When you believe that we live in a female-dominated world where straight men are the most oppressed class, it tends to make you wrong about pretty much everything.
Men’s rights activists—a loose coalition mostly comprised of men embittered that they’re not getting as much tail as they believe they’re due and men embittered after having their wives up and leave against their wishes—irritate feminist bloggers for many reasons, from blaming feminists for problems they clearly brought on themselves, to the Russian bride weirdness, to their dogged trolling and grudge-holding of feminists that criticize them.
But, honestly, all that pales in comparison to the most irritating thing of all about MRAs: they’re just so wrong.
When you believe that we live in a female-dominated world where straight men are the most oppressed class, it tends to make you wrong about pretty much everything. Wrong about the little things, like labeling every woman who displeases them a “feminist,” even if she does something highly traditional, like demands that men pay for every date. And wrong about big things, like writing off high rates of domestic violence and rape as matters of women lying, when all reputable sources agree that there’s simply a lot of violence against women.
They’re so wrong about everything, they’re wrong even when they’re right. Some of their observations of the world correspond with reality, but when they attempt to analyze it through the “blame feminism” lens, they get all turned around. Usually what annoys them stems not from feminism, but from sexism, especially when it comes to inflexible gender roles. Ironically, then, the solution to the problems they manage to correctly identify is … more feminism. I pulled together a sampling of examples to show how this works.
♦◊♦
Problem: Men are more often the primary or even sole breadwinners of nuclear-family households.
MRA explanation: A matriarchy of spoiled women have managed to get men to pay for it while they sit around on their butts eating bon bons all day, while the children scamper angelically past them, requiring little to no work.
Reality-based explanation: Women still make less than men in the workplace, but still do more free labor at home, even when they work full time. Plus, many men feel scaling back or quitting their jobs is emasculating. So, when someone in a couple decides to scale back or quit a job to maintain the household, it’s usually the wife. But, for many families, women just simply do more for less pay. Being at home is no picnic for women, since it reduces future earning potential. Plus, being around kids all day can be a little maddening.
MRA solution: Women en masse should demonstrate our gratitude for this financial support of some of us by giving up on fighting for equality, especially equal pay. Also, no more child support.
Reality-based solution: More feminism. Women should get paid the same as men, men should do as much housework as women, and men should treat domestic labor as real work, instead of as emasculating. Workplaces should be more flexible for parents of both genders. If that happened, more women would work outside the home, and more men would cut back work hours for family.
♦◊♦
Problem: Men have to do all the work asking women out, and women are often hostile to men’s overtures, which hurts men’s feelings.
MRA explanation: Women are lazy princesses, who enjoy forcing men to dance for the pussy, and then enjoy shutting them down, because it strokes petty female egos.
Reality-based explanation: These are two separate issues. Women reject men forcefully because 1) a lot of overtures are actually just harassment, and 2) even men who are sincerely hitting on you sometimes are really rude and entitled about it, requiring a forceful response. (Plus, some MRAs experience all rejections as women being too big for their britches, making it impossible for a woman to say no without being labeled a bitch.) Women don’t approach men very often, because doing so often gets you labeled slutty, bitchy, or desperate, or sometimes all three.
MRA solution: Pay a lot of money to creepy men who label themselves “pickup artists” and who promise to teach you how to get any woman you want in bed. The method usually involves taking an abusive posture to women, and learning to identify insecure women, extracting sex from them through bullying. You know, instead of doing something as quaint as sleeping with women who actually want to have sex with you.
Reality-based solution: More feminism. A world where rape victims weren’t denounced because they were overly flirty, where women weren’t mocked because they acted “like men,” and where the word “slut” had no meaning is one where women would feel freer to hit on men. Plus, a world where women weren’t harassed on the street, or where they could tell men “no” and be heard the first time, would be one where women weren’t immediately suspicious of every man who approached them.
Next: Workplace Inequality, Ladies Night
Pages: 1 2
About Amanda Marcotte
I’m a little late to the party, but I thought some might enjoy this link:
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/04/09/sexist-beatdown-manly-masculine-male-edition/
This is a feminist article (supposedly) bashing the new emerging Male Studies.
If you peruse the comments starting at about 118 or so they get very interesting very quickly.
Most MRA’s will not be surprised.
