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
Vocalyze
The MRA has a problem with Feminism and your solution is to inject more Feminism…
Isn’t that like saying that if you’re dying from cancer that the solution is to inject yourself with more cancer?
Yeah, that pretty much nails it.
If the medicine doesn’t work – double the dose.
Unfortunately, overly angry entitlement princesses like this one have missed the point entirely about MRA’s. Shaming language has lost it’s edge, and men are no longer cowed into submission by the mere mention of us possibly having a small penis, or not getting laid. YAWN. We are angry about the HYPOCRISY of the feminist movement, that has preached equality in the boardroom, but ignored the coal mines and the front lines. We are angry about the double standards of traditional relationship etiquette being called into play when the cheque comes, only for a new age agenda being rolled out when a kiss good night is called for. We will not put up with being lumped into a basket of the extremely small percentage of men who do wrong things, including violence, and refuse to not have our voices heard when similar injustices are perpetrated against us. Equality is a very bitter pill to swallow, when you realize that when you gain with the right hand, you have to give with the left. I have torn down the glass ceiling in my world, now you rip up the glass floor. You have the right to work, and to be your own person, and not rely on men. Great. You now have the right to pay half the cheque!
I don’t notice a lot of MRAs asking for the right to be sex workers or maids, either.
I don’t notice a lot of feminists – American feminists, at any rate – supporting ANYONE’S right to be a sex worker.
Nimue,
Do you live in a parallel universe with no male sex workers?
She is not saying they dont exist but that MRAs aren’t rushing to be them.
You can’t address the fraud of feminism until intellectual cowards like Amanda actually have the courage to debate their views in the public. We know why she’ll never do that though. The last feminist who tried it was EMBARRASSED by Manhood Academy and call the LAPD to them as a hate speech group. It’s clear that anyone who disagrees with feminism is automatically demonized and criminalized. This is the tactic of cowards who are unable to face the truth in a public forum: http://manhood101.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=341
“We are so wrong”? Thats the gist of your argument? LOL! This piece evaporates into diffusion of utter nothingness. That is not a logical argument. It’s a sentiment. There is nothing in this piece to even disagree with. All i’m getting is that Amanda doesn’t like MRAs.
This isn’t even provocative… Who cares???
Not ONE of the “problems” listed by the princess of privilege make the list of top 10 MRM issues.
Part of the feminist strategy for hatred is to fabricate false problems faced by men and then dismiss them.
Here are the top 10 men’s issues, Marcotte. Educate yourself to a minimal degree before speaking.
http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/the-top-10-issues-of-mens-rights/
Hate mongers such as Marcotte are an embarrassment to rational thought.
“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.”
What a joke of an article this is. You start by claiming men are wrong, in an arrogant belief that your ideology is the only correct way of thinking. You then proceed to tell us the problems of men’s rights, but not a single one of them addresses any concern on Zeta males top ten article run earlier this week. Furthermore, your solutions of “more feminism’ in every case talks about how the change will affect WOMEN. How is it that ignoring men and addressing their concerns, ONLY from a woman’s perspective, somehow solves men’s issues? This demonstrates perfectly the problem with feminism, that even when claiming to help men, you are only truly helping women, and if a man benefits from it, whatever.
The truth is, Feminism has done nothing to help break gender roles for men. men are still relegated to providers, and child support, spousal support and denial of male reproductive rights only enforces that role. What has feminism done to help with the issue? It actively opposes male reproductive rights, it helped abolish fault in divorce (to ensure a woman will always have access to support payments), and continues to fight to maintain or increase support (child or spousal) obligations.
What has Feminism done to help men take on the caregiver role? Well, NOW (national organization for Women) and the Women’s bar Association (amongst MANY others) openly opposes shared parenting, denying men the ability to be fathers to their children post divorce. They have openly opposed calls for courts to enforce custody agreements. It also opposes attempts to acknowledge parental alienation (as a syndrome or otherwise), for when a father (or mother) is being cut out of their child’s life. Prominent Feminists persecuted and labeled hopeless and unqualified, Kristina Schroeder when she opened a department for boys and men into her ministry of family (why? Are boys and men not a part of a family? This speaks volumes about feminist views on men). It seems like feminists have done everything in their power to actually maintain the caregiver role as a woman’s domain.
