There Is No Gender War

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

About Noah Brand

Noah Brand is an Editor-at-Large at Good Men Project, and possibly also a cartoon character from the 1930s. His life, when it is written, will read better than it lived. He is usually found in Portland, Oregon, directly underneath a very nice hat.

Comments

  1. Hey, congrats!

  2. Tom Matlack says:

    I certainly want to believe this is true Noah. How does this theory square with the whole END OF MEN hypothesis which is based, at least in part, on cold hard stats?

    • Peter Houlihan says:

      Personally I think the end of men scenario could ultimately be a good one for men’s rights: I think the jobs might have to be taken away for the average guy to wake up and start asking if its ok for him to be defined by it.

      • You say:
        “I think the jobs might have to be taken away for the average guy to wake up and start asking if its ok for him to be defined by it.”

        This statement is really confusing. Do you really think that an average guy who loses his job would instead of desperately looking for another job, would start pondering whether his job define him or not.

        • That could possibly happen but that pondering is going to take a back seat to finding a job in order to maintain the necessities, and if he is helping support a family (even if he is no the main breadwinner) then the ante is even higher for him to find new work. Not much room to ponder the meaning of what you do when when what you do is necessary for the survival of youself (and possibly others).

        • Peter Houlihan says:

          As in, if theres a critical mass of unemployed men then they might start to question their situation.

          • If there is a critical mass of unemployed men, there would be riots on street and not pondering about them being defined by job.

          • When one is worried about starvation, caring for one’s family, and losing their home… It’s not really conducieve to philosophical ponderings on the worth of a person.

            Maslow’s Hierarchy man.

            • Mad Adam says:

              You seem to be assuming that one would be using 100% of their waking time to resolve those issues. Not so. Maybe the guy goes out for 5-6 hours a day trying to land a job. He still has all evening to spend with his thoughts. Ultimately, the critical mass idea is that some men just wouldn’t be able to find jobs, period. They would have to change their worldview so that they could maintain the idea that “I’m basically a good person”. The worldview that would change is “Good men provide for their families”, he would just accept that it’s OK. Get hundreds of thousands or especially millions of people changing their minds, and momentum will get started with the idea.

            • or maybe they will just become depressed and withdraw from society due to their failure to adjust.

            • Peter Houlihan says:

              The scenario described by the end of men article was one where women were fulfilling men’s traditional place. Against this background men and their families would have all or most of the lower tiers of Manslow’s hierarchy fulfilled.

              Manslow regardless, any major shift in one gender role necessitates a shift for the other. I don’t think its something people could ignore.

            • I see you believe that Hanna Rosin is the incarnation of Cassandra whose prophecy which nobody believes would certainly come true.

            • Peter Houlihan says:

              Not really, I’m not sure if it’d actually happen. Just that if it does it’ll mean men having to change.

        • That’s brilliant. I’m sure the average guy will have plenty of time to contemplate that while he’s also wondering where his next meal is coming from and where he’s going to sleep that night. Anyone who could seriously state that has clearly led a life of financial privilege.

      • you mean family men’s rights, if there is no “house” to be a “husband” of then there is nothing else to “let define” you when you become jobless.

      • Poester99 says:

        This is has societal implications. If “many” men stopped to find themselves instead of working after they had been laid off, who would take up the burden of supporting the country? I think we would begin to fail because we are used to/addicted to the wealth generated by most men working themselves to death.

  3. Peter Houlihan says:

    I think it would be more accurate to argue that there doesn’t need to be a gender war or that there shouldn’t be a gender war. Unfortunately some people on both sides are treating it as a zero sum game and doing damage in the process.

  4. It is simply this: you cannot form a stereotype about either of the two major genders without simultaneously forming a concurrent stereotype about the other. Or, more simply: misandry mirrors misogyny.
    As a regular at NSWATM you know I agree with this law and I think that for those who don’t this law may show why they continue with the zero sum game activity. Chances are the folks that play the zero sum game are going to be the ones that either aruge that one exists and the other doesn’t or ones that will accept one without question but want to define the other in as limiting of a way as possible so as to make it look like its not as important as the one they accept without question.

    Ideally if everyone recognized this we would be a lot closer to a united front or at the very least we could get to the point where folks that take sides (yes I think its entirely possible in male/female gender relations to take a side without it meaning that you are against the other) won’t waste energy trying to attack the other or minimizing the harms to the other side.

  5. Really?There is no war? You sure about that?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGo1-EVrsx8

  6. Great piece. I’m not so much interested in what’s in the middle as what is completely outside these “poles.” Looking forward to working with you.

    • Yeah sort of what Julie said, actually. :)

      • Although now that I think of it…sometimes it’s easier to have a discussion with someone by suggesting we all move to the centre, rather than suggesting we move outside the paradigm. There are people who, no matter what anyone says, view feminism and the MRA as two opposing ends…and sometimes the only way to get anyone who identifies with either group of even consider the possibility that they aren’t at war, we have to suggest moving toward the centre.

        If two groups treat each other as opposing sides, then they become opposing sides…and I think sometimes they gotta move toward each other first, before we can move beyond it.

        • Personally, I’d like to see us just STOP thinking of being in opposite poles. We’re in this together. We’re all human. We just make up the differences, most of the time. And, as Ozy has pointed out on their amazeballs website (and that I have re-iterated on numerous occasions) – it’s not about who has more/worse shit raining down, it’s about figuring out where the shit is coming from and making it STOP. FOR EVERYONE.

          • Well Nikki the source of Oppression Olympics is feminism.

            If feminism were to drop the whole – women have/had it worse (supported by bad or incomplete data) therefore men’s issues are illegitimate/rooted in fear of losing privilege/desire to hurt women/rape! or whatever the dishonest and illogical silencing tactic may be it wouldnt be like this.

            Feminism’s dishonest rhetoric and its rejection of men’s issues , false accusations and its lobbying for discriminatory laws and its false accusations and slandering of anyone that objects over the decades has caused a very dysfunctional situation. This is why there is such polarization in the gender debate.

            • Transhuman says:

              I don’t know if I’m sleep-deprived or I have had a genuine epiphany.

              Perhaps if men realised that Feminism is simply not relevant to them and moved on to solving their problems. Feminism doesn’t offer me anything, and I understand that it should not, and neither should I expect it to. It does a fine job of looking after the women in my life so I need to get together with some men and we need to sort out what we think men need. Then make it happen.

