how its gone from “women have it worse” to “it doesn’t harm men”.
“Trickle down”? No. More like, “We’re all in this together.”
I’d like to believe that but as long I’m being told that my pains don’t matter as much simply because I’m a man I have a hard time believing so.
Nobody said feminists, or women, are always sensitive.
No but feminists like to often comment on how they are the ones helping men, kinda like that peice Marcotte did here recently. I know they are a mixed bag. I just wish they would acknoledge it.
Are you going to disavow feminism because a feminist hurt your feelings at one point? Really?
One point my ass. But to answer your question I don’t intend to disavow it. However I’m not going to waste my time trying to join them or win their approval.
Not sure what this means–bitter because of a personal experience with a woman perhaps?
As in I think there are people among MRAs that are bitter at feminists (and maybe women too) as a whole becasue of person experiences. For a time I was kinda like some of the more angry ones, cutting at feminsits at every corner and writing them as a bunch of angry man haters. I don’t feel that way about them anymore but the feelings are still enough to be suspicious of them.
It’s not lip service if it’s the fucking truth.
Its fucking lip service because they act like that’s all that needs to be said in order to count as being concerned about men. Just like you said above about responsiblity, there’s a big difference between walking and talking. If the best you can do is quote that line then its lip service.
Look, either you agree with the premise that sexism and patriarchy are damaging to both women and men, or you don’t. If you agree, then a few negative experiences shouldn’t turn you away from the movement, at least not permanently.
And that’s kinda what I’m talking about. A few weeks ago I was on a feminists blog and someone was trying to defend the notion that its okay for a woman to presume that all men are rapists in waiting. I tried to say that even if that person has had bad experiences with men that does not mean the entire gender is bad. I was attacked for it. I agree that the system at work and the sexism it promotes harms both men and women. But I’m not going to pretend that my life is all sunshine and rainbows just to fit in a movement that supposedly cares about the ways that system harms me. That said I don’t see myself as turning away from them but rather holding a neutral position (which is why I identify as nonfeminist rather than antifeminist) . I see enough good in that movememnt to not turn against them but at the same time I’ve seen and felt enough pain to not embrace it either. I have no problem agreeing with them when our views match (and besides its not like you have to be a feminist in order for your points to be valid right?).
This is not about your feelings.
I was rereading that trying to figure out how the hell you came up with me thinking its about my feelings. And then I saw it.
actually do care about me.
should have been “actually do care about men.“
But it is the same as asserting that men are villains and deserve to be punished.
Well, I can see how you got that interpretation, but I’ll try to clarify for you. What it actually means is that, historically, the gender of “man” has had control of many of the powerful institutions in the world and maintained that power by excluding women from those institutions. For example, women weren’t allowed to vote until 1920 in the United States, and as recently as 1971 in Switzerland. This oppression is illustrated in the astoundingly low numbers of women who hold positions of power (Senators, Congresswomen, CEOs, etc.). What we seek to do now is address the inequities that have arisen out of that historic oppression to give women an equal chance to gain power within society. Do women have more power now than they used to? Of course. Is the playing field level? Not quite. If you look up the statistics, you’ll find that it has been documented that women do two-thirds of the world’s work, make ten percent of the income, and own one percent of the land.
I think it is easy to look at feminism in America (especially in regards to white women) and say that they are being privileged in some way because men feel downtrodden with the economy in such bad shape and so many people losing their jobs. However, the bigger picture is lost when only considering your own experiences and disregarding women in third world countries or even minority women in America. Am I saying that white women should be ignored? No. I’m saying that any institutions, laws, or cultural norms of a society that seek to oppress or privilege any group of people is unjust. We must act from both sides in order to meet in the middle. Moving from one side alone will never get the desired results, unless the desired results are inequality.
Is that all you know about history? Aren’t you forgetting something? Anything?
Here is a hint: Have to count for rights & RESPONSIBILITIES.
No, that is not all I know about history. I wasn’t listing my knowledge about history. I was simply listing a single example to illustrate my point. I made it one that many know about, so that there was no confusion or disagreement as to whether or not it was actually a valid point. If you have anything else to say regarding my actual point, instead of my lack of examples or assumed ignorance, I would be happy to hear it.
Nevermind, I did not read your comment fully enough to understand that you are a feminist. What good is a arguing history going to do with you?
“If you look up the statistics, you’ll find that it has been documented that women do two-thirds of the world’s work, make ten percent of the income, and own one percent of the land.”
Cite? I hear this floating around but what is it based on?
Anyway, yadda yadda, women are the biggest victims always forever. Ummm… female victimhood, makes gender traditionalists feel all warm and fuzzy.
Except that, throughout history, men’s role has been to be expendable, to sacrifice their lives for their leaders, their religion and their women. They may have been freer–in some limited circumstances–but that freedom came with the responsibility of being more expendable.
No, it’s really not, although it is easy to see how it could be misinterpreted that way.
What it is asserting is that men and women have joint responsibility to effect change if we really want to move out of these restrictive gender roles and have a truly egalitarian society.
Okay then. I agree.
I just don’t agree that women are bigger victims then men or less responsible for the status quo.
I have been reading through all of the posts up to this point and cannot hold back response anymore; if my statements have been addressed later on in the replies, I will try to amend the positioning of this post.
This “conversation” is the problem with man and women. There is no communication and it tends to be extremely vitriolic, while lacking substance. Sally’s initial post was far more welcoming to the original posters idea’s than I would have been. The vitriol that she has received is unwarrented. Men, if you want to see the problems that we face in this society be remedied, hating women won’t do anything. Women, if you are not receptive to the needs of men in spite of your pains, progress is impossible. Sally, you are not alone, and I can see your vision of gender equality. I share it.
There is much to respond here, but for the sake of brevity, I will touch on the comments about and towards “White Men.” I am a white man, let this be known. I’m sorry if other white men have been hurt by the current system that looks at us with resentment. But how can you say that it is not warranted? There are generations of people affected by the dominance of white males. Our society today is dominated by White Males. If you respond using Obama as an example, I will ask you to look at the progress/nonprogress he has made as President and then ask you who you think has been influential in disallowing the progress he envisioned.
While white men are often the problem, systemically, of course white men are victims too. It is pointless to try and identify etiologies in such a complex psycho-social problem. Sally has suggested that we strip gender “roles” from their position of authority over our lives. In my experience, this is the answer. Embrace your masculinity and your identity as a male. But free yourself of the role you feel you must play to be male. Same for women.
“Our society today is dominated by White Males. ”
Um, no.
I’m a white female and I can tell you, categorically, it is dominated by White Females.
I, and my sisters, have a magic word to destroy any man I choose and it is R.A.P.E.
There are lots of other one-way words and phrases I can use to control men as well, fer example:
not a man, less than a man, real man, good man, creeper, stalker, abuser, harasser, cad, weirdo, sleaze
The beauty of these words is many-fold. For starters some of them magically call up these wonderful genies in blue to jail whatever unfortunate male has offended me. Others can cause all the bystanders in the vicinity to turn on him and tear him to pieces. Some can just poison his social relationships; others can make him doubt his very identity.
Sure White Man is in power. But he’s just a puppet being pulled by strings made of words.
Incidentally, these words work on all men, not just White Men. Including you.
I would have no reason to feel offended by those words unless I deserved to. If I was called a stalker or a creep, that would upset me because I’d never want to put off a vibe to someone that warranted that term.