I’d be curious if you can list even one thing feminism has done to help men break their gender role limitations, that didn’t first and foremost help women. And before you go crying that feminism shouldn’t have to do all the work for us, remember first, the claim of all, that feminism is about equality, not women, dictates that men’s issues should already be under the purview of feminism. And secondly, it is you who suggested feminism is our solution, and given feminist’s action opposing men’s rights, to this point, that claim requires a lot of backing up
Logic was invented by men and the patriarchy and used as a tool to oppress women. Therefore logic is wrong and oppressive and you should not be allowed to use it to analyze feminist dogma. It is very offensive for you to use logic and by that logic you’re wrong.
I can’t tell if Adi is serious or if this is sarcaasm.
I felt the need to actually run through the “problems” she listed and show just how very wrong about pretty much everything she is. (lets hope this all fits)
“Men are more often the primary or even sole breadwinners of nuclear-family households.”
I don’t seem to remember this ever being a men’s issue. This is a feminist issue, but only so far as it relates to women’s dependence. When it comes to children and ex wives, men are still required, by law, to be a provider, even when he had no say in getting where he is at.
“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.”
So your solution to the imaginary problem of men being forced to be the primary breadwinner is to … solve women’s alleged equal pay issue, and to do unpaid work to “free up the women”… How does this solve the problem as you describe it? Men still remain the breadwinners in this scenario, and hypergamy will still result in men being the primary one due to basic economic principals (the one making less money makes the career sacrifices when required for family) If you want to address this issue for real, you must address the perception of men as fathers. Men need to be allowed to be the primary caregiver without being seen as weak and in need of replacement by their wives. They need to be seen as capable of being fathers, not simply as child abusers and molesters as the rape and domestic violence industries, run by feminists, portray them. Only then will men also be considered as equal parents in the workplace, and any discrimination that may or may not be levied at mothers will now apply to both genders. But as you never even looked at how to improve men’s lives in your solution, only women’s, you must have missed that. Ether that, or you think so poorly of men that you refuse to even acknowledge their issues as real (and are simply using this as an excuse to further your own agenda)
“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.”
Sexual double standards are a problem, but the “hurt’s men’s feeling” is nothing more then a shameful attack. You call yourself a professional? An Academic? Grow up. You also seemed to have missed the “and expects her way to be paid, despite demanding (and getting) equal pay.
“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.”
Again you fail to even address the issue, and instead use the opportunity to instead talk about a women’s concern you feel is related. If rape was entirely removed from society, nothing would have changed regarding this issue. The abscense of rape would not suddenly make women start hitting on men, as it opens them up to rejection, and we know women don’t like rejection. Furthermore, the absence of rape wouldn’t somehow loosen their wallets. Your solution again ignores the issue and chooses to instead promote your own and women’s agenda.
“Problem: Men are more likely to get killed at work.”
This isn’t so much an issue as an example of the double standard and hypocrisy of the feminist movement. You demand equality, but only for the good jobs. You are willing to acknowledge the pay these dangerous jobs provide when discussing the wage gap, but refuse to acknowledge that pay comes from increased dangers women have chosen not to endure. You can’t expect the average income of all working women will compare with that of all working men when women are all in the lower paying “comfy” jobs, by their own choice.
“Reality-based solution: More feminism. Shut down all formal discrimination against women, and create programs that make it easier for women to get into these professions. Stop informal harassment of female workers that keeps them off the job. Educate young girls about their options to take these jobs. Eventually, you’ll get parity in dangerous jobs, and women will, as a side effect, be killed at the same rate as men.”
All formal discrimination against women has been shut down. It is not only illegal, in many places, it is audited. Furthermore, women have gained the privilege of discrimination against men in the form of affirmative action (and sometimes even quota’s), especially given that failure to hire enough women could result in legal action, regardless of whether those women are best qualified or not.
And you would need to prove that it is discrimination and harassment that is keeping these women from these jobs, and not just that women don’t want to do them, because, you know… THEY’RE DANGEROUS!!!
For the third time you have chosen to ignore the issue and instead champion a feminist cause under the false claim that it will solve men’s problems.