The two main peeps worth following are Left Side Positive ( I actually think the name is clever, but that’s where my admiration of this person ends) and Arbitrary.
In the comments LSP consistently denies that men are oppressed in any way. Then when the net of proof and logic tightens to a harsh degree she gives a fairly standard feminist one two punch:
A) she says that if we’re so convinced that men are oppressed why don’t we take it up with the male leaders oppressing us.
B) she makes a clarion call for us to learn some empathy and see outside ourselves a little bit and try to understand what other people are going through!
GOD you can’t make this stuff up! This woman spent mountains of time and energy specifically dedicated to denying male disposability, then when proven wrong makes a battle cry that WE need to learn to empathize.
Just unbelievable.
It’s truly amazing how most feminists think (just as LSP in the attached article’s comments):
A) women’s rights are EVERYBODY’S business, but men’s rights certainly aren’t THEIR business
B) they stand for equality (and everybody who disagrees stands for inequality)
C) THEY are the enlightened ones
D) only THEY have the answers
E) anybody who disagrees must be put-down, silenced and mocked.
This is a movement built upon a mountain of bullshit, and it has nowhere to go. Feminist organizations have (through their actions & members actions) proved themselves to be nothing more than a women’s advocacy group. Same as big pharma / big tobacco / big oil / military ind complex advocates for what benefits themselves.
They are no more about equality than is the KKK. My apologies to the kkk for comparing them to feminists.
From the article John D. cited:
SADY: You could run over my foot with a shopping cart at the Costco, and I’d write this very ideological post that was like, “SHOPPING CART PRIVILEGE: Does It Lead You To Run Over My Foot, and Are You A Monster? Yes.”
To feminists men are the shopping carts of the world and that has to stop for there to be gender harmony again.
See, the problem is that we’re talking about Men’s rights and Women’s rights like they’re separate things. Any prejudice against any gender degrades us all, so it is entirely impossible to win this fight in any tangible form if we continue to bicker amongst ourselves like this is some kind of sociological messy divorce.
Yeah, they aren’t. If you’re a decent human being, both sides shouldn’t be seperate things.
However, it seems like 90% of society believes that one is more important than the other. Can you guess which one?
I’d love for this fight to be over. Unfortunatly, there will be no end in sight so long as the mentatlity that “Women’s Rights” count more than “Men’s Rights” continues to propagate amongst the masses.
Well said! I believe in equality, but that seems to be the hardest concept of all to represent.
Ignoring Amanda Marcotte’s stupid strawmen arguments that have nothing to do with the MRA stance, following are some off-the-cuff views on why feminism is NOT the solution to MRA problems.
A) The onus of parenthood.
Do women get “knocked up” by evil men or are they 50% the guilty party? In other words are women EQUAL or just equal when feminists want them to be?
I saw a post up earlier in which a person (assuming it’s a woman) states:
If you don’t want an unwanted child, then don’t have unprotected sex–it’s that easy.
I’m 44. I lived in a run-down rustbelt city as a kid. My mom had 7 brothers and sisters and I was privy to some interesting conversations. The interesting part is when I was a child is when divorce law in many areas was unfair to women (a man w/a child support debt could simply jump a state to avoid it, etc..).
You know what the saying was then (when single mothers were getting effed over by deadbeat fathers)? “I guess she should have kept her legs crossed!”
How is that any different from “If you didn’t want child support, you should have kept it in your pants!”
All feminist changes to family law (i.e. no-fault divorce) accomplished was moving the onus of the pregnancy from the women to the man! If feminists were concerned about *EQUALITY* they would have pushed lawmakers to move more to something like shared parenting like Glenn Sacks is fighting for.
True. Its funny to see people scream bloody murder over remarks like, “She should have kept it out of her pants!” and follow up with remarks like, “He should have kept it in his pants!”
With equality comes responsibility and feminism has not prepared women for the responsibilities that come with equality. And women are pissed off about it.
B) Breaking gender roles
The primary battle-cry of feminists in pushing no-fault divorce was that women should be able to leave stagnant loveless marriages (of course they could do that under the old system, but boredom wasn’t a contract breaker, so mothers COULD divorce under the old system–but if the father had not broken his end of the deal by adultery, abuse, addiction, abandonment then he would win the lions share of assets, house, custody).