              An example:
              I do not go to my local bakery and harangue the baker when his store has no spare parts for my car. He’s a baker, not an auto mechanic.

  7. Anthony Zarat says:

    Your title is “there is no gender war”, but your argument is “there should be no gender war.”

    There IS a gender war. Feminists are fighting to enslave men, boys, and fathers in a binary mistress-servant relationship. Certainly, you are correct that the mistress-servant relationship is dehumanizing to both mistress and servant. MRAs say this every day, but feminists are not interested in listening. They are interested in winning.

  8. The zero-sum game doesn’t make sense but it has, for a fact, been the reality for many years now – and the demand for the delta to widen even further sees no end.

    Forget about stereotypes. Let’s talk substance, such as years earlier death, higher unemployment, 100% of gender-specific government services are for women, 0% are for men. Fewer and fewer boys (compared to girls) and men graduating from high school. Fewer and fewer men (compared to women) graduating from college. Both are nearing a 20% gap.

    I’m not an MRA, just an observer and see this zero-sum trend building momentum and crushing/destroying the futures of minority boys. Has anybody looked at the data on minority boys and young men lately? Does anybody care? Helloooooo.  .   .

    Why is it so much more important that white female Georgetown Law students who can afford to pay $50,000 a year to attend law school get their BC pills paid for when they can be purchased at Target for $9 a month? Why is this even a major issue to discussed when it affects like .00001% of the population? And they can get BC pills virtually free at Target?

    Why are 100% of gender-specific government services for girls and women, and 0% for boys and men? ½ the population gets 100% and the other half 0%. The 0% half has higher unemployment, lower high school graduation rates, lower college graduation rates, higher suicide rates, higher depression rates, higher early death rates, higher crime and murder victim rates, higher incarceration rates, etc. Does it make sense that that ½ gets 0% and the other 100%?

    Doesn’t anyone see a problem here?

    Is there such a thing as absolute zero-sum, or is there something below zero-sum? Because that’s where we are, and it is only getting worse.

    • Anthony Zarat says:

      So the question is, WHY are you “not an MRA”? There is a popular perception that MRAs are the “flip” side of feminism. This is not true. We are the completion of the original civil rights movement, called feminism, that has been corrupted by power and money.

      Early 1900′s feminism was about equal private sector OPPORTUNITY for women.
      Early 2000′s men’s rights is about equal public sector PROTECTION for men.

      Will the MRM one day become corrupt and ugly, as has happened with feminism? Probably. But today, now, it is a beautiful movement that fights for equality and dignity for all. Why not join?

      • Maybe because he prioritizes by suffering rather than gender? I know I do. The mentality of Feminists gave us the entitled testimony of Susan Fluke. Why would anyone want to start men’s issues down that path? I don’t want a male version of feminism.

        • Anthony Zarat says:

          Feminism did a great deal of good, before it started to do harm.

          • I beg to differ. Right out of the gate feminism sought to dismiss class, race and men, but since women’s issues at the time were significant it didn’t matter as much as it does now where maiden name discussion takes precedent over male life expectancy.

      • Does the MRM have a zero-misogyny-tolerance policy? Does it absolutely, unequivocally, no excuses kick out/expel/shun/ostracize/ban any and all who make misogynistic statements, take anti-female positions/opinions/philosophies, etc.?

        If not, it is at risk of becoming what feminism is known for, allowing such persons to run amok, speak in its behalf, set its anti-male agenda and policies, creating a gynocentric (sometimes misandristic) world-view – so much so that many of those in the movement don’t even recognize it; they look but can’t see what is blatantly obvious to most women and men. That is a risk I am not willing to take.

        I only join/participate in organizations where I have historical evidence that it stands with me in being fair and balanced, rejecting behavior and philosophies that puts one group’s interests above that of others. As such, I will do my work via my volunteer efforts and on my own.

        • Anthony Zarat says:

          I respect your “do no harm” priority. I cannot argue, although I chose a different path.

        • The mrm has higher standards than feminism, while its also held to far higher standards.

          Misandy is no taboo or blasphemy, that’s why feminism can operate at the misandric levels that it does while misogny is modern blasphemy, thats why the slightest criticism of women registers at massively inflated and ridiculous levels of pearl clutching.

          The reality is that there is much more wide spread and unchecked misandry to be found in feminism, than there is misogyny in the mrm.

          • Peter Houlihan says:

            Citation needed. I’d like this to be true but I haven’t seen any research that backs it up, or even methods by which such research could be conducted.

            Its a statement about the views of a dispersed and partially invisible population regarding subjective values.

            • Why would scientific research even exist for that in first place, you know well that it wouldn’t, don’t you?

            • What’s preventing you from doing your own research?
              I used the method of opening my eyes and observing the blindingly obvious.
              It’s a statement about conspicuously evident and unsettling facts, not so much views or subjective values. I admit I’m generalising but it holds up to scrutiny.
              But don’t take my word for it, just look at the basic facts and see for yourself.

            • Nick, mostly says:

              There’s this thing called “bias” and that’s why the “method of opening [your] eyes and observing the blindingly obvious” isn’t called research and very much is subjective whether or not you care to characterize it as such.

            • Bullshit. How can any form of research begin with anything other than observation? Anyone that pays attention to double standards relating to misandry / misogyny can clearly see that the latter is acceptable and the other is heresy. How is that refutable? How is that subjective?
              Just because very much is subjective does not mean that very much is not objective, that is brazenly false reasoning. Also the matter of whether or not I care to characterise something as subjective is total nonsense, it’s not a question of what I care to do and objectivity has nothing to do with how I characterise anything.

            • Nick, mostly says:

              Let me guess, you’re not a scientist and haven’t conducted a research study. Please do look up observer bias. You said your method isn’t subjective (“It’s a statement about conspicuously evident and unsettling facts, not so much views or subjective values”); I’m simply pointing out that you’re not in a position to know what is subjective or not, because of observer bias. If you had ever conducted research before you would know about observer bias and wouldn’t have made such an obviously inaccurate claim.

              The tone of your response comes across as very hostile. It doesn’t sound healthy to me.

        • Peter Houlihan says:

          The MRM isn’t a centralised body, it doesn’t have any policies period. Same with feminism.