What white female holds a position of superior authority over a white man in America? I’d love to see it, of course, I just don’t know if it is true.
And I’m sure your statements are not welcomed by some of the strong voices on this blog; are you saying that you falsely claim rape in order to get power over men? I’d assume that is not at all what you would be saying, so please explain
Well, Brandon, I attempted to but my reply got censored.
I’m not about to type out something that long again so here’s the scoop.
White women dominate their men by playing the victim, that’s the big red button for ‘do what I want’.
Unfortunately for women in order to play the victim they eventually become the victim.
Which is a prison in and of itself.
I agree with that, except, is it domination if the woman becomes the victim?
Feminist quotes:
http://mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/2010/02/feminist-quotes.html
“That’s great, you know the names of a few prominent feminists. Got some direct quotes where they specifically assert that men, or “most” men, or possibly “more than half” of men (going by a generous interpretation of the word “most”) are less than human?”
“To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.” – Valerie Solanas
“Men are from another planet, sent here by spaceships to copulate with female earthlings and propagate the species—a task for which science has rendered them all but redundant. We need keep only a handful of donors on a sperm farm for that purpose, where they can subsist on pizza and beer and Playboy magazine.”-Rose DiManno
“[W]omen and men are distinct species or races … men are biologically inferior to women; male violence is a biological inevitability; to eliminate it, one must eliminate the species/race itself … in eliminating the biologically inferior species/race Man, the new Ubermensch Womon (prophetically foreshadowed by the lesbian separatist herself) will have the earthly dominion that is her true biological destiny. We are left to infer that the society of her creation will be good because she is good, biologically good.”_ Andrea Dworkin
“[Men are] freaks of nature… full of queer obsessions about fetishistic activities and fantasy goals.”-Germaine Greer
“The male is a biological accident: the ‘y’ (male) gene is an incomplete ‘x’ (female) gene, that is, has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples.”-Valerie Solanas
Would you like more? There’s reams of these.
I think you’re a little too generous about why some of them are so dogged. Some feminist activists who mostly work in supporting domestic violence victims deal with MRAs basically night and day, and characterize them as the wife beater’s lobby. While I don’t think all of them have actually raised a hand to a woman, I think it’s important to understand that the dominator mentality is one of doggedness. This is, I think, why people get confused about why women stay in abusive—emotional or physical—relationships. We don’t realize how dogged and determined an abuser can be in breaking the will of the woman he has chosen to dominate. To really get someone to lose her ability to self-advocate, you have to be persistent. MRAs, regardless of their own abuse history, buy into the dominator mentality, and persistence is a major, major component of that. If you don’t get the last word, you lose, right? That’s how I think they tend to think and why they’re so irritating.
Amanda…..I’m sure that it’s technically possible to be more inflammatory, more sexist, and more inciting to the hatred of men, but for now……you get the blue ribbon.
She’s just being a typical feminist. Those of us in the Mens Movement are so used to it, we made it into a game…
Bingo
“Some feminist activists who mostly work in supporting domestic violence victims deal with MRAs basically night and day, and characterize them as the wife beater’s lobby”
Exactly, rather than deal with women’s use of violence and offering sympathy and support for male victims, feminists instead accuse those victims of being “wife beaters”.
fear, FEar, FEAr, FEAR!
The Feminist mantra.
You’re popping up all over the place and none of your comments contribute to the conversation in the slightest. How ever will you deal with that much anger?
…and your comment contributes…..zero!
Denis, what have you contributed besides furthering the vitriol?
None of them contribute in the slightest? Really now, I doubt you could show that at all. You don’t agree with me, sure, but then that’s why we’re here. To expose you to viewpoints you have never considered before.
And we were invited. Me personally in fact. I even wrote an article. And I’m sure Henry is regretting that right now, to some degree.
I got an idea for you. Quit with the shaming language (it won’t work, and after a while I’ll feed it back to you so hard you’ll cry for a week), and do some thinking. I know it’s hard, but it’s rewarding. Just…think.
What point are you trying to get across? Do you feel better for writing with such a malicious tone? Women have hurt you; women have hurt me. Have you hurt women? We have all hurt someone, may it have been intentional or not. People hurt people. Many of the posters that are responding to you and those who share your opinions are doing so respectfully. I’d hope you would do the same.
Thanks for your words Amynda.
Everytime you open your mouth, the number of MRAs increase.
You do a great job in helping us recruit new young men to the MRA cause.
AntiFeminist Greetings from Italy!
Oh, look, here’s Man-Basher Amanda, the one-note pony. Nothing ever changes in her analisi of amny situation involving a man – there is always going to be some way to absolve the woman and blame the man. She has a lot to add to the discussion – she’ll recruit lots and lots of MRAs!
Some feminist activists who mostly work in supporting domestic violence victims deal with MRAs basically night and day, and characterize them as the wife beater’s lobby.
It seems unlikely that they deal with MRAs night and day. What is more likely is that they encounter advocates for male victims like me who try to convince them to open their services to male victims in need. However, in nine years of advocating for male victims of sexual violence, only four organizations considered it possible that boys and men could be victims of sexual violence and deserved equal access to existing services. Of those four organizations, none of them actually provided equal access. One provided a 10-week counseling program for half a summer in 2006, which they shut down citing funding problems.
While I don’t think all of them have actually raised a hand to a woman, I think it’s important to understand that the dominator mentality is one of doggedness.
If that is the case, then that could easily apply to feminists. Most feminist activists are rather persistent in pushing their agenda, are they not? To equate someone advocating for support services for male victims of domestic violence as abusers and to accuse male victims of being inherent abusers shows the misandry that MRAs claim feminists harbor.
If you don’t get the last word, you lose, right? That’s how I think they tend to think and why they’re so irritating.
That has not been my experience with MRAs, although it has been my experience with feminists. One of the major differences is that feminists are given forums with which to do that, such as the Good Men Project Magazine.
What is your personal experience? Do you in fact have any, or you just spouting uninformed opinion?
“By 1980 there were already at least ten high quality studies which found that women physically assault their partners at about the same rate as men attack female partners. By 1995, there were about a hundred such studies. As of this writing, the evidence is even more overwhelming. There are about 200 studies documenting equal rates of PV perpetration (Fiebert, 2004). The meta-analysis by Archer (Archer, 2000) found a pattern of equal or higher rates by women in studies conducted in several national and cultural settings.”
“despite the much lower probability of physical injury resulting from attacks by women, women produce a substantial percentage of all injures and fatalities from partner violence”
Dr. Murray A. Strauss
I was fascinated to read about Fiebert, Archer and Straus, so thanks for citing them.
However, the methodology behind it all was thoroughly debunked by Kimel here: http://www.xyonline.net/sites/default/files/Kimmel,%20Gender%20symmetry%20in%20dom.pdf
This is something I would have liked to get in the piece but ended up being too much to take on as an aside. The Domestic Violence stats routinely cited by MRAs — the infamous Fiebert Bibliography — is about 200 studies, done by a relatively small handful of scholars (Straus, eg, accounts for 10% of the Feibert citations), is based on methodology that is deeply flawed at worst and barely relevant at best. The preponderance of scholarship, at a ratio of thousands-to-one, contradicts its findings. Bottom line, it’s shaky ground on which to base so much certainty. That doesn’t mean, however, that we shouldn’t care about men who are abused — i’d like to see MRAs move on past arguing for gender symmetry in DV, and focusing on helping abused men, regardless of the proportion vs female victims.
i’d like to see MRAs move on past arguing for gender symmetry in DV, and focusing on helping abused men, regardless of the proportion vs female victims.