Of course without the contractual severance clauses to divorce, custody had to be decided a new way. In came the tender years doctrine, and “best interests of the child” standard.
These basically stated A) that the sole custody (i.e. “winner takes all”) standard was to applied and B) the person with the most care-giving time should have sole custody.
This is a very bad situation for all, but especially for kids. This winner takes all standard increases divisiveness and resentment (gee I wonder why?) making the parents angry and the kids subjected to this bad environment. Studies show that having ample contact with both parents post-divorce is the best for kids.
[Sub-point, this means that mothers (and only mothers) could A) commit adultery and/or B) have a serious addiction and/or C) be violent and STILL be relatively sure that she would get custody. In other words SHE could end the marriage through her own sh***y actions and be rewarded for it! It's like driving drunk crashing into a parked car injuring/killing every1 in it, then suing them and WINNING! end sub-point]
The secondary battle-cry of feminists was that women needed to divorce so they could break their gender roles!
I seriously doubt that these women divorcing were actually breaking gender roles, but I’ll go over that later.
What about the men of this wave of new no-fault divorces. Did they have their gender roles broken?
After all, feminism is about equality and breaking gender roles *for women* should free men from them too right? Trickle-down economics for sexual liberation! If women can be mechanics, then men can be nurses or some crap right?
Well, let’s put on our thinking caps.
A divorced man would have to pay: the mortgage on a house he no longer resides in, alimony, child support and would additionally have to start paying for a second home, and bring more money to the table for dating. Simple logic dictates that he would have to do MORE of the male gender role–working over-time, whining & dining clients, trying to make partner, etc..
If he succeeds in finding a new wife and builds a new family he will now have to pay for: two houses (1 of which he does not reside in), alimony, child support and his new family. Again, the father would have to perform even more work for money/promotions. Does that sound like “breaking” the gender role of provider?
What we see here is that breaking gender roles only *for women* actually causes a TIGHTENING and MAGNIFYING of gender roles for women.
Why?
That 2nd to last sentence should say: “MAGNIFYING of gender roles for men.
Once again the solution is, of course, more feminism. If women got equal pay in the workplace and had less societal pressure to be homemakers, and if neither party were hedged into ill-planned marriages in the first place by social obligations to suppress their sexuality for the sake of conformity, there would be little to no reason for Alimony.
In a truly equal scenario, things like child support and alimony would be gender-blind. They would be based around creating a transitional period to individual life such that a non-breadwinning partner would not be forced to remain in a relationship for financial stability. Child support, of course, is about the child, and not the parents, and the idea of resenting continued financial responsibility for one’s own offspring strikes me as repugnant, so that of course would stay– structured in a similarly gender-blind way, of course.
(I apparently like to say the phrase ‘of course’ after I’ve had a few scotches.)
Women do get equal pay in the workplace. Companies don’t care about workers. They just want X amount of work done for the cheapest possible cost. But society believes (and feminism agrees) that men should pay for everything. This gives women the luxury of not having to put in as many hours. That is, they have the privilege of working less but having their needs taken care of. No-fault divorce meant that only the man is committed in a marriage. She can walk for no reason at all and take the house, the car, the kids, and 90 percent of his earnings. Feminism likes it that way. The answer is not more feminism.
You see. Women aren’t under pressure to be housewives. Men are under pressure to support the household financially. Feminism only increases that pressure.
Looks like I got a comment eaten. I’ll have to try & type it again tomorrow.
Some assertions are fact.
Like George Sodini… he was in the PUA and MRA internet communities.
He hated women because they weren’t giving up the tail.
He shot up a fitness center.
Granted, he is an extreme example… but where did he go to seethe and bathe in woman-hatred? Yep. The internets. Main sites he went to were PUA/MRA sites.
“Granted, he is an extreme example… but where did he go to seethe and bathe in woman-hatred? Yep. The internets. Main sites he went to were PUA/MRA sites.”
Sources, please.
Not all feminists are lesbians, so not all feminists hate men but feminism is anti-male, so feminists end up being attracted to men but still end up with anti-male viewpoints and outlooks.
I disagree. I am feminist and pro-male.
“Not all feminists are lesbians, so not all feminists hate men”
Chris, it seems as if you’re implying that lesbians hate men.