          I agree with your policy of only joining groups which stand against misogyny and misandry (aswell as homophobia, racism etc.) though. Good call.

          • And?

            1000 vectors of different intensity and different direction will still create a resultant vector of x intensity in x direction. The concept of generalization is more than valid and applies to both MRM and feminism.

            And speaking of generalizations I find that MRM is more likely to fight against the characterization of the movement as anti women than they do against being characterized, where as feminism is more likely to argue against any generalization (“feminists aren’t monolithic”) than the details.

            Of course the latter approach seems crazy for a movement that uses a single word (patriarchy) to describe the whole world.

        • Thank you Eric.

    • I suggest you educate yourself on the subject before you go spouting off. 98% of women will use birth control in their lifetime. Not “0.00001%.” And your “$9 at Target” assertion? Is when *your insurance covers the prescription,* which is not the case for the Georgetown student in question. Who is probably racking up enormous student loans and making a pittance in actual wages. And if you read or listened to the testimony in question, the woman she was talking about needed hormonal birth control to prevent the formation of ovarian cysts. She couldn’t afford this medication, and it wasn’t covered by her Georgetown insurance plan, so she ended up with cancerous cysts that ultimately resulted in her needing to have her ovary surgically removed.

      The simple fact of the matter is that the Surgeon General has recommended that preventive medicines for *everyone* should be provided with no cost to the patient. This includes contraception, but some people have decided that women should not be a part of “everyone,” and should not get to have preventive medications, whether the condition they’re preventing is pregnancy or ovarian cancer. This is not some sort of magical special privilege that women are asking for here; this is *basic health care*.

      Believe me, if uninsured women could get birth control at Target for $9, I wouldn’t have been paying $20 a month for it at Planned Parenthood for four years.

      • “I suggest you educate yourself on the subject before you go spouting off. 98% of women will use birth control in their lifetime. Not “0.00001%.”

        First get the facts, then think and reason on them. . .

        99.9999% of women using BC pills do not work for the Catholic Church. So, this issue affects a very tiny % of women.

        “And your “$9 at Target” assertion? Is when *your insurance covers the prescription,*”

        Wrong. As I said, “First get the facts. . .”

        A simple prescription discount card (some of which are free) is all that is needed to get the $9/month BC pills at Target or Walmart.

        Also, these women chose Georgetown Law over the other 200 law schools in the United States that either don’t offer insurance or that do offer it and cover BC pills.

        These women have access to $50,000 a year to pay for law school, not including books, transportation, food, and housing expenses.

        “Believe me, if uninsured women could get birth control at Target for $9, I wouldn’t have been paying $20 a month for it at Planned Parenthood for four years.”

        Hint: Google “prescription discount card” and “Target $9 birth control.”

        As I said: “First, get the facts.”

        1) This issue affects only women who choose to work for the Catholic Church but disagree with its policies and women who choose Georgetown Law over hundreds of other schools, knowing that it does not cover BC pills.

        2) Anyone that works for the Church can afford a free (or very low cost) prescription discount card to pay $9 a month at Target, since they are getting a paycheck or can afford to pay $50,000 a year in tuition.

        3) There are 200 other law schools that either don’t require the purchase of their insurance or cover BC pills. They CHOSE Georgetown Law over 200 others.

        “This includes contraception, but some people have decided that women should not be a part of “everyone,” and should not get to have preventive medications, whether the condition they’re preventing is pregnancy or ovarian cancer.”

        The simple solution is to do what almost everyone else does: not work for the Catholic Church or pick a school other than Georgetown Law. . . or get a prescription card and pay $9 a month at Target. . . . or (to your point) get them a Planned Parenthood for $20.

        If a law student can’t figure any of that out, she seriously needs to go to Target . . . to fill out an application. Law school is definitively not the way forward.

        “This is not some sort of magical special privilege that women are asking for here; this is *basic health care*.”

        I’m in absolute agreement. Which is why 99.999% of corporate health insurance plans have covered BC pills for 40 years, and all others have very low cost options available.

        • Thank you for adding some clarity.

          • Yeah, I got sick of the propaganda supported by twisted- or fact-free hysteria. Such a waste of time to discuss something that in reality prevents no women who want access to birth control pills from having it.

            It’s a sad and desperate attempt to cast themselves as victims when they are, in fact, nothing of the sort.

        • Eric M.

          Thanks for taking the time out to put perspective on that.

        • that was a stark and devastating rebuttal Eric

      • Thanks for speaking up, Cassie.

      • Pharmaceutical companies own the US Surgeon General. “Preventative” is a wonderful source of revenue especially when it’s a mandate.

  9. There is a gender war being waged against men in the legal system by institutional feminism. If we do not act, the radicals that actually do something other than talk will continue to wage that war unhindered.

    • A gender war against *men* being waged by *feminism*. I guess that would explain all the bills in state legislatures in the past several months requiring doctors to rape women with ultrasound wands before they can avail themselves of a legal medical procedure.

      In other news from Bizarro World, water is bright orange and Fred Phelps just rescued a kitten from a tree.

      • Peter Houlihan says:

        You seem to think that just because women are victims of sexism that men can’t be, or that feminists are immune to prejudice. Just because the GOP is passing some screwed up laws doesn’t mean that equally messed up laws aren’t being passed which negatively effect men, many of which are lobbied for by feminist advocacy groups.

        Do they have VAWA in bizarro world too?

      • Cassie. Don’t be so rude. I was talking specifically about radical feminism’s multi- pronged attack on men in the legal system. I’m fairly low on patience for the debate by sarcasm style that feminists often bring to the table. if you have to communicate like a sophomore mean girl, please don’t communicate with me.

  10. Copyleft says:

    Glad to hear you’re abandoning feminism in order to work on equality, Noah. It’s about time people acknowledged that this adversarial stance was doomed to failure.

  11. Anthony,

    So the question is, WHY are you “not an MRA”? There is a popular perception that MRAs are the “flip” side of feminism. This is not true. We are the completion of the original civil rights movement, called feminism, that has been corrupted by power and money.

    Why am I not an MRA? As much as I sympathize with many of them, and even though they seek to speak for me as a man on male issues… I just can’t commit to it.

    Why? For the same reason that I can’t be completely comfortable with Feminism. Too many attempts at “owning” the moral high-ground, and “claiming” superiority by virtue of We Say So. Believe it, or not, neither Feminism nor Masculism are the be all end all of gendered issues. Just like with religion, there is no correct answer which automatically invalidates every other. At least, not as my kosher butt sees it.