I’d like to see that too but its gonna be a long road as long people that seem to have weaved “its something that men do to women” into the very definition of DV.
I see, so something where they attempt to quantify both the prevalence, and frequency of Dv, is somehow ‘inferior’ to the Feminist Duluth Model, which proposes that ALL DV is an expression of Patriarchal Power and Control. Literally saying a conspiracy theory is more relevant than attempts to quantify and analyze deeper. Yeah, that’s feminist ‘scholarship’ alright.
And look, a “we got more studies” argument. Tell you what, give us 30 years, and a tenth of the government funding that went into those studies, and we’ll not only produce mountains of evidence to the contrary, we’ll set up an entire academic discipline while we do it.
Bottom line, your dependance on public acceptance of feminist shibboleths in order to make your case is your achilles heel. Once Patriarchy Theory is outed for the utter bullshit it is, everything you’ve built upon it’s presuppositions will come tumbling down.
Choose the foundation of your arguments carefully.
I call bullshit henry. I want an official public debate!
The preponderance of scholars only study violence against women.
What scholars have you researched? I’d love to share my experiences as a male in gender studies if you are receptive to it.
Dutton v. Kimmel
I can set it up if you can get Kimmel away from the security of his academic environment.
Brilliant. Laughabily brilliant. How anyone with a logical mind takes that Kimel bullshit seriously is beyond me.
It starts with accusing the people who find equal abuse as evil men who want to see women being victimized – any and all claims further should be considered as crap if not outright lies.
And then the rest of the article, yes, you see, why studies done by feminist organizations who rely on there being much more male on female violence for their funding are accurate is uh… they use the studies of feminist influenced organizations and “criminal reports” that require police officers to arrest the person bigger as the abuser, not the person actually abusing. Feminist studies is right because feminist studies says so, circular reasoning.
Meanwhile, actually reports on the number DV cases for gender by the actual police and FBI that is not massaged show numbers that are similar if not exactly the same as the studies that show them to be equal between genders.
No it wasn’t.
If it had been ‘throughly debunked’ mainstream researchers in relationship violence would have stopped using the methodology. It was, and remains, the standard in the field.
In fact the NVAW survey *itself* also used a modified version of the CST2. (National Violence Against Women survey.)
All the CST and CST2 do is *ask* people about the acts of violence they’ve experienced or have perpetuated.
The problem is that when you ask people these questions, ‘what violent acts have you been a victim of/perpetrated’ then you find symmetry in violence between men and women in relationships.
The ‘debunking’ amounts to hand waving– saying things like ‘maybe the people being surveyed are lying!’ or ‘it’s not capturing the context of the violence’ or ‘all female violence(including rape) is in self defence!’
Again, all the CST and CST2 do is *ask* people about the acts of violence they’ve experienced or have perpetuated.
It’s about the most transparent methodology ever conceived.
Michael Kimmel doesn’t experience or the expertise in comparison to Strauss. Kimmel was easily refuted.
The CTS and CTS2 are widely used by even feminist researchers. Even the meta-analysis using the Johnson methodology showed gender symmetry.
Build your own shelters is not a racceptable response from a system that is already awash with government funding and filled with academic bias.
I call bullshit Henry.
Since Kimmel has been thoroughly debunked as a feminist gender ideologue and misandrist, I’m sure you’ll forgive me for not buying that he’s debunked anything that promotes a positive stereotype of men or a negative one about women. As far as I’m concerned he’s a feminist entertainer singing the songs that feminists like men to sing. A job he’s paid handsomely for.
As an Australian I am familiar with this site.
First xyonline proports to be about mens issues and is the brain child of one Dr Michael Flood. In truth almost every article is a man bashing exercise blaming men for everthing and excusing women. As to the Dr he has been caught out so many times fudging stats or telling porkies it is a wonder he has any credability left. To cite just one A NSW government report on DV stated 30% of victims were men. As this didn’t fit the feminist “facts” he was asked to comment. He dismissed it as just the result of conflict scale research so it wasn’t valid. Wrong! The figures were taken from NSW police and court records. Yet despite this this man earns a good living as a DV consulant to government and other DV agencies and grants to do DV “research. He knows which side of the bread is buttered. This man really is quite a man hating nasty mangina.
@Amanda Marcotte.
The fact that you practically equate MRA’s with wife beaters, proves why we need a men’s lobby.
Perhaps you’d be curious to know, that most prominent MRAs are dissident feminists. Not that I’m prominent, but I also came from feminism because I initially believed the claim that feminism stood for equality of the sexes. I grew up and realized that feminism is in itself a highly sexist movement and at best very one-sided (female-centric). Even the word ‘feminism’ couldn’t be more sexist!
The very men, that feminists claim to want, are the biggest losers of feminist influenced society – the kind, sensitive men who have no interest in dominating or suppressing anyone (like me). If people like me are turning away from feminism and to MRAs then people like you need to ask yourselves WHY!
Hey, Amanda, did you stop to think or even see that it is actually the feminist DV folks who continuously use that dogged dominator/abuser mentality?
Nice analysis, Henry. The worst of these guys come out of the woodwork in squadrons for assault on ideas; they see conspiracy behind every rock and tree because they have trouble understanding anything more complicated than a zero-sum game.
Can you say anything that isn’t a mish mash of feminist talking points? I got an idea, try backing up what you say…it could be fun, you never know.
MRAs specifically deny zero-sum. They believe that children need both a father and a mother. Adding the father back into the lives of children does not detract from children. It is a net gain.
Also, is it so hard to understand that men get angry when deprived of their children and often forced to financially pay for the follies of the mother of his children?
Yes, such men may come out of the woodwork to comment and refute ideas that promote this travesty in our society. Other men might consider this to be altruistic, if they can sleep under the same roof as their children, at least once in a while.
Bull. I don’t see a call for the single-parent domination you claim ANYWHERE. Fathers and Famiiies explicitly states the ideal of shared parenting, and I am not aware of any group with the stance you claim.
People can understandably get traumatized by being attacked and scapegoated. Please do a bit of reading on PTSD sufferers, and please be informed that PTSD is basically the expected outcome, and try to see the situation from that perspective. It is a bloody nightmare.
I don’t debate with self proclaimed victims who entirely miss the point. I am plenty educated on the realities of the world, including Personality Disorders.
I withdraw my comment, as I think I was confused by the nesting.
Show me one father’s group that calls for the ousting of mothers. One URL won’t kill ya.
Belanger: MRAs haven’t had many nice things to say about the Good Men Project Magazine since our launch last June.
—–
Well, for good reason, Mr. Belanger. As you know yourself, the Good Men Project Magazine is strongly feminist orientated, a by-product of Ms. Magazine, and what do you expect MRAs to say about that?
So far I failed to read anything in this ‘Good Men Project Magazine’, which might be in favor of men and not of women.
And yes, Mr. Belanger, there are plenty of men who were and are badly treated by women and by the feminist-biased legal system in Western countries.
Who takes care of those men? Who is willing to listen to them?
There is not even a forum within this Good Men Project Magazine, where these men can write about their problems.
“There is not even a forum within this Good Men Project Magazine, where these men can write about their problems.”
Why would there be?