Problem: Ladies Night, where bars often extend a drink special to women and not to men.
“Reality-based solution: Ban Ladies Night or don’t, because who honestly gives a crap? The only people who stand to lose out are douchebags complaining that they can’t find cheesy bars with lots of hot women to pester.”
If the gender roles were reversed, and it was men given special discounts, you can be DMAN certain feminists would “give a crap”. You demonstrate a clear failure to understand or empathize with the double standards men face. You simply demonstrate a further arrogance and disregard for men. Ladies nights are a clearly sexist application of discrimination against men. This policy (as well as other similar ones, such as women only bars and sporting clubs) set a precedent that it is not only legal, but socially acceptable to discriminate against men.
And finally, your ending comment “women to pester” demonstrates for the forth time (out of four) your attempt to address this as a women’s issue. Women, and especially feminists, don’t have a monopoly on the problems experienced in today’s society. Your complete lack of both understanding, as well as empathy for the REAL problems men seek to address (such as family law reform to allow fathers to be fathers, or gender bias in government due to their being a gender minister who’s very job is to be biased in favour of women, but no such position for men.) shows you for the selfish, arrogant, hateful woman that you are.
This piece in itself is in contradiction to it’s own assertion!
Yet another shamming attempt… Pffft
Oh and btw,, if being angry and embittered about the way one has been treated discounts the validity of ones assertions, then all the victim laced tripe we have heard from the feminists can summarily be ignored.. thanks for the tip!
The very fact that his hateful woman is taken by feminists as exemplary and allowed to write on a website that is supposedly about and for men proves that everything the MRAs say about feminism is true.
I am surprised at one thing Marcotte did not add one thing to the list of feminist ideas that would benefit men and MRAs: intersectional analysis.
When MRAs talk about “alphas” and “betas” they are talking about the fact that not all men have equal access to power in our culture. Men who are poor, gay, trans, minority, disabled, etc., may have less power than men who are not. So, (for example) a minority man may in fact have less social power than a white woman. This does not mean that (historically and currently) men overall have had more power than women overall.
The answer? More feminism. Modern feminism is highly focused on the ways that an “intersection” of oppressions affect people’s lives. Understanding this makes this not about men vs. women but about social justice for all.
This does not mean that (historically and currently) men overall have NOT had more power than women overall.
And that is irrelevant. Both genders have had restrictions based on gender roles. Both genders seek to surpass those restrictions. Feminism has claimed to be about breaking down those gender roles, but has only broken down the roles women wanted broken down, and only for women. The male as provider gender role was broken down so that women could provide for themselves, but it was still left intact for men who are forced to provide for children they do not want, and wives they are no longer married to. Feminism was supposed to be everyones salvation, but it was a fraud, and it deserves to be exposed as such, and then replaced entirely with a truly egalitarian view, one based on intellectual honesty and true equality of opportunity for all.
Furthermore. Just because you feel women still have problems does not allow you to utterly dismiss the problems of others. that is arrogant and sexist. Just like the original author.
Modern feminism is highly focused on the ways that an “intersection” of oppressions affect women’s lives.
Fixed that for you.
In my experience, there’s a certain subset of feminists who fly from intersectional analysis because, if you truly take it seriously as an analytical framework, you must first presume that no one axis of differentiation is necessarily more powerful than another.
MZ is correct when she says that modern feminism only tends to look at how “intersection” screws women over. It generally doesn’t concern itself with how it might actually situate many men as lower on the kyriarchic totem pole than many women. When THOSE kinds of analyses come to the fore, they tend to make many feminists very uncomfortable.
Given this, many feminists simply ignore intersectionality entirely. This has been a major and historical criticism of feminism by anti-racists and anti-imperialists, for example.
To be a true intersectionalist, you gotta stop being a one trick pony. This puts intersectional analysis out of bounds for many feminists and many MRAs.
Jesus effing Christ. Stop putting words into feminist’ mouths. You don’t know a feminist. You aren’t a feminist. = You know jack shit about feminists.
@Nimue:
Judging by what feminism has brought about in the world, I would say that ‘more feminism’ would only bring about more of the same.