    MRA’s are no more the “completion” of the original Civil Rights movement than Glenn Beck’s rally on 8-28 to “restore honor” was. We *are not* MLK. We are not Black people circa 1968. This is not the Montgomery Bus Boycott. To compare ourselves, erroneously, to a movement removing hundreds of years of historical oppression based on race, slavery, denial of voting rights, or even segregation is a subversion of a sensitive and ongoing issue of American life.

    Let’s not play Oppression Olympics. Let’s just not and say we did.

    Y’know why I can’t be an MRA? Because Paul Elam will say we shouldn’t convict a man who’s overwhelmingly guilty of rape, and I’ve seen dozens of men in his comments section eagerly agreeing with that sentiment. As much as I respect the good work Paul does for fathers in particular, I have to ask myself… would he have refused to convict O.J. Simpson based on the evidence too?

    Somehow, I doubt it. Even though his case was also male issue.

    Not hating. Just saying.

    Take my two cents and spend it how you will.

    • Zek

      Paul Elam wrote that shock piece to underline the fact that if you are accused of rape, you will not get a fair trial. Im just saying, because if you don’t give that context, and only repeat the soundbite that feminists do, it gives the wrong impression.

      • The only reason you won’t get a fair trial if you’re accused of rape is that everyone will be too busy telling your alleged victim that she was obviously “asking for it” because her skirt was too short, or she was drunk, or she’s had sex before, or was walking alone late at night, or is just lying to make you look bad, to even entertain the possibility that her accusation might have merit.

      • Eoghan,

        I have been falsely accused of rape. I understand the context completely. There is no wrong impression to give. Refusing to convict someone who is overwhelmingly guilty, and advocating that others do the same is immoral. It is also illegal.

        • You gave the wrong impression by not giving the full context here for others to read.

          • This is the internet. My biggest frustrations about it is that no one enjoys giving full context if they have points to score. I’d suggest that if people are doing shock pieces (feminsts or mras, republicans or dem, etc) they state it as such cause it would help cover their asses when the inevitable “not giving context” happens

            • Off topic.

              How is the poll going?

            • I’ve put the question out there. No responses as of 11:08 today. Believe me, I’ll let you know what I find out. Mostly, I’m guessing I’ll be finding out that my friends are too busy to answer my FB requests. And spending much more time on it means I won’t get my GMP work done today….so I’m gonna focus the rest of my free time on assignments Lisa Hickey is waiting for ;)

            • That’s odd. It’s a 3 second exercise. You didn’t tell them why you wanted their ages did you?

            • Not odd at all! I put it up this morning because, guess what! I’ve been really really busy. Like getting 4 hours of sleep busy. And much of what I’m busy with involves writing, editing, moderating, producing and work that is time sensitive and in the service of GMP. So this, as fun as it is to banter with you, is a low priority.

              Also? Because it is an entirely unscientific experiment! Also also? Maybe my friends are, I don’t know…busy with work.

              I did NOT tell them why, but it’s charming (and well expected) of you to assume I’d do this with an agenda. I asked, so you know, for straight, gay and lesbian couples to tell me the age gap of their relationship. I didn’t ask for anything else at all.

              I’ve got a few responses since last you inquired and will leave the question up for about 24 hours. I’ll tally what I find (and frankly, I can also look through my friends list) and let you know what I find.

              Doubtless you’ll decry and deride anything I offer, but again, given our interaction over the past few months, I’d expect that.

            • Oh. I thought that it had been up since yesterday. You strike me as the multitasking type like myself. And I only decry and deride comments I think earn it. When someone writes thoughts that I enjoy I pat them on the back. Don’t think I dislike you though. Cause I don’t. Quite the contrary. You are absolutely adorable, yet so wrong about so many things.

            • Aw, you too!

            • Also. I didn’t think you would poll with an agenda. But you clearly mentioned sharing details with the potential respondents… which of course is a big no no for any survey. I’m looking for good results, not just good intentions.

            • Yeah, I mean if I was going to really take time with it, which frankly I don’t have (and I am not a research type, so I am actually really paranoid about asking leading questions in the surveys I have to do for work), it would need much different criteria then “hey tell me if there is an age gap.” I’d be interested in things like 1st or 2nd partnership etc and the parameter around “same age” is that same age to the month? Is that a gap of (which I’m using) three years because they could have been in high school together and in the same cultural arena, financial arena? Should I only ask straights vs LGBT, because that skews things.
              But I don’t have time, so we’ll get what we get.
              Eh, I’m still not entirely sure what I’d draw from the results. I’d need to know income stream too.

            • I wouldn’t share those details especially in a real survey. I was being sarcastic, which appears to be a trend with us. Anyway, so far the results are all over the map.

          • Eoghan,

            I respectfully disagree.

            1) people here should know how to do their own research once given the information. Also, Elam’s article is sufficiently infamous to render “give the context” a weak argument. I mean, no one denies what he said, and the context does not change it.

            2) The context you stated is non-relevant. Knowing that men do not get a fair trial in cases of rape in no way justifies refusing to convict someone you know to be guilty. It is illegal, and hypocritical considering the advocacy among MRA’s for male rape victims to get justice against their female rapists.

            However, we can agree to disagree OR you can continue to take issue with this small aspect of my comment. Either way, the issues I raised above still stand and remain problematic.

            Or, in the words of my grandpa when he told me the story of how the Poles tried to justify pogroms against Jews who came back from the Holocaust and saw these people in their houses. “You did it, and context be damned.”

            • Zek

              You aren’t getting the part about it being designed to shock and grab attention, rather than a serious movement to aqquit rapists.

              Beside the maxim “It is better to let nine guilty men free than to convict one innocent man” has been part of our legal system and is there to protect the people from tyranny.

              Paul suggested something that the legal system believes in and is built on. Its Kool Aid and rape that makes this good thing all of a sudden bad. It just depends whose saying it,

              Lawyer saying that its a pillar of a just legal system = good.

              Elam applying the same maxim to rape trials = bad!

            • Well, first of all you’re equating to non-similar situations, which is an obvious red herring.