And then feminists wonder why men turn to MRAs instead of feminists.
Maybe because… oh… they actually allow them to talk about their experiences?
Men(MRA’s) regardless of their own abuse history, buy into the dominator mentality,(Amanda Marcotte)
Are you insinuating that women arent as mentally strong as men? If a man(MRA) is abused he becomes the dominator mentality but if the women is abused she crumbles? Sorry to burst your bubble but there are many women who adopt the dominator mentality after being abused, they just may not do it physically. Also there are many men who adopt the victim mentality in their relationships. I am a man who is for equality, when do you think we will ALL start practising it?
“Are you insinuating that women arent as mentally strong as men? ”
Of course she is. That’s foundational to her whole worldview. Women are realy just trembling, firightened, dainty little girls in her world, at the absolute mercy of men, who are all vicious brutes. Does it get any more Victorian? She ought to write bodice-rippers for the supermarket – that’s where her talents really lie. She can’t manage to write anything other than fiction anyway.
While I can agree that Amanda’s way of expressing her view is a bit confrontational and her views more towards radical than not, I wouldn’t completely dismiss her point; however, I would change the vocabulary used to do so. I would refer to Michel Foucault in trying to express the view in a less confrontational manner. What I think she may mean, or the way I see it, when expressing violence or abuse, at least in the English language, the discourse around what it means to be the violent or abusive one is usually considered masculine and the discourse surrounding what it means to be the abused is usually considered feminine. Victim as a word connotes ideas of femininity in that a victim is shown to be weak, fearful, dominated, in need of protection. One cannot deny that these qualities are typically associated with being feminine. Since masculinity is associated with males and femininity is associated with females, oftentimes men are portrayed as the abuser through language, let alone society’s preconceptions about men’s vulnerability. What needs to happen is not to disregard feminism, as I have stated in previous posts, but instead to change the discourse and not associate aggression with any particular gender and, better yet, not attribute gender roles to the sexes. By doing so, society would be more open and tolerant of male victims instead of this “man-up, stop acting like a girl, take control, don’t be a sissy” view that is so tragically popular now.
Then look to your own house before you complain about us. Feminists are usually the worst sort of sexists, and they employ shaming language based on sexist stereotypes like they’re samurai swords.
I’m going to avoid the rehtoric that I see here as I’m trying to stay mostly un-biased in my current work.
I’m working on a project where I look at dads and their changing role in society. The intention is to highlight the greater involvement of dads with their kids. The fact is that economonic and societal factors have changed how dads approach parenting and we are finding that most dads are there more often and are participating with greater involvement. We’ve been conducting a survey and have over 400 responses but would like to get to 500 by the end of the month. Please come over to the http://TheDADvocateProject.com/Survey participate and let your voice be heard as a dad.
The usual MRA-hating comment from Amanda,
MRAs are wife-beaters….
And?
Let me say, MRAs are nothing else but many ordinary disappointed men, who are sharing their bad experiences they had with women and courts in their past. Why should they be silent? Because they are men or what?
Men are not always the aggressors, and there is plenty of evidence indicating that women are as violent as men.
Why are MRAs predominantly anti-feminist when you’re supposedly against the same social categories that pit men and women against each other? Aggressive, anti-women sentiments are absolutely and solely destructive; it’s suspicious…what’s your agenda here?
“The challenge is how to find a way where our voices are heard and considered.” Men are behind the scenes in almost all aspects of cultural production and media! AND there are 448 men in congress compared to 91 women! Whose voices are suppressed again? Maybe I missed something…(or maybe you’re assholes).
Sexism has a long history. For the majority of the last 10,000 years men have been able to legally kill their wives while women could have been buried from the neck down only a little more than a hundred years ago for going against their husband’s orders! Women just got the right to vote not even a century ago. You think things completely flip-flopped in the last twenty/forty years?! If so, why are women still murdered at the hands of men in FAR greater numbers than the reverse? Why do women still earn less than men for doing the exact same work? Why do women make more in “illegitimate” occupations than “legitimate” ones (ie. sex work)? Why are women constantly subjected to justification of this treatment through any and all major media outlets? It’s almost as if *gasp* women are rewarded for playing the clowns/sluts/degenerates.
You’re absolutely disgusting for trying to claim “oppression.” You’re as bad as a white person claiming to be oppressed on account of RACE! If you want to blame someone for how you’re treated, blame the MEN who control the media, blame the MEN who control congress, blame the MEN who are responsible for the social order because they’ve, being in power for the last 10,000 years, established it!
I’m all for men wanting to dismantle the polarized Western gender dynamic that prevents them from expressing emotion or feeling comfortable in nurturing roles. I’m all for men expressing their human concerns. But why do you have to step on toes? Why the aggression that’s so off-putting to women who have been wounded by sexism in very real and dangerous ways, of which there are so many? If you want to express a little sensitivity, PLEASE do it. Then your movement might be seen as something other than an obviously sexist backlash to VERY RECENT baby steps taken by women and men in the direction of social equality.
The amount of exaggeration and false facts in this comment is astounding.
Exaggerations and “false facts” (nice word choice BTW)? Let’s start with my claim that men are largely in control of media outlets. Take a look at the Academy Awards, the awards that set the bar for what images and stories are considered important. Since 1929, only 4 women have been nominated for an award in category of Best Director (if Best Director doesn’t say “controller of media images I don’t know what does”). Out of those 4 women, only ONE has won, and that was last year. The gender breakup of members of Congress is a fact as well. As for statistics on violence within intimate partnerships, ¾ of victims are female while ¼ are male. And about patriarchy being a near 10,000 year old institution…some scholars point to around 3100 BC as the institution of patriarchal thought. And to bury a woman alive is a very common patriarchal practice that still happens today (I know of instance in particular where a 16 year old Turkish girl was buried alive in 2010, for supposedly talking to a boy). Also exotic dancers make about $50 (avg.)-$400/500K (high earning) a year. Take another traditionally feminine occupation, like teaching. No matter how great or respected of a teacher/professor you are, you probably won’t earn more than $110K.
THESE are the facts. I’m not trying to obscure anything, just presenting a counterpoint.
Your DV facts don’t jive with the CDC. Patriarchy is not on trial here and you have not provided any reasons why patriarchy is bad. One example of proves nothing in general. Market forces determine pay, not what is supposedly deserved. For the most part, in historical patriarchy children lived with both a father and mother. This not deemed very important in our modern society with feminist biased laws.
The fact that so few women excel in certain areas is not proof of discrimination. Equal opportunity does not mean equal results. Everyone’s choices are different.
I have a very simple desire to be a father to my daughters. The Family Court System often discards Constitutional Rights in favor of whatever women allege. Truth has no chance against accusations. Children are deprived of even reasonably “normal” childhood.
No let’s justt start with oyur very forst absloultey bullshit claim about men having some kind of right for “10,000 years” to kill their wives and go unpunished. It’s a flagrant lie and the rest of your comment is equally false and all over the map. Erratic as hell – are you capable of any kind of orderly thought?
“If you want to blame someone for how you’re treated, blame the MEN who control the media, blame the MEN who control congress, blame the MEN who are responsible for the social order because they’ve, being in power for the last 10,000 years, established it!”
If you knew anything about the MRM, you’d know that this is EXACTLY what we’re doing
There are many men in the MRM who hold the men more accountable than the women for our oppression as they are the ones who are deferring to every whim of feminist immaturity to further their own agenda.