At the centre of feminism lies a fallacy. Namely that there ever was a patriarchy in which men oppressed women. Why is that a fallacy? Because, if there had been such a patriarchy, then it must have also been those oppressive men who decided to change the laws and give women the rights they have today (which are more than men’s rights incidentally). Why would they have done this if they didn’t want to enable women to accomplish whatever they wanted.
Now, if you say that they didn’t change the laws by their own choice and give women those rights, then they must have been forced to change (by womens activists?) but this means that they could not have had the power that feminism keeps ascribing to them. There was no violent revolution, no coup and no attempt to move against demonstrators by force.
So either the old patriarchs actually did whatever women wanted, or they didn’t have any means to stop women from getting what they wanted (collectively). In any case, it fails to be a patriarchy as feminists describe it.
Another problem with patriarchy theory is that is fails miserably to explain the existential micro-reality of everyday life. Essentially, it falsifies the essence of everything it comes into contact with. It is pure, deracinated, decontextualized abstraction, forced upon the world from 500 miles up by pointy-headed academics who “know more than you do.”
And so we end up with such abominations as, for example, VAWA, or the Duluth Power and Control wheel, or the anti-male criminal justice system as it presently exists.
Actually – and speaking as a pointy-headed academic – most academics I know have severe doubts about patriarchy theory. Note that this doesn’t mean we don’t think that patriarchy exists: it does. But it’s not an overriding key to human existence and history the way certain marxist feminists of the 1970s tried to portray it. Academia, in general, thinks patriarchy theory to be reductionist, simplistic, too abstract and unable to account for much of observable human reality.
That’s good to hear. And it pretty much mesh’s with my opinions on the matter.
That said, Kratch, this alpha/beta/omega male stuff that I hear many MRAs spouting would likewise be considered a gross simplification of human social dynamics by most academics. In fact, having slogged through a lot of MRA stuff over the past few days, I’m almost ready to say that the “alphabet soup” ideology of masculine dominance is the MRM’s version of patriarchy: a nice, mythological just-so story that offers a convenient launching pad for all ideological excesses.
While I don’t generally use those terms myself (I personally don’t fel they help my arguments any), I do feel they have more basis in scientific study (as they are used in the same manner in which they are used when studying animal behaviour) then anything in patriarchy theory. That said, I wouldn’t disagree that they somewhat simplify things too much into basic animalistic urges.
They have a basis in a few studies regarding pack animals. Canines, IIRC. And we are not simply pack animals. Furthermore, even among other pack animals, social heirarchies are shifting and contextual and not written in stone. Alphabet theory is about 40 years behind the times on this point, because most of its proponents assume that an “alpha” is some sort of permanent and inflexible category.
be aware though, that I believe being overly simplistic is far less of a crime (if a crime at all), by many degree’s, then falsely attributing something altogether.
Well, patriarchical theory is overly-simplistic, not falsely attributing. Yeah, women have been treated as if they were a polluting factor in most human societies and there are plenty of anthropological theories about this (Sherry Ortner’s “Is woman to man as nature is to culture?” being the best of the lot, IMHO). Based on this, one can indeed squint one’s eyes, simplify, and say “Men have historically dominated social power structures to a much greater degree than women”. Often to a degree that the term “patriarchy” might indeed have some validity.
But what patriarchy isn’t is a historical stage of socio-cultural development that all human societies go through when they hit agriculture. Again, according to Ortner, there does seem to be some correlation between hypergamy and state development and, in that sense, virgin women become privileged as objects of prestigious exchange right about the time agriculture and the state coalesce. This, however, is a generalization, an ideal typification which should be used to help us think about reality, not a hard-and-fast socio-historical rule which allows us to determine reality. Many anthros since Ortner have showed a number of situations in which her general rule doesn’t seem to apply or, at the very least, must be heavily modified.
As an MRA type myself, I would advise to steer clear of gross simplifications of MRA theory — which has a number of distinct branches.
Speaking for myself, I am more of a pragmatic political thinker. I don’t feel the need to “theorize” all those alphabet soup ideas at all. They are merely superfluous to my system; I can get along without them. In fact, quite honestly, they get in my way.
