The Fatal Flaw of Men’s Rights Activists

mens rights

The men’s rights movement is a reactionary, desperate attempt to hold onto social and political power.

Last week, a pair of articles on the popular website Thought Catalog dealing with “female privilege” went viral. In the articles – the original listicle written by Mark Saunders, titled 18 Things Females Seem Not To Understand (Because, Female Privilege) and a follow up by Gordon Avery called “Female Privilege Is Real, And We Need To Talk About It (Like Adults)” – the authors aired their counter-feminist grievances, which fall roughly in line with the tenets of the MRA (Men’s Rights Activist) movement.

Saunders’ piece detailed several “privileges” enjoyed exclusively by women; women aren’t “creepy” when they ask a man out; Women don’t have to deal with the humiliation of people being scared of them when alone on a dark street; being forced to support a child they didn’t want to have; women can cry their way out of a speeding ticket; having the arrogance to believe sexism only applies to women.

With all due respect to the author – all of that is bullshit.

Those arguments just aren’t grounded in reality.

Starting from the first point, which actively seeks to promote the idea that a man who is avoided on a dark street is damaged in the same way (or worse) than an actual victim of a sexual assault, Saunders completely throws the mountains of evidence – qualitative, quantitative, historical, and otherwise – out of the window in order to prove that his oppression is somehow equal to that of the opposite gender. Not only that, but he pulls anecdotes out of his ass that he can’t prove in any shape or form to be true, such as the insinuation that women are never told to “suck it up”, or that a man being “caring and empathetic” is shocking to anyone in 2014. Those arguments just aren’t grounded in reality.

His manifesto ends with the argument that “female privilege only applies to women”. Essentially, reverse sexism. the brother of the equally audacious “reverse racism” argument. Somewhere, a “Native privilege” subreddit is being born, in which I assume proponents will try to convince all of us that informing and educating white people about the real genocide that happened on American soil is just as bad as the genocide itself. 

♦◊♦

What the advocates of these no-evidence arguments don’t realize is that these ideas – racism, sexism, ableism, and so on and so forth – are grounded in power. The power that has allowed only a fraction of women (when compared to men) to hold positions of power in government and business. The same power that championed slavery and segregation, and police brutality and the school to prison pipeline. The same power that completely ignored, and to some extent continues to ignore, the plight of the physically and mentally handicapped.

Furthermore, they have a warped idea of what the kind of privilege they enjoy even means. Saunders and Avery talk about privilege in the way a teacher gives “privileges” to good students. They don’t look at privilege through the larger lens of society, in which straight white men (such as myself) have had a distinct advantage over our peers since the founding of the United States and most Western countries. And it’s not like the concept of something like female privilege, or African American privilege, can never happen – it just never, ever has. When women get away with the sexual harassment of their male employees, make a vast amount more than men, control most positions of power in business and government, we can start talking about female privilege. When the African American governors of Southern states begin segregating schools again in order to put more effort into students of the same race, when the African American bankers start denying loans to white people based on their race – then, we can we start talking about African American privilege. 

When the MRA movement first started gaining major ground online a few years ago, it struck me as very similar, albeit vastly more organized, to those who held the warped view that, essentially, any real recognition of the African American community was inherently racist. You know – the people who wanted a “White” history month. A “White” entertainment television. A National Association for the Advancement of White People. The people who ignored that much of the American history we’re taught in school was written about white men by white men, that most of the shows on major television networks were written about white people by white people, and that the NAAWP is also known as the media, business interests, and government of the United States of America.

What the advocates of these no-evidence arguments don’t realize is that these ideas – racism, sexism, ableism, and so on and so forth – are grounded in power.