“but feminism is anti-male,”
Typical believer of conspiracy theories. Believe it or not, feminists are not out to get you or the male sex. And if feminism is anti-male, does that make the men’s rights movement anti-female? Because judging by the MRA community, there sure seems to be a hell of a lot of misogyny.
“so feminists end up being attracted to men but still end up with anti-male viewpoints and outlooks.”
Uh, no. Maybe you should experience the real world before subscribing to such stereotyping.
I look at what feminism has actually done. Feminism has created a situation where women can walk away from a marriage for no reason and still take everything, including 90 percent of their husbands’ earnings. Feminism has created a condition where colleges expel male students based on nothing but a false accusation of rape. Feminism has created a situation where a woman can attack her husband with a knife and the HUSBAND goes to jail.
The actions of feminism do not correspond to what it says it is about. Feminism’s actions show a strong anti-male bias. As for MRAs, they have not yet been able to do anything substantial. We don’t know yet if it is anti-female. If it comes to pass that the MRM changes divorce law so that men can walk away and take everything, including 90 percent of the wife’s income, then you will be correct in saying it is anti-female. I don’t see that happening, though.
“Typical believer of conspiracy theories. ”
It’s terrible to believe in those, I mean otherwise you’d believe something like some shadowy group of men had been controlling the world forever for the sole purpose of keeping women down…
Same old red-neck ranting misandry from Marcotte. Excuse the alliteration, but she has become very predictable – the Jerry Falwell of the intransigent left.
Presumably, more feminism in the divorce courts would mean men would have no inconvenient contact with their children at any time. We are, after all, potential rapists and child abusers just waiting for a chance to pounce. The disastrous consequences for children can always be explained away by Capitalism, perhaps.
Marcotte’s instinctive antipathy towards men hasn’t moved the debate on an inch since the Society for Cutting Up Men. In any other context we would recognize her for what she is; an implacably racist bigot with no interest in debate. Plus ça change.
I think both the feminist and mens’ rights movements have the same problem – those who are the loudest, angriest and craziest get a disproportionate amount of attention. There are people in both groups saying stupid things (such as thinking ladies’ night is a feminist conspiracy) and then there are people in both groups who can’t stop themselves from pouncing on those stupid ideas, when really we should be ignoring the idiocy, and working together to really look at the facts, find inequalities and injustice, and work to make our society better for everyone and every gender.
+100
As my Dad always said, “the idiots have the loudest voices”.
I think it’s funny that MRAs complain about “echo chambers,” and then flood a comment section and vote to hide all opposing viewpoints. A lot of which contain actual bonafide ad hominum arguments. I come in looking for an interesting discussion, I get a bunch of asswipes offering rebuttals that would make a creationist blush.
Projectiooooooon
I think it’s funny that MRAs complain about “echo chambers,” and then flood a comment section and vote to hide all opposing viewpoints.
If you find it so funny then wouldn’t the comment you made have been downvoted too? As we can see its not…
Before I conclude that TGMP is now removing questions and comments that raise uncomfortable subjects, let me say this (again) since TGMP has decided to repost this, alone, of all the MRM pieces:
Amanda, perhaps you could explain to us all how Reginald Daye was helped by feminism. Especially as you personally contributed so much to the feminist assistance afforded the late Mr. Daye.
Marcotte: I find that your article engages in name-calling (“weirdness” “trolling”) and loosely supported judgements (flatly stating that these men are wrong).
Is this intended to be an opinion column? Or simply venting frustration? I ask, because I work to support equal rights between the sexes, and your article doesn’t help me.
What I need from the feminism and gender equality front is information on what inequalities have been identified, and how they’re being addressed. Success stories from both men and women on achieving equality are also very helpful.
Thanks.
Amanda, the irony is that when a feminist writes a dissembling hit piece on men’s issues, it demonstrates that “more feminism” is not the answer.
Men’s activists are just at the early stage where men from all walks of life are struggling to put a finger on something that just doesn’t feel right. Modern feminism began with “a strange stirring, a sense of dissatisfaction, a yearning.” And that is what you choose to mock now. But that yearning is why men are starting to organize and want to do things such as establish male studies programs, so that over time, just as with feminism, men can come to grips with the way society treats them.