The Majority of the MRM don’t blame “women”, we blame feminists, manginas, white knights and social conservatives for putting pussy on the pedestal.
Haha, what a hysterical response from a member of the most privileged group ever. Yes, i’m talking about western women.
Let me quote the feminists: you’re scared to lose your privileges.
Projection – classic problem of the man lacking in self-awareness.
And what privileges, pray tell, are men afraid of losing?
I agree, but the rhetoric continues.
“Let me quote the feminists: you’re scared to lose your privileges.”
Correction.
They are scared to loose their victimhood. You see, for certain women, being a vulnerable lil’ thing in need of a big strong protector is the source of their femininity.
Thus by extolling male vulnerability MRAs strike at the very root of their feminine identity.
The problem is feminismo.
“Men’s strength is their weakness, women’s weakness is their strength.”
Warren Farrell
“”Under patriarchy, no woman is safe to live
her life, or to love, or to mother children.
Under patriarchy, every woman is a victim,
past, present, and future. Under patriarchy,
every woman’s daughter is a victim, past,
present, and future. Under patriarchy, every
woman’s son is her potential betrayer and
also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of
another woman,”
Andrea Dworkin, Liberty, p.58..
“”Patriarchy requires violence or
the subliminal threat of
violence in order to maintain
itself… The most dangerous
situation for a woman is not an
unknown man in the street, or
even the enemy in wartime, but
a husband or lover in the
isolation of their home.”
-Gloria Steinem in Revolution from Within:
A Book of Self-Esteem
“”AIDS education will not get
very far until young men are
taught how not to rape young
women and how to eroticize
trust and consent; and until
young women are supported in
the way they need to be
redefining their desires.”
-Naomi Wolf, The Beauty Myth, p. 168..
“They have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily
have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration.
‘How do I see women?’ ‘If I didn’t violate her, could I have?’ ‘Do I have
the potential to do to her what they say I did?’ Those are good questions.”
Catherine Comins, assistant dean of student life at Vassar College – Time
Magazine June 24, 2001
“Who cares how men feel or what they do
or whether they suffer? They have had
over 2000 years to dominate and made a
complete hash of it. Now it is our turn.
My only comment to men is, if you don’t
like it, bad luck – and if you get in my
way I’ll run you down.”
-Liberated Women, Boronia. (Herald-Sun,
Melbourne, Australia – 9 February 1996)
“I find myself increasingly shocked at
the unthinking and automatic
rubbishing of men which is now so
part of our culture that it is hardly
even noticed.
…
The most stupid, ill-educated and
nasty woman can rubbish the nicest,
kindest and most intelligent man and
no one protests …”
Doris Lessing, 2001
Feminism is an anti-male hate movement.
RE: Dworkin quote: While I object to some of what Dworkin says elsewhere, I find nothing objectionable here. Her beef isn’t with men here. It’s with patriarchy those are not the same thing, or at least they shouldn’t be.
RE: Steinem quote: Yes, it’s phrased provocatively, but again the issue isn’t the husband and the lover so much as it is the way men are socialized. it’s about patriarchy.
RE: Wolf quote: What’s your objection here? I thought MRAs wanted to help eliminate built-in societal expectations and damaging socialization of men. Isn’t that the same thing she’s advocating here?
RE: Comins quote: I’m not quite sure of the quote’s context, but it sounds to me that, again, she’s objecting to the toxic, sexist social environment in which we exist. This is supposedly the same toxic environment that MRAs want to eliminate.
RE: “Liberated Women” quote: Finally, something objectionable… From an anonymous writer in a local paper 15 years ago. Hardly representative of anything except that *any* movement has assholes.
RE: Lessing quote: Ummm… Isn’t she making the same argument you’re making here? What’s your issue with this?
RE: Dwarkin – Supposedly we live in a patriarchy so is simply calling every son a rapist (even though only a small portion of men are rapists).
RE: Steinem – I’m sorry but the “she’s not talking about men but she’s talking about patriarchy” is a cop out. She is talking about husbands in our current society as being the most dangerous thing for a woman.
RE: Wolf – The problem is that she is clearly saying that AIDS education would be better off if men would quite raping women (I do agree with the “eroticize trust and consent” part). What a way to dismiss every type of sex that could lead to AIDS except for male against female rape.
Does anyone know why the posts on this site just spontaneously refresh every 10 minutes or so?
The page reloads every few minutes to, I suppose, reload all the comments. This could probably be implemented better with JQuery (ARE YOU LISTENING PUBLISHERS?) and another useful change would be widgets that allow posts/threads to be collapsed onscreen. With these large branching discussions it’s almost impossible to follow with this design.
Alice……you make me ashamed to be a woman
Why?
The same way white people are ashamed of the KKK?
Allow me to correct your anology; it should be something more like, “The same way black people are ashamed of Louis Farrakhan.” In order to keep the power dynamic straight.
Oooh, snap!
Reclaim that feminismo! Men can’t be bigger victims then women, that’s just wrong. It goes against traditional gender norms.
Uh no. In one case case you have a group of people that was historically treated as subhuman, chattel, property, etc. That’s women, and that’s also African-Americans. In the other case you have a group of people that was empowered to legally own, exploit, and abuse the other group of people. That’s men, and that’s white people.
I realize that keeping our history in mind may be mentally tiring but it is well worth the effort. Do try to keep up.
If we keep history in mind Sally, Blacks may soon have white slaves and women may be able to legally kill their husbands. Wait, it’s already legal for women to kill their husbands. All we have to do is help those black people get their slaves and it will all be put right eh?
Gibberish.
Mary Winkler.
It’s called the pussy pass or the female sentencing discount, and it’s well documented.
Prove that women have been bought and sold like slaves in our history. (And don’t use a bill of sale from the folk divorce custom of wife selling. It wasn’t legally recognized and it was consensual.)
Regardless, even women were slaves, slaves have *value*; the average man in history has no value. Which is worse? Being a valueless pawn or a valuable slave? This is a trick question. There is no way to measure which is worse.
Men have had more social freedoms–in certain circumstances–but the cost of those social freedoms has been expendability. Men have always been expected to lay down their lives for their leaders, nation, religion and, within the last two millenia, their women.
The problem with feminism is that it only looks at one side of the equation and completely omits the fact that men are now and have always been treated as far more expendable then women.
Even if women were seen as a reproductive resource *only* that resource was still valuable and *protected* in a way that men as a whole have never been.
That analogy only works of the imbalances of gender were as onesided as the imbalances of race.
I realize that keeping our history in mind may be mentally tiring but it is well worth the effort. Do try to keep up.
Its not that tiring even after taking all of history into account rather than just the parts that fit your argument.
That analogy only works of the imbalances of gender were as onesided as the imbalances of race.
I don’t agree that the imbalance needs to be precisely equal in order for the analogy to work. Allowing that it does though, my critique of the OP’s analogy still stands. Men:women::whites:blacks is still a closer analogy than women:men::whites:blacks.
Why is the woman:men/whites:blacks analogy any more applicable then the reverse?
Men, Blacks:
die earlier
disproportionately imprisoned
disproportionately subject to false rape accusations
subject to stereotyping as violent and sexually aggressive
receive longer sentences for the same crimes and circumstances
less likely to finish high school/receive post secondary education
more affected by the recent economic downturn
more likely to be homeless
vote less
controls proportionately less of the discretionary spending
more likely to not see their children
Ooops… that should be:
Why is the women:men/whites:blacks analogy any *less* applicable then the reverse?