              Innocent until proven guilty and the maxim you quote are not the same as instructing men who are on a jury where a man is on trial for rape to NOT convict him even though the evidence overwhelmingly points to that conclusion and you as a juror know it to be true.

              Again, the two situations ARE NOT the same.

              Wait, let me repeat. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.

              Seriously, they’re really not. 1) is based on a legal premise that people shouldn’t be convicted before they’ve had a fair trial. 2) is advocating for people to BREAK THE LAW by subverting the judicial-juror process.

              Y’know, you’re so caught up in trying to “contextualize” this obviously shocking and attention grabbing piece of my comment that I think you’ve failed to understand my comment as a whole, and have failed to understand exactly what consequences would result from Elam’s idea.

              So let me ask you: would it bother you if a prominent Feminist advocated for women to convict men on trial for rape, even though the evidence was overwhelmingly against him being guilty and the woman juror knew him to be innocent? And lest ye object, I am applying the same logic we men often use when revealing the double-standards of Feminists.

              So let me repeat the question: would that bother you?

              If yes, then perhaps you need to examine your own inner-conflicts. If no, then perhaps you need to examine your understanding of the law.

              Either way, is this really the whole and substance of your response to my comment? One undeniable fact of record? I honestly don’t see the point in your objection other than to cushion the fallout of Elam’s idea which is considered beyond controversial to most people, and most men, who look at it as outright immoral.

              Please tell me you have more to say than, “I object to the way you presented this point which I do not in any way contest the existence of.” Please tell me you’re as upset as I am that we’re arguing about your personal feelings regarding Paul Elam when the whole world of gender issues stands unresolved.

    • Who was conscripted as a class in 1968? How is that not an issue in and of itself?

  12. “Don’t simplify things into equal and opposites but we believe that every stereotype has it’s equal and opposite. ”

    Perhaps the demand for self sacrifice from men has a female equal and opposite? I’d be curious what that is. How does ANYTHING measure up to that? Oh, sorry, we didn’t want to compare the issues when they don’t suit us.

    And the hypocrisies continue:
    Have people forgotten that the very notion of a gender war and an altogether adversarial stance in men/women is fundamental to feminism? Sure they’ve toned it down in recent years but don’t kid yourselves on how anti-male they have been in order to get where they are today and the majority are still quite deep in the trenches – a far greater majority than their MRA counterparts.
    Now feminists come lecturing us that hey, we should work together after all – knowing very well that only women have benefited from this gender war that they started. Men never really entered that war.

    What we’re being told here is what nearly always happens after a war is largely over: The victors say “we’re actually all on the same side so there’s no reason to fight. Now go pay your debt to us.”

    • Peter Houlihan says:

      “Perhaps the demand for self sacrifice from men has a female equal and opposite? I’d be curious what that is. How does ANYTHING measure up to that? Oh, sorry, we didn’t want to compare the issues when they don’t suit us.”

      i would imagine the opposite is… self sacrafice. Men are expected to lay down their health and lives to protect and provide for everyone else. Women are expected to do more or less the same to usher in the next generation. Don’t forget that in industrial and pre industrial societies women’s life spans are quite comparable to men’s, if not lower. This isn’t a statement of superiority, I’m just arguing that noone really has it good when times are hard.

      • “Women are expected to do more or less the same to usher in the next generation”

        Wrong. Women have full control to choose either way when it comes to giving birth – far more control than men. Men’s expectation to self sacrifice is not something they can choose when in a dangerous situation.

        “Don’t forget that in industrial and pre industrial societies women’s life spans are quite comparable to men’s, if not lower.”

        Where the hell did you pull that from? Do you also believe the earth is flat? Come on. The stats on life expectancy are very widely known and accepted even by the most bigoted feminists. If you want anyone to believe that women’s life expectancy in industrial nations is equal or lower to men’s then you will need to show us some hard sources.

    • Perhaps the demand for self sacrifice from men has a female equal and opposite? I’d be curious what that is.

      Childbirth. Hurts like the devil.

      And then, they demand to be fed, like, immediately. That can also hurt.

      • Omg that’s so not equivalent. Child birth, in case you haven’t noticed is a choice that women can make. I was talking about a DEMAND made on women.
        Still waiting….

        • I’m unaware of women having to register for a “giving birth draft”.
          Is biology a result of some patriarchal conspiracy? I mean seriously, it’s not like death during childbirth is ever called “honour” or “glory” or “action” and certainly not “privilege”.
          I’m finding it hard to keep a straight face, who writes your material, it’s hilarious.

  13. Things Are Bad says:

    Yes there is.

  14. Thanks for this post, Noah. Agree.

    However, the point was clearly missed in many of the comments – and, again, we turn to warring at one another instead of working together. I read a recent post in the HuffPost right before reading this on how MRAs just can’t stop blaming feminism. I still don’t understand that impulse. I mean, I do – it’s just so unhelpful. Moreover, from what I understand, feminism already had a lil sit-down with itself regarding how it needed to engage and empower men, too. How it hadn’t been doing that. And yet.

    Why can’t the MRA movement learn from what feminism did wrong in the past, and actually make some real progress in everyone working together for EQUALITY?

    Oh, right. Cuz the womenz be holding the menz down. I am sure I shall now be enlightened on this. And, once again, the point will be missed.

    • Nobody is saying women are holding men down – I am not at least. But feminists often do. They routinely work against men’s rights activism. Attempts to form men’s issues discussions are often sabotaged as threatening womens’ issues.
      While I agree that MRAs are often over the top with seeing feminists as “the enemy”, that is definitely not without reason.
      You want MRAs to see feminists as allies, then instead of just demanding it, perhaps have feminists behave like allies and you’ll find that it quickly catches on.

      • True. Case in point a few years ago Glenn Sacks commented on the way Shakesville has/had its “Open Wide”/”Shut Up” tabs for expanding and collapsing posts. He went off on about how rude it was for McEwan to do such things. McEwan explained that that was the blog software. Sacks copped to not knowing what he was talking about and followed by saying something to the effect of, “Hey since we’re talking now let’s continue.” Do you know what McEwan did? She continued attacking him and some folks from FinallyFeminism101 jumped in on the action as well.

        But we’re supposed to believe that if only the big mean MRAs would just listen to feminists everything would be okay?