It would be laughable for a feminist to try to say that men don’t have a right to decide for themselves what course of action to pursue. You say that they don’t understand feminism, just as you mock them and cherry pick and misrepresent their issues to make light of it all. So is that what feminism has to offer to men? The Good Men Project and Amanda Marcotte, here to say that men are stupid and don’t know what’s best for them, but feminists have it all figured out? Amanda, if you’re really a feminist, and I’m not sure you are a “real” one, then you are your own worst enemy.
Wow Good Men project, really good way to mobilise thoughtful discussion amongst men about gender issues, inviting the like of Amanda Marcotte and Hugo Schwyer to write articles for you site. For heavens sake, I think you might be a litle out of touch with your constituency.
Dumb article. Whoever wrote should be executed at a second’s notice. No explanation needed.
I mean, all Fems should be executed. Enough talk, heard enough.
Congratulations. You and your misogyny are the reason people mock the notion of MRAs.
and yet you managed to trump his shallow callousness by lumping all mras in with him. Hypocrisy much?
DITTO!!
Mens Rights types can be idiotic and lacking an ounce of empathy, but this writing is equally so.
> “Men’s rights activists—a loose coalition mostly comprised of men embittered that they’re not getting as much tail as they believe they’re due and men embittered after having their wives up and leave against their wishes”
Wow, that’s going to be a tough strawman to destroy. Maybe you could equate pick up artists with rapists to do it? Seriously, stop being so hateful for a minute, and actually listen to their arguments and actually address their arguments when you write. Perhaps you might even quote an actual Mens Rights Actvist instead of tearing at strawmen.
I disagree with this post almost completely. I currently identify as an MRA because feminism minimizes or ignores abuses against men if they are not out and out supporting them. I don’t agree that these are the main issues or even representative among MRAs, but I’ll address them.
Men are the primary bread winners in nuclear families.
A family that can survive on one income has a high earner. Look up two things in psychology. the relation between money and time, how money is more important than time until you reach a certain income level then it shifts. A person making $100/hour can make more in 30 hours than a person making $20/hour can make in 80 hours (2 full time jobs). The second thing to look up is the matching principle, which essentially means that people date in their own league. That seems to suggest that the women in these relationships are high achievers also, but have made the choice to stay at home because they don’t need the money.
Reality based solution: The gender based wage (really earnings) gap doesn’t exist. There is a earning gap between whites and ethnic minorities, but if you look at employment statistics, white females make up a smaller proportion of the workforce to their minority counterparts when compared to white males and their minority counterparts. I’ve seen no studies account for race. I’ve also seen no studies that account for income transfer. Child support doesn’t count as income at least while they parties are divorcing. I’m not sure if it does after, but in at least these cases it lowers the earnings of the men and increases the earnings of women, while hiding this within the results. It also doesn’t factor in any non taxable income, like public assistance. The real solution is the one recognized by MRAs and that is to change the gender stereo type that equates a man’s worth with his income level.
Men have to do all the work asking women out
I don’t see this as a major MRA issue. I personally find aggressive women a turn off even if I would have been attracted to them otherwise. I admit it’s probably an issue related to control, but I also have concerns that I’m reading a woman’s interest wrong and get falsely charged with rape or sexual harassment.
Reality based solution: My first instinct is to suggest expanded porn or prostitution, but I think that pressure can be removed from men by correcting the imbalance in the law concerning false rape claims. That would force women to ne clear in their intentions and not lead men on reducing the “work” needed to find a date. I agree that removing negative stereo types from aggressive women is a goal of feminism and is important, but it only addresses part of the problem. Allowing men to be vulnerable by changing gender stereotypes, while supporting men who are victims of female perpetrated rape or domestic violence, would also alleviate some obstacles. It’s not more feminism that is the solution, but more men’s rights activism.
Workplace inequity
Many of the more dangerous jobs require greater physical strength. Women are not barred from being fire fighter, but few can carry 200 pounds down a ladder. In many combat positions like the infantry, you need to be able to carry a backpack and weapons. I believe that the backpack is about 60 pounds.
Reality based solution: There isn’t one. Relaxing standards will result in more male deaths as well as female deaths. This is where men just need to man up.
Ladies nights
The solution is to make gender based pricing illegal. More men coming to bars benefits straight men how? I find it telling that feminists are neutral on this. I’ve gotten more tail when I’ve gone out with the intention of having fun at sports bars and such than I ever got looking for tail in a night club. If night clubs go out of business, who cares? A lot of guys don’t like dancing anyway. I think it would affect women more.