No they don’t need to be precise but my point is they are so far off that it doesn’t work. Like TB you’re just trying to swoop in and remind us that women are the “real” victims.
Danny, re-read what I said.
Talking about that more/less you just corrected?
By what you said I was talking about “Reclaim that feminismo! Men can’t be bigger victims then women, that’s just wrong. It goes against traditional gender norms.”
The black man’s plight was much more severe than any white woman’s.
And it still is, thanks to supremacist feminism which is an equal opportunity abuser of men of all colors.
WHATWHATWHAT!? Feminists LOVE black people. Take this classic feminist take on the status of African-Americans,for example:
“Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated.” – Margaret Sanger
Don’t feel bad alice, most men here make me feel ashamed to be a man. I guess that is what feminism does to people. It’s a real mind melter.
You should be ashamed.
After all you’re a man, you have to take responsibility for everything because women are incapable. Mostly due to being objects.
Also, you’re never vulnerable. Only women are vulnerable. Because vulnerable men make you feel icky in your man-bits.
How can you look yourself in the mirror after this comment? “After all you’re a man, you have to take responsibility for everything because women are incapable. Mostly due to being objects.”
How do women become objects? Tell me that. And did you really just say that women are incapable?
Er… incapable of taking responsibility for their role in shaping society?
I don’t actually think that, of course. But feminists do.
I agree that extremist feminists may believe that responsibility rests solely upon men to fix societies ills, but I’m not sure how they would appreciate any sense of incapability
You have a penis so you are the incarnate of the feminists’ version of the original sin.
Be ashamed … very ashamed!
Why are MRAs predominantly anti-feminist when you’re supposedly against the same social categories that pit men and women against each other?
I suspect that occurs because many, if not most, feminists are hostile towards men and men’s issues, particularly those raised by MRAs. I am not a MRA, but I have been on the receiving end of feminist hostility when I speak about my childhood abuse or push for services for male victims of sexual violence. I do not know of any mainstream feminists who support prison reforms to prevent sexual violence against male inmates or support creating services for male victims of sexual and domestic violence or support addressing the high rate of suicide among males or support addressing women’s violence against males or support addressing biased sentencing and family court policies that favors women or support changing the education system to help boys who fall behind or fail. Whenever these issues get mentioned, the immediate and constant feminist response is to deny there is a problem and paint those mentioning the problem as misogynists. There simply are not any mainstream feminists who actually oppose the same issues MRAs do.
It is, of course, much easier to write off the problems males face, and feminists are very keen to do that. That does not mean those issues do not exist. More so, since feminists supposedly support people speaking about issues that were previously kept in the dark, it makes no sense for feminists to be so virulently against men’s rights groups.
I am a feminist that supports prison reforms to prevent sexual violence against male inmates. I’m a feminist that supports creating services for male victims of sexual and domestic violence. And I’m a feminist that supports addressing women’s violence against males, along with biased sentencing and court policies and educational institutions, no matter who they favor. There’s a sect of feminist studies called Masculinity Studies that deals specifically with these issues.
Nice to meet you!
Nice to see you posting here Alice. I’ve meet a lot of feminists who fit the description Jacobtk gives so its great to see that they all aren’t like that.
Alice, nice to meet you as well. It is unfortunate that more feminists do not share your support for men’s issues. As for “Masculinity Studies” or more correctly “Men’s Studies”, those studies do not address the issues I mentioned. Most of those studies are just extensions of feminist courses and focus primarily on discussing “patriarchy” and “male privilege.” That is not the same as looking at the importance of male bonding in ancient Greece or addressing Western society’s treatment of fathers. That does not happen in Men’s Studies, at least not any associated with feminism.
Nice to meet you, too, Alice.
Let’s team up!
What organizations do you support that lobby for prison reforms to prevent sexual violence against male inmates?
What organizations do you support that lobby for creating services for male victims of sexual and domestic violence?
What organizations do you support that lobby for addressing women’s violence against males, along with biased sentencing and court policies and educational institutions, no matter who they favor?
Point me at them so I can support them, too.
Believing that women, or feminism, are in any way vital to the Mens Movement is your first mistake. We will get what we want. The only question is how much pain will need to be inflicted to get it…
Women helping will avoid the worst, but the change is coming whether you like it or not.
We will get what we want. The only question is how much pain will need to be inflicted to get it…
Now this sounds just like a threat. And it supports Amanda Marcotte’s hypothesis that MRAs are really boosters for abusers. Care to retract your threat, or clarify who is going to be the recipient of the pain you anticipate inflicting?
I would like to add to Factories statement.
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” JFK
Check the civil rights violence throughout American history. Factory is not making a threat, he is instructing you on the realities of history that will be repeated until we get the lesson down.
You can’t “retract” history, but hopefully you can learn from it. The pain he promises is an unavoidable result of the men’s movement failing, not its success.
Well said Paul!
I think they just want Factory to hit the Fembot Bingo sooner
Hey man, I paid good bribe money to get all the insults first.
back off, get your own feminists.
You’re right Paul, I forget subtlety is lost on these buffoons.
Okay, so who exactly are you revolutionaries going to inflict this pain upon? That part is still not clear. Who precisely is jailing your revolutionaries, siccing the dogs on them, beating them, etc? I presume those would be the same group of people who should expect to experience pain as your revolution advances. Who are these people?
Jesus told me there would be days like this.
OK. I do have busy day but I am feeling charitable so I am going to answer your questions, or at least point you to why you are asking the wrong ones.
The pain will be, and already is, being inflicted on those that don’t necessarily deserve it. There is a growing number of men who have taken the stance that should they encounter a woman in trouble or even facing eminent harm like robbery or rape, that they will not lift a finger to help them.
I am one of those men. Should a woman unknown to me be in need of emergency assistance about the only thing I would offer her is what society traditionally offers men.
“Good luck helping yourself.”
It is the death of chivalry, and whether you or anyone else here recognizes it, that death will result in pain for women. And part of it is necessary to allow women to enjoy the full benefits of equal treatment. Equal treatment, like it or not, is a hell of a step down for women in western culture.
Another area women are starting to experience that pain is through the advancement of Game, PUA (look it up) and other strategies that men are developing to exploit hypergamous tendencies and sexual selection programming in women to access them for sex and then toss them to the curb.
But perhaps the most pain to be inflicted is what you see transpiring right here. Women have been afforded about fifty years now the ability to disseminate and promote all manner of absolute bullshit without being challenged or publicly admonished.
That is rapidly changing. The days when phony wage gaps, rape and DV stats, male bashing, victim glorification and other lies go unanswered are rapidly ending. You can see it in a lot of places, but you don’t have to look further than the comments of this article to get the picture.
I hope that isn’t disappointing to you. I imagine you were waiting for talk of mass shootings and the public stoning of feminists. You see, when we talk about pain, we are not talking about the direct infliction of violence in any manner. Save that for your patriarchal illusions.
What I am talking about is the much more civilized public ridicule for the hateful mentality and canards people like you further every time you speak. Granted, many feminists are so obtuse that they don’t even realize when they have egg on their faces, but that will improve with time as well.
You see, the men’s movement is increasing in momentum, and significantly so. The numbers of men who are going to eschew the obsequious seeking of female approval and stand up to challenge people like you are growing exponentially.