        If feminists were really about calling out the negative behavior among MRAs they wouldn’t throw that label around at anyone that disagrees with them. As far as they are concerned MRA means “one who disagrees with a feminist; they are against equality, hate women, and want to be able to rape and abuse women at will”. And this coming from people who supposedly have been so badly silenced and steretyped as “angry man hating lesbians”.

        You’d think that with a 50 year head start over MRAs feminists would be able to at least know not to use the same tactics that they claim are so counterproductive to equality for all people but as we can see all they learned is that as long as the dirty tactics aren’t being used against feminists all is fair.

    • …feminism already had a lil sit-down with itself regarding how it needed to engage and empower men, too.
      Well apparently all the members didn’t get the memo because despite this lil sit down there are still feminists that will say in one breath they want to work with men and in the next will shut us out the minute they think we might say something they don’t like.

      Why can’t the MRA movement learn from what feminism did wrong in the past, and actually make some real progress in everyone working together for EQUALITY?
      And I would dare ask why hasn’t feminism learned from what happened to it in the past, and supposedly what’s still happening. I’ll be the first to agree that feminists need to look at themselves more when it comes to wondering why people have negative feelings about their movement but at the same time it is clear that exteral influences such as media and politicians have smeared feminism and still do apparently. But what do we see when feminists talk about MRAs? We see some truth mixed in with the EXACT SAME SMEAR TACTICS that others have run on them.

      Oh, right. Cuz the womenz be holding the menz down. I am sure I shall now be enlightened on this. And, once again, the point will be missed.
      Yes it would be nice if everyone could be making actual progress towards equality but as we can see its not just MRAs that are causing the distractions. And yes the point will continue to be missed as long as womenz be blocking menz out of the conversation while at the same time telling us we should join them.

      • “Why can’t the MRA movement learn from what feminism did wrong in the past, and actually make some real progress in everyone working together for EQUALITY?”

        Feminism is still doing it wrong as it is in no way working toward equality as it claims. If it wants to br broadly respected, my advice for it/them is to be honest for a change and just admit that it is a women’s empowerment and advancent movement with little to no concerns about overall equality or men’s issues and/or concerns – the ones that men consider issues, not the ones feminism has decided it wants changed.

    • “feminism already had a lil sit-down with itself regarding how it needed to engage and empower men, too. How it hadn’t been doing that. And yet. ”

      If this is how feminism “engages and empowers” I’d hate to see what happens when they try to minimize, deflect and obstruct. One obvious example- NOW (a preeminent Feminist organization) actively advocates AGAINST a rebuttable presumption of equal custody. That is a feminist organization working AGAINST men. Why it affects me- If my wife left me I would probably not get equal custody without an enormous legal battle largely because of my gender. I am an active and involved parent. When my wife went back to work the only changes in my life were minor (I do a little more laundry and I pick up the 2 older kids from after school.) Basically I do maybe an extra hour of work around the house on a weekly basis. After 2 weeks she came to me and openly admitted that she never realized how much I did around the house and admitted that I did far more than an “equal” share.

    • had a humorous thought… I wonder if they had a “sit down” to give us “an offer we can’t refuse?”

    • Nikki

      If feminism is producing false data relating to domestic violence rates and is then using that data to create misandry and fear, and put laws on the books that roll back civil rights, which in turn creates the need for father rights and accuracy in data reporting and fixing of these laws (mra), which it is, who else is there to blame for that, of not feminism?

    • Nikki, feminism is advocacy for women (whether they admit it or not). MRAs are their counterpart: advocacy for men. There are egalitarians in both groups; but there are also blamers in both groups.

      Neither one is truly 100% focused on equality over advocacy–but the MRA side at least has the integrity to admit it.

      • Yes. The most nauseating part is how feminists patented the “equality movement” label for themselves and by non sequitur, falsely conclude that anyone who isn’t feminist, is therefore against equality.
        You want dialogue? Then find me a feminist who actually accepts that MRAs want equality. Because as long as feminists don’t believe that, they’re effectively calling MRAs their opposition which is what I believe is ultimately the cause for the mistrust and adversity.

        • Frankly, as long as the default feminist position is that “all men are rapists,” I couldn’t possibly work with them, nor would I even want to.

          • Okay while it is true that that attitude is real I wouldn’t call it the default feminist position. But i do understand how you could to believe that.

        • I’ve identified as a feminist for a few years (volunteered at a sexual assault center for LGBTQ youths, everyone there identifies as a feminist), and I think that MRA’s want equality. I do think there are problems with both sides (you get whack jobs in every movement, and unfortunately those are the ones you hear from), but all my friends, colleagues, and family members are totally on board with REAL equality for BOTH genders. At the end of the day, we all have sons AND daughters, mothers AND fathers that we love and care about. I think you will see a lot of these similar views in the next generation of feminism, which may drop the feminist title all together (seeing, as they say, if you want someone to hate you just call yourself a feminist!).

          • Egalitarian would be the better title, feminism has a very female orientated meaning and causes some megafights. There are many that want feminism to remain a female-only space for instance and discussing male issues with them usually ends badly. There are those that use feminism as egalitarian, and those that use it as gynocentric, the latter cannot handle male issues so I think it’d be better to move from feminism into a gender neutral term like egalitarian.

        • You want dialogue? Then find me a feminist who actually accepts that MRAs want equality. Because as long as feminists don’t believe that, they’re effectively calling MRAs their opposition which is what I believe is ultimately the cause for the mistrust and adversity.
          I’ll make it more simple than that. Find me some feminists that will actually say something when others among them go around saying that not identifying as feminist means you are against equality.

  15. @ the feminists here who claim to be egalitarian.

    First of all, the author of this article is closely affiliated with a site that has the sole purpose of mocking MRAs and doesn’t hesitate to slander them in order to do so. When for example, I mentioned that false rape accusations sometimes lead to the suicide of an innocent person, the response from Ozymandias was something like: “I would care more if MRAs didn’t try to use that as a means to downplay the seriousness of rape” [the exact wording escaped my memory but it was definitely no exaggeration].

    The hypocrisy of somebody of that political affiliation come here and preach to end the gender war and work together in open discourse is nothing short of a slap in the face of reality and anyone who lives in it.

    2)
    Where are all you “egalitarian” feminists when hateful misandrist articles get published on THIS SITE such as the one by Brian Reinholz titled “Being a man means putting others before yourself” and the second title being “Brian Reinholz believes that the timeless quality of what it means to be a man is taking care of things more precious than yourself.”???????
    Why aren’t you speaking out against such blatant sexism? Just imagine this written with the sexes reversed. Read those titles again after flipping the sexes.
    As long as you aren’t speaking up against such sexism, you are passively supporting it.