Mens’ rights activists have followed an extremely similar track. They take an issue that has directly affected females in a negative way for hundreds of years, and they flip the narrative so that it looks as though now men are the oppressed, and women are the oppressors. Women lose trust in men after the sexual assaults of themselves, their friends, and family members, but that pales in comparison to the fact that a guy felt bad once. Women are sexually assaulted when they’re drunk and tend to shy away from reporting it due to the constant legal battles, the character assassinations levied on them by defense attorneys, and inherent distrust and victim blaming by law enforcement and their community, but they’re the privileged ones because their reputation isn’t ruined for acting in an abhorrent, scumbag manner. Women are underrepresented in positions of power, but hey, at least they aren’t burdened with the responsibility of making decisions that affect everyone

♦◊♦

There’s a way to talk about issues concerning men that aren’t covered enough in the media, such as (shameless plug) Cameron Conaway’s article back in February, The Disposability of Boys. And for all of the posturing in his article, even Avery hits on an extremely important point – the fact that there are almost as many single homeless men as there are single women and families with children combined. But neither of these things are due to any kind of “female privilege”; they’re a direct result of, in Conaway’s case, a patriarchal power structure that produces the same results for boys as they do women and girls (exploitation to meet the desires and needs of the “father”), and in Avery’s example, a political and social unwillingness to confront the problem of poverty and homelessness in America head-on. It’s absolutely disingenuous to imply that either of those things are a result of women having too much power over men.

The fatal flaw of the men’s rights activist movement is not that the members are “neckbeards”, “virgins”, or anything else. It’s that the whole movement is s a desperate, reactionary attempt to hold onto complete control of social and political power. And even more than that; it’s not based in reality, and has to create problems to fix. And just like those championing the “plight” of white people, it has and will continue to fall into intellectual obscurity, because it is patently absurd. 

Like The Good Men Project On Facebook!

Photo: FibonacciBlue/Flickr

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

About Paul Blest

Paul Blest is an editor for the Political section of The Good Men Project. He writes about politics, music, culture and sports, and is a contributor to VICE/Noisey. Everything he learned about life, he learned from Howard Zinn, Propagandhi, and The West Wing.

Comments

  1. I really wish that those arguing against MRA’s would actually study what the MRM stands for.

    • Paul Blest says:

      Thanks for the comment, Diz. Unfortunately, I’ve seen way too many critiques of MRAs along with readers who make the same type of comment as yours.

      I’ve researched the National Coalition for Men, along with several different cases that the MRM has taken up, I’ve tried to get a grasp of the biggest online community for men’s rights activists (the subreddit), and this is the understanding I’ve come away with. If you feel my understanding is wrong in any way, I’d be more than happy to have a discussion about it.

      • john Anderson says:

        One of the problems is that the MRM is diverse. The best known portion and probably oldest is probably one that you never even looked at because it’s now considered mainstream, the father’s rights movement. It’s part of the MRM. All fathers were men and they weren’t advocating for the rights of mothers who were all women. Many don’t see that as part of the men’s rights movement because they don’t see them as radical, but that’s not the fault of the MRM. It’s confirmation bias that people bring to the table. When you walk in assuming that all MRAs are radical, you assume that moderates are not MRAs. Not the problem of the MRM. Problem with the assumption.

        • Exactly. We’re at a point where anyone that IDs as MRA doesn’t act like that subreddit or the A Voice for Men crowd then the conclusion is that they aren’t “real MRAs”. Because broad generalizations are a lot easier than nuance.

  2. Is there some way that you can see me standing and applauding your article.
    Way to many MRA are bordering on Woman Hating. Some are becoming the Men-Hating Ultra feminists of the 60′s, groups that now most Modern Feminists agree did more damage than good to the cause of Gender equality.
    And their Female counterparts are throwing all MRA in the same boat as these idiots (yes, those extremists are idiots in my book.)

    You suddenly have the Taliban arguing with the West Baptist Church who is right. All Muslims and Christians end up losing that Debate.

    • And their Female counterparts are throwing all MRA in the same boat as these idiots (yes, those extremists are idiots in my book.)

      Ha! In that case there are a lot more extremist idiots in feminism than you might think.

  3. BigBadBob says:

    There’s all kinds of power in our society, men wield some, women wield others.

    Just calling MRA advocates ‘reactionary’ or ‘just like racists’ doesn’t really bother to address their arguments.

    • john Anderson says:