Reality based solution: Ban ladies nights.
P.S. You never said how more feminism would fix this.
This is a strawman article. Bar the point about workplace deaths (where Marcotte misses the proposed MRA solution plus proposes athoroughly unrealistic feminist solution), ever alleged MRA gripe she addresses ia an invention. Hey, Amanda, why not address a few real MRA issues?
1.) Violence in society and the perpetuation of violence in society.
Domestic violence in western societies is a huge problem. The violence that exists in virtually every western family will almost invariably transfer from the privacy of an abusive home and result in random violence in the streets and in war. Most violence in the home is initiated by women, and the main victims are the children. What do feminists have to say about this problem? Would feminists have violent mothers gaoled and have young girls undergo anti-violence therapy programmes?
2.) Paternity fraud
Everyone knows women are promiscuous and illoyal. Around 10 percent of all British children are brought up by fathers who do not know they are raising children that are not theirs. Paternity fraud is a sadistic hate crime. The woman enslaves a man and dupes him into paying for a child that isn’this.Many men never find out, and those that do, often do so when it is too late for them to try again. Tell me, Amanda: would a feminist such as yourself support the MRA position that DNA tests should be conducted right after every baby is born? Would you support the MRA position that men should not be made to pay for children that aren’t theirs?
3.) Equality
No resonable person will contest that men are the pillars of every civilised society. The board directors of Volkswagen can collectively die from heart attacks and Germany will carry on functioning easily. If the sewage workers of Germany collectively quit their jobs tomorrow, Germany will drown in its own shit. Men do all the important work that keeps civilsation running. They are firemen, sewage workers, electricians, engineers, plumbers, builders. Women incessantly demand to be accepted into top-ranking position. Only when enough women do their share of the dirty work, will they be accepted as contributing members of society. For as long as that isn’t the case, women will simply be seen as quota team leaders and managers. Amanda, would you as a feminist insist on a female quota for sewage workers and rubbish collectors?
4.) False rape accusation epidemic
What do feminists propose? Do they view it as a problem? Or is it seen as an opportunity? A tool that bbbbone can wield, as it were?
Theee are just four. There are many more. I’d be curious to read your suggestions. Oh, and by the way, screw you for trying to trivialise men’s rights issues. We aren’t interested in girls nights. We are interested in men’s issues and how female privileges undermine male human rights.
Best wishes
Christopher
Umm… okay, where do I start? I would like to say that I am both a feminist, and an MRA (see what I did there) and as a man, I’ve seen firsthand victims of misogyny and misandry, as well as having experienced misandry for myself. But I want to tell you that both men AND women have gender specific issues. I can also tell you that REAL women and men care about those issues for both sexes. There are more, a lot more, nice men and women out there than mean, it’s just that the jerks are so loud, that we have to strain to hear the people who actually have something meaningful to say. (And let me tell ya’, Ms Marcotte had just about nothing meaningful to say.) Sorry, but I wasn’t trying to sound mean, that’s just how it seems to me.
It’s always hilarious to see a feminist/MRA bash an MRA/Feminist because feminism and the MRM are two (gender) sides of the same coin. I’ve seen overwhelming numbers of brain dead bigots on both sides but when they post articles like this they show their true colors.
To the true good and decent feminists and Mens rights activists: I support you.
To the idiots going on about privilege while sitting in their western ivory tower and telling ghost stories about some creature called a “Patriarchy” or throwing out poorly researched statistics: Grow the hell up and understand that true oppression knows no sex or skin color or age or religion.
“When you believe that we live in a female-dominated world where straight men are the most oppressed class, it tends to make you wrong about pretty much everything.”
Well, when literally the first sentence of your article contains a blatant misrepresentation of your opponent’s position, that doesn’t bode well for you. If the root of all your arguments is a fallacy, I guess that makes you wrong about pretty much everything, eh?
For starters, gay men are just as much a part of the MRM as straights. Why add that?
And as a man, I don’t think my group is the most oppressed: I just don’t like seeing people lie dismissively to hide it when it does happen.
their endorsement of this article speaks volumes about their capabilities for logical thought.