    You really expect us to believe that you’re egalitarians and aren’t just saying that in order to dismiss criticism? Then how about putting your money where your mouth is and acting accordingly?
    Then and only then will I start taking that claim of “egalitarian” seriously. But until then, I won’t buy it and neither should anyone else.

    • First of all, the author of this article is closely affiliated with a site that has the sole purpose of mocking MRAs and doesn’t hesitate to slander them in order to do so.
      Hold up. Now I’ll be the first to say that I think Noah has drunk the feminist cool-aid on MRAs but that is far from the sole purpose of NSWATM. Oh but if you want to see that type of behavior in action then just look up one David Futrelle.

      The hypocrisy of somebody of that political affiliation come here and preach to end the gender war and work together in open discourse is nothing short of a slap in the face of reality and anyone who lives in it.
      Believe me Adi I feel you on this. When it comes to dealing with feminists that say they want to gender war to end where “end” actually meant joining feminism I’ve been burned just as badly as most. But maybe its because I’ve had a change of heart, maybe its because I’ve found some feminists that actually live up to what others just pass off as lip service, or maybe because I’ve crossed the line from open minded to empty minded. I’ll give him a chance.

      • I haven’t heard a single positive thing about David Futrelle, why is that?
        I myself don’t think feminism alone is the answer to ending the gender war…Maybe feminism + masculism both working together but not feminism alone. Egalitarianism would be the only successor that could use a single label and not have such polarized views I feel….

        • Honestly the only positive thing about his site is that there actually is misogyny among MRAs that needs to be called out. The problem is feminists have propped him up as some champion of calling out MRAs to the point that they think he can do no wrong when that is nowhere near the truth (but good luck getting those feminists to look among themselves for their own negativity).

          I myself don’t think feminism alone is the answer to ending the gender war…Maybe feminism + masculism both working together but not feminism alone. Egalitarianism would be the only successor that could use a single label and not have such polarized views I feel….
          It could be if more feminists actually did want to work with men rather than just wanting us around as puppets to shut down the haters (“We don’t hate men! Look we have men working with us!!!”). But one thing it will require is for the thoughts, concerns, worries, etc… of all people to be included. You can’t get equality for all people when you start off thinking that only certain groups of people need help.

      • @ Danny
        David Futrelle was what I was talking about – manboobz.

        On the other things you said, deep down I will always remain open and optimistic. I can’t be anything else and live. But I will also be very cautious and mistrustful. Being that, I will call out contradictory messages as we all should. The days of just assuming feminists are right about something they say are over and will never come back. I think we agree.

  16. I don’t think that either of the feminists being asked questions here are going to lower themselves to answer them…

    Anyhow – “Ozys law” is something that the mens rights movement has discussed for years now in some shape of form. Its just that feminists are copping on to the blatantly obvious fact that there is and there has always been equity and that for every privilege that men are alleged to have and for every piece of alleged misogyny, there is the other side of the coin.

    In this ongoing debate I would suggest to feminists that want to be relevant in discussions about men’s issues

    Take off the Emperors new clothes.

    Stop treating mes issues as something that you have to colonize and co-opt to advance you own interests.

    Find out what the mens movement is actually about (not from liars like manboobz)

    Find out about what professional feminists are doing in the legal system that is forcing the men’s movement to act

    Stop playing Oppression Olympics, women have it worse and treating it like there is some zero sum game a foot.

    • You just brought me onto something: It was after all the feminists who started the “women are oppressed by men” cry and basically hammered it into everyone’s head that women have it worse. Even today, the majority of feminists believe that. Now, after women have gained tremendous ground (which I appreciate btw), suddenly some self proclaimed egalitarians on a fabricated pedestal of moral authority come out saying that it’s actually equally bad for both sexes thereby dismissing the need for an MRM again and reasserting that only feminism cares about everyone’s equality so we should all be feminists. Talk about cynicism. It reminds me of the trick that retail stores use when they quietly put the prices up by x amount and then a week later put them back to the original only this time they launch a big loud campaign saying “prices reduced” to fool people into thinking they’re getting a good deal.

      Well it’s not a good deal guys. I know it sounds like they’re being sensible and conceding ground when they admit that both genders have it equally bad but if you look at how much they have done just for one gender and continue to do, and how much worse men have it today (not necessarily because of that), there can be no doubt that they’re actually trying to divert your focus away from men’s issues even though those are the most pressing gender issues. I know there isn’t some conspiracy of feminists plotting how to undermine the MRM, but there are common interests, fear of masculinity and an absolute horror at the thought of losing their complete domination of the gender discourse, all of which subtly push their views and opinions towards an anti-masculine stance. And since MRAs are gaining followers, they are resorting to ever more desperate attempts to undermine them as we can see on manboobz.

      Here’s something to think about feminists: Even women are affected far worse by men’s issues than they are by the supposed women’s issues – including all the fake ones such as the pay gap. So if helping women is your only concern, fine. The best way to do that is to help address men’s issues.

  17. wellokaythen says:

    I can’t believe you’re just going to sit around while Toontown gets destroyed. Where’s your empathy?
    : – )

  18. No Gender War? Awww… there goes the one of the “easiest-to-troll-for-lulz” sections of the Internet :(

  19. I spend a lot of time with feminists, and I just want to point out one thing. A lot of comments here about the “zero sum”, that women have been playing the oppressed part for years, has a bit of historic basis. A lot of the women who I know that are feminists are in their 50′s-60′s, and actually were part of the movement when they were fighting for real rights. I mean, my great grandmother remembers thinking that women shouldn’t be in politics, because she always thought she just could never be as intelligent as a man. My grandma reported her husband to the cops, but was told that “husbands can’t rape their wives” and because he had beaten her with an open hand, not a fist, that was just fine. My other grandma was forced to give up her baby for adoption (unmarried, 16 years old, orphaned) because the nurses said she was incapable of raising a child without a man in the house. My aunt started a school walk out because girls weren’t allowed to wear pants to school yet. The first company my dad worked for had a “rotating secretary” that made him feel sick, because it was just young girls hired, all the upper management would try and sleep with her, and when she rejected one of them she would automatically be fired. Most of our mothers didn’t really have job options- my mom still has her “Jobs for Young Ladies” pamphlet from high school and, you can guess, it pretty much outlined secretary and nursing jobs, to be pursued unless marriage happened. Women remember these things- they remember when it was generally accepted that women were vastly intellectually and physically inferior to men. Our great-grandmothers (and some grandmas) were properties of our grandfathers. This is the history that women can bring to mind, and I think it really clouds their lenses in ONLY seeing their own struggles.