Yeah! How dare you say something good about men and ask for equal rights. Equal rights are for wimps. Real men don’t mind sucking up to women and giving them more rights. So get over it you whining losers and take it like a man.
These responses are making me postal. Thank you, Amanda, for an excellent and refreshing piece. Enjoy your whiny circle jerk, gentlemen.
“These responses are making me postal. ”
Well, as a man, feminism does define you as a violent lout who can’t control your emotions and desires. It is understandable then that you could go “postal” because some people happen to disagree with the tripe this woman is shoveling.
Men are more often the primary or even sole breadwinners of nuclear-family households.
Well, since this is a rapidly disappearing phenomena, I don’t know too many men complaining about it. What I do hear at a much greater frequency is the complaints about the more rapidly growing frequency of women as the primary or sole breadwinners of nuclear family households and the people complaining about that phenomena the most are WRA’s. Now why is it ok to be a WRA and not an MRA? I smell double standard. I also hear men complaining abou the marginalization of men.
Is this a serious attempt to address MRA “issues” ? This is embarrassing for the Good Men Project. When compared to the post by zeta male for “Top 10 Men’s Rights Issues” it becomes clear, Amanda Marcotte either is completely misinformed on MRA issues…..or is purposely being obtuse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdIWN7M2FVU
Finally men are standing up the hypocrisy of feminism and the intellectual cowardice of the MRAs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plkeKMTDM9g
This piece was utter garbage. How can these feminist sit here and not see the inequalities of men? This is really a battle for the superior flag.
This is not anything new, humans are selfish by nature
My sister was just saying yesterday that women have taken the task of provider and caregiver. They screwed themselves without even knowing it.
When will feminist learn that you need men more than you think?
In fact, we need each other for the survival of our species…..
Hey guys. I don’t appreciate having my comments removed. Maybe I’m missing something,
MRM posts with links are usually disallowed. Just describe how to get to the link, like what to google for. That is how I get around the prohibition.
Wow! A website started with the express purpose and agenda of helping men become ‘good’ (if not best); DOES NOT allow links to MRM posts!? Hypocrisy, thy name is the Good Men Project. And Ms. Marcotte does not surely speak for any man. Why can’t the good fraus over at Ms. Magazine giver her an agony aunt column to dispense wisdom on OB-GYN issues? Huh?
Even women are standing up against the blatant hypocrisy of feminism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plkeKMTDM9g
I can think of several super heroes of the MRA who are women.
Ok, I’m going to tell women the truth: the feminist movement is a pro-male conspiracy to liberate men from being providers, protectors. and having a duty of chivalry for women. Single, we can live on lower paying jobs, the discrimination, etc much easier than before since we used to sacrifice so much for you, your home, and the kids. BTW, equality now means you go to fight wars for us. Thanks!
Why I am not an MRA and why their tactics sicken me, and obscure their good points:
Men’s rights movements reflect the tactics of domestic abusers themselves, minimizing existing violence, calling it mutual, and discrediting victims. MRA groups downplay national abuse rates, just as abusers downplay their personal battery; they wage campaigns dismissing most allegations as false, as abusers claim partners are lying about being hit; and they depict the violence as mutual—part of an epidemic of wife-on-husband abuse—as individual batterers rationalize their behavior by saying that the violence was reciprocal.
Dear David,
There seems to be a fair amount of evidence out there that female-instigated domestic violence is indeed at significant levels, if not “epidemic”. Male-instigated violence has greater consequences and male post-divorce violence – which accounts for much battery – seems to be much higher than female, granted. But the argument of many feminists seems to be that there is no female-instigated violence whatsoever and this argument has pretty much been conclusively trashed by the evidence.
I agree that there seem to be plenty of MRAs out there who think that every case of battering or what have you is a lie. But there also seem to be an equal number of feminists who think that any instance of female-on-male violence, no matter how well-documented, is also a lie.
So this is my question to you: why I should I believe EITHER side, given that the radicals on the fringes of both groups downplay violence?
It doesn’t seem to me logical that I should ignore all MRAs simply because of the lunatic fringe, but that I shouldn’t be judge feminism by the violence-denying comments of its more ethusiastic proponents.
I’d be interested in hearing why you think two weights and two measures are necessary in this case.