I assure you that will be painful.
But there is more here, and it explains why your questions are so ill informed.
The men’s movement itself will not be the cause of the more egregious and dangerous forms of pain that you want to saddle us with promoting. The men’s movement is the one thing that will save this culture from that reaction going so far.
The men that will be burning buildings down and hurting people in the future will not consider themselves MRA’s. They will just be completely disenfranchised men in a bad economy that predicts that 18 million of them will be unemployed and unemployable well into the future.
Many of these men will be among the millions that have been stripped of family and property by family courts that now represent the biggest roll back of civil rights since Jim Crow.
And millions more will be the men who have fallen out of a misandric education system and fallen by the wayside in a female dominated work force that Hanna Rosin and other feminists is so keen on gloating about these days.
These are men that will be living under bridges and in shelters. They will be flipping burgers and mopping floors underneath wall mounted big screens that are still screaming messages at them of all the additional help that society needs to give women, and that help will continue to be delivered right out of the paltry paychecks they are earning, because without government pilfering there is no feminism.
And at some point they will be pissed beyond your wildest fears.
Are you following this or is your ideologically fueled cognitive dissonance going balls to the wall?
By people waking up and realizing that men and boys are in trouble we can avoid a catastrophe in the future that will end your smug condescension toward MRA’s on the quick.
The MRA is not the problem here. It is the solution to a mounting problem that is no different than those that resulted in the American Revolution and the riots that rocked American cities during the late 60’s.
And just like then, you won’t be able to fix it with water cannons or bullets. And that will indeed result in unthinkable pain, not from my kind, but by your own selfish, incredibly myopic hand.
And to your other question, the only reason you don’t see dogs on our leaders (though I have gotten death threats) is because we are early enough in this that there is still “control utility” in shaming men into silence and cooperation.
Check around Ms. Sally, and you will see that control slipping. And when it finally reaches a critical mass of men who don’t give a rat’s ass about your approval or you opinion, things will get a lot more painful for everyone.
Alas, you, nor society, will likely practice good sense about this. But you wanted answers, so there they are.
Thank you Paul. That was beautiful. (sniff)
Something said by another person about another cause in reacting against what is now seen as tyrany is as valid in this context as it was in his.
“There is nothing more dangerous than to build a society
with a large segment of people in that society who feel
that they have no stake in it; who feel that that have
nothing to lose. People who have stake in their society,
protect that society, but when they don’t have it,
they unconsciously want to destroy it.”
— Martin Luther King Jr.
You’ve touched me too, Paul, sniff, sniff, sniff (NO, not in that way!)
Yes indeed, look up PUA. It’s so true that more men are waking up to the games (manipulation/abuse) women are “entitled” to play, and waking up to the fact that women have sexual needs too, no less intense and thus just as exploitable as men’s. They too wear their sexual desire on their sleeve, but most men don’t realize or see that without PUA and other training since women wear it very differently. Women get their own version of PUA training from their mothers and friends to manipulate men. When men wake up to the fact that women want sex, on their own level even more than men do, then these men tend to stop letting women sexually manipulate and game them. When the sexual playing field actual becomes equal it all blows up for these manipulative women when they are knocked down off their pedestals to an equal game, or are gamed back or just called on their game. Some can dish it out but can’t take it, nor can they take true equality. Most men don’t use this knowledge maliciously as most women do, but to detect honest and equality based women vs manipulative supremacist drama queens (feminists and their followers – most “women”) entitled to use and abuse, from the perch of their pedestals.
“Now this sounds just like a threat.”
Only in your dainty fainty imagination. Patriarchal gender roles much?
He is obviously talking about broad social change. If that’s a threat to you, that says more about your privilege than it does about any actual personal threat, as you are trying to spin it.
“And it supports Amanda Marcotte’s hypothesis that MRAs are really boosters for abusers. ”
Hardly. That’s just another distortion, more spin. Amanda’s bigoted hypothesis that men are really just abusers is her standard-ass go-to default position when she sees something she can’t really refute.
No, what it supports is Factory’s contention that social change is coming, that chivlary and all its forms – female privilege in family courts, in criminal courts, in the worksite risks, in disproportinate attention to crimes against women, both in the legal system and in the culture, in the form of victim feminism and feminist special pleading, in general – is all coming to an end.
Equality is coming and everyone had better get ready for it. That means no more pussy pass if you hire someone to kill your husband because you want to trade up, no more free ride in the family courts if you decide to end the marriage – a fair ride, not a free ride wiht the presumption that you should get custody.
That means reproductive equality – a father can get rid of a fetus or a child as easily as a women, by legal rather than medical means obviously. If you want a child on your own, that’s just how it’s going to be . On. Your. Own. Oh, and that doesn’t mena you get to inflict a childhood of poverty on that child – raise him decently or lose him to adoption.
That means women’s full participation in all the dirty, dangerous and difficult jobs that make civilzed life possible, not just sitting your ass at a desk while the men do the heavy work outside, or whining about seats on the board of directors.
Oh, and one last thing – mother privilege is over too. No more whining about how hard preganacy and childbirth are. They’re horrible for humans. We all know that. It’s the biggest argument I can think against Intelligent Design. Tough shit – sucks to be human. No problem – right now the planet so does not need any more humans anyway.
Gte ready, because it’s coming.
Actually, Factory supported Amanda’s claim when he spoke out against her.
Did you not know that disagreeing with a woman is abusive?
Sally, you are inciting people to violence with this comment. Tread carefully.
I’m not buying this women are oppressed crap. Women have had it better than men especially in the anglosphere.
Female Feedback wrote: “…I don’t think the answer if for these guys to reject Western Civilization and take us back to medieval times.”
Your entire post was essentially ludicrous. Most MRA have no interest in going back to medieval times. That comment of yours alone tells us how ignorant you are about us. Men everywhere are waking up to how women, society, and government have used and abused us. No, we don’t want to go back to medieval times. We want our freedom from women and government. You need us more than we need you. Men are MGTOW — men going their own way — and ghosting from your control. We are no longer content and feel obligated to being the providers and protectors of women, government, and society. One good thing that feminism has done for men is to have awoken the sleeping giant within men.
You can scream ‘man-up’ all you want. The answer is No, go away. Man out.
Men, Boycott Chivalry.
Great – please do leave. I have no interest in men like you and other women with jobs aren’t either.
That’s priceless. A woman telling a man to leave a men’s site.
Got some news for you, Female Feedback. It’s not your house. You’re not the lady of the House; you didn’t build it and you didn’t even pay for and you don’t get to tell anyopne to sleep on the couch, or to leave.
I’m not telling him to leave – he said he wanted to leave and seemed to be curious whether anyone would care. I was just confirming for him that I don’t care.
None of us care about your feelings princess.
That’s nice. And yet you’re posting here as if you expect people to give a damn about YOUR feelings. What gives?
Er… a lot of Female Feedback’s schtick has been shaming men about not emoting enough for her liking.
Hear hear. Fuck chivalry. I prefer non-gender-specific politeness and decency.
Also, men who would like to go their own way–please do! Nothing’s stopping you. I’m sure everyone will be happier once you get busy building your manly utopia.
We are no longer content and feel obligated to being the providers and protectors of women, government, and society.