    Of course, we know that men had a struggle, but it just wasn’t on the forefront. It wasn’t fighting for things like the legal right to vote, the right to be in the workplace, etc. That, however, DOESN’T mean it wasn’t a struggle for men. Our dad’s would have rather died than be called feminine or girly. My own boyfriend, who is in his 20′s like myself, was mercilessly teased for being “unmanly” and automatically labelled as inferior and homosexual- all because he was an accomplished gymnast. My great-grandfather literally worked himself into the grave providing for his family (of course, his wife couldn’t work though..). My uncle was kicked out of his long term asylum simply because another female patient felt like he was a “sexual threat”- he remained on-and-off homeless for the next 5 years while he waited to get into another long term treatment facility, and became a heroin addict in the mean time. Held to unreasonably high standards of “manliness” and responsibility not only for their family members, but for the whole of society. I am not trying to make the point then men were all fine and dandy and then these poor ladies had to rise from the depths to the top. Patriarchal society was perpetuated by both men and women, and it was enormously damaging for both genders. The effects are still being felt, painfully, by men and women today.

    Feminists have a bad reputation- if you really want someone to hate you, call yourself a feminist. I have literally lost long-time friends (female and male, but mostly female actually) when I identify as a feminist. They have strong-armed a lot of things that shouldn’t be strong-armed, they have bred radical views that undermine men as humans and generally blame everything on anyone that doesn’t have a uterus (thereby effectively alienating all transgendered folks along their path). But they have done a lot of great things, and even though there are a lot of dinosaurs with their heads in the ground, the polarizing aspect of the MRM that makes me prickle is their tendency to do the same thing. To blame everything on the feminist and bemoan the destruction of society perpetuated by women against men. When can both sides see they aren’t doing anyone any favours when this happens? We are all people, we are all genders, and at the end of the day no one would choose that their son has more rights than their daughter or vice versa. It seems basic, but both movements have tied this “us against them” noose around their necks, which makes it hard to associate with either of them. Sometimes I want to just disappear from the gender equality movement all together, because it’s hard to find someone from either side who is really talking about equality. We talk about us vs them, the “others”, and then go home feeling cheated. If this continues, we will never reach the goal of ultimate equality for all genders along the gender spectrum.

    I agree with this article, in every aspect. We can’t hurt the opposite gender without hurting ourselves in the process, which BOTH movement need to wake up to.

    • Amen to that, I refuse to be called both mra and feminist label as it carries too much baggage and instantly can dismiss a reasonable discussion over preconceived ideas of what feminists or mras are. The Us vs them is annoying, I like to talk about issues from both sides to understand them better and it actually makes me feel less different from the other gender. But the polarizing attitudes really bugs me.

    • “the polarizing aspect of the MRM that makes me prickle is their tendency to do the same thing. To blame everything on the feminist and bemoan the destruction of society perpetuated by women against men. When can both sides see they aren’t doing anyone any favours when this happens? ”

      Again I have to point out that MRA’s blame feminists while feminists blame(d) men. See the difference? One is just a counter ideology and the other is outright sexism. Who’s the bad guy here? There is in fact very little women blaming for men’s rights issues. But people, especially feminists, often confuse feminists with women.

      • “There is in fact very little women blaming for men’s rights issues”.

        The point is, for women that want true equality, there is very little man-blaming (or man-hating, as the media so likes to put it to make lesbian=feminist=bad and add a healthy dose of bigotry). The same is true for men’s rights issues. That is my point- it doesn’t happen nearly as much in either movement as it’s let on. Most men don’t hate women, and most women don’t hate men. If they do, probably check for some trauma in the past, because no one should so broadly dislike a group of people just because they are different than themselves.

        As a female, trying to talk to members of the MRM, you do hear those who do blame women for everything the loudest. A lot of discussions I have had leave me infuriated as men try and make the impression that all women are job-stealing, rape-accusing, secretly-impregnating-themselves loonies that are destroying society for all men. I think that can be qualified as directly attacking women, not just feminists. News flash for everybody: almost nobody says they were raped if they weren’t, hardly anyone tried to get pregnant or impregnate without the other partners permission, and most people believe that they got to where there are today based on their own personal merits. It is exceptional that these things happen- JUST like the people who claim these broadly over a whole population of people are rare.

        So who’s the bad guy here? Anyone that justified their “us vs them” name-calling actions with “they did it first” or “they did it worst”. The big point: no one should be doing that. Maybe you see it as an ideology- I see a lot of outright sexism in the MRM, just like there is a lot of sexism in the feminist movement. Either way, neither party is in the “right”.

  20. How disappointingly unsurprising that even an article saying we should stop taking sides and focus on equality for all, still ends up full of angry comments putting all the blame on one group or another.

    Both feminism, and the MRM, are made up of individuals and groups and you will find a variety of opinions within each. They are not based on a specific list of agreed upon rules or statements of belief. There is no “bible” for either that every self-identified member agrees to. So we can always find certain individuals or sub-groups who have done or said things that we consider wrong, but that doesn’t mean every person who uses the same term for themselves agrees with them or that they should be held responsible for everything anyone has ever said or done who identifies the same way.

    Personally I can see ways in which both genders are stereotyped in our society, and assumptions are made, and each has its own privileges in certain circumstances. I try to read both feminist and MRA (and neither) writings about these prejudices so I can get a rounded perspective. It’s easier to see the ways you have personally been wronged, or your friends and loved ones have been, than to see the ways others are wronged, which is why it’s great to read both sides, see the different perspectives, and try to find solutions that work for everybody.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] posts, at the Good Men Project! There Is No Gender War, arguing that men’s rights and women’s rights are not zero-sum. On Penises: Average and [...]

  2. [...] I often get asked about how I can simultaneously identify as a feminist and a masculist. This is how. [...]

Speak Your Mind