Good! Because frankly, you’ve done a terrible job so far of providing and protecting, except when it comes to things that benefit powerful men. Funny, that. Anyway, if we could all try a completely different system, whereby people receive protection based on their actual need for protection, rather than the type of genitalia they possess, as I said before, I think everyone will be a lot happier.
“……you’ve done a terrible job so far of providing and protecting, except when it comes to things that benefit powerful men.”
You’re so spoiled that you don’t even know it. Men providing for women – if women had to grow even a tenth of their own food, what would that do to the obesity stats? The world waited through 10,000 years of midwives and doulas and women died like rats during childbirth, until men came along and took it over. Etc.
“I prefer non-gender-specific politeness and decency. ”
Good. Get to it. It’s a two way street. You make the first move for a change, if that doesn’t challenge your gender socialization too much.
You sound just like Pat Robertson talking about black people. “You uppity bastards should be grateful damn it!” It’s just as convincing as his faux outrage.
There would be a lot less male violence without chivalry and a lot fewer wars if women were 50% of combat troops. Men are disposable but public opinion would sway rapidly if large numbers of women were killed in battle.
I ask you: Who is keeping women from being in the armed forces combat troops? Oh right… the MALE generals… and the MALE congressMEN.
Women need their own combat units without any men. Feminists should volunteer first to liberate third world women.
I don’t see too many feminists on Capital Hill demanding the privilege of going to war.
Hold up I thought it was “patriarchy” that was harming men not individual men? Or does that only come into play when someone starts criticizing feminism?
“I ask you: Who is keeping women from being in the armed forces combat troops? Oh right… the MALE generals… and the MALE congressMEN.”
Jeeze, I wonder why?
Maybe because male leaders couldn’t give two shits about men? Maybe male politicians aren’t really men at all, they’re a third gender. We could call them… nomen.
Men, women and nomen. And feminists have this uncomfortable tendency of lumping two completely different groups together, men and nomen. All the while pretending that nomen don’t have a much greater, and lurid, interest in the vulnerabilities of women.
Women could not handle the front line what so ever. They panic, their emotions would be way to high.
When it comes to comms, their voices are too high etc. They cannot physically do the same as a male. They have certain standards of how much they are able to lift etc… and of course the males is a lot higher than a females (upper body strength). Yes I have served in the military… so I know what I am talking about.
Why cant females just get it through their thick skulls that not every job on this earth is made for women to do… But in saying that too many jobs have been so much easier so that women can do it. But they want equality… what a load of crap. They want standards lowered so that they are able to achieve them… to make jobs a lot more comfortable. Show many women who will work in a NON air con/ centreally heated office, where they have to sit on wooden chairs.. and then I will show you an office full of men.
Show me the ‘docks’ where everything is manually handled and you may find ‘a’ women..
Feminists dont want equal equality at all… if they did they would do the jobs how they use to be.
I fully support the ‘real’ MRA.. but when you get women come onto a ‘Mens’ site and then bitch and complain.. well they should be the ones to leave .. and not the other way around.
How many men have been shot down in flames if they try to debate on any feminst website forum… and I and many others have seen it.
I am a daugher, a sister, a mother and a wife… and I will NEVER support feminism.
Alice,
Thank you for proving one of the many points put forth by MRA about feminists. Your propaganda rant doesn’t have the influence that it did decades ago. After forty-five years of feminism people are increasingly looking behind the illusions and cobwebs spun by your kind and recognizing the ugly truths that are there. The results of the destruction to society by feminism is all around us. Someone once wrote that the best way to handle the absurd claims by a feminist is simply to let her keep ranting on and on and she’ll make a fool out of herself.
Please enlighten me as to what’s absurd about my “claims” here.
& thank YOU for proving one of the many points put forth by ME (because I’m not going to lump all feminists into the same category) about you exploding at people who are just trying to help you. I guess the best way to handle the violent ramblings of an uneducated spoiled brat is to be smarter than him.
Alice, why did you resort to calling names? Aharon commented about your actions, but I guess he did call you a feminist. You have a nice day!
“thank YOU for proving one of the many points put forth by ME (because I’m not going to lump all feminists into the same category) about you exploding at people who are just trying to help you. I guess the best way to handle the violent ramblings of an uneducated spoiled brat is to be smarter than him.”
THIS is what a feminist looks like.
Alice: AND there are 448 men in congress compared to 91 women! Whose voices are suppressed again?
—–
As far as I know, every US-citizen regardless the gender has the same voting right. 1 person – 1 vote.
It seems not all women are feminist orientated and they are not voting for female candidates out of various reasons.
Who says, except the feminists, that a female voter MUST vote for a female candidate?
How can you blame the MRAs for that?
About MRAs, we like the idea going our own way. What’s wrong with that?
Who says, except the feminists, that a female voter MUST vote for a female candidate?
Actually, Republicans said that. During the last presidential election. They seemed genuinely surprised that women didn’t flock to the Republican party in droves, just for the opportunity to vote for a female VP.
Meanwhile, many feminists fulminated about how stupid Republicans must think women are–just because a person has a vagina, doesn’t mean she promotes the interests of women. I recall hearing, over and over again, that voting for a woman just because she’s a woman is just as sexist as voting against a woman just because she’s a woman.
But then, I live in reality.
“just because a person has a vagina, doesn’t mean she promotes the interests of women”
Funny how women only support candidates that look out for women’s own interests. Thanks SallyStrange, you make a fine specimen.
What exactly is the problem with that? Working class people vote for politicians who look out for the interests of working class people. Rich people vote for politicians who look out for them. Union members vote for politicians who look out for union, etc., etc. Why is it so shocking that women should want the politicians they elect to DO THEIR JOB, i.e., look out for the interests of their constituents, roughly half of whom are women?
Oy… so illogical.
Notice that all those groups were “people” whereas women are only 1/2 the people? What would you say to someone voting for a candidate that advances the interests of white people or MEN?
…or intelligent female candidates don’t make it far because sexism is the norm. When (I don’t want to say “most” but) many American people imagine a successful female candidate, they imagine an American female with masculine or masculine-approved characteristics. Take Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell, or Michele Bachmann: all attractive anti-feminists who speak on behalf of gun rights!
& I’m only blaming the MRA “commenters” on here for their brutal attacks on anyone who brings up a counterpoint. It only feeds into negative stereotypes about your movement (ie. violent, deranged, bitter, spoiled).
They are more like big fat lies that the propaganda machine tells us over and over again … like the fact that men disagreeing with women is brutal.
alice says:
March 8, 2011 at 1:35 pm
…or intelligent female candidates don’t make it far because sexism is the norm.
—–
I would not call a feminist candidate as necessarily to be intelligent. It’s more a candidate who needs a quota. Otherwise she would not be a candidate. Not in politics, not in business…
This is the problem with feminism, it is not productive, but costs us all a lot of money.
I would not qualify the statement “I would not call a feminist candidate as necessarily to be intelligent. It’s more a candidate who needs a quota” as legible. I can’t argue with DUMB. Please refrain from responding to me as I will not answer.
Oh no! Princess is upset. You better stop talking Yohan or she might pout and call you a jerk!
Dumb? You’re about as intelligent and Paris Hilton.
No, Alice is right–Yohan’s statement is pretty unintelligible. Falls into the category of “not even wrong.”
Perhaps you can explain it better?
(Also–”as intelligent AS.” I’m sure it’s just a typo, right?)
The only empirical way to refute what Yohan said is to remove AA and quotas and let women stand on their merit. That is also an MRM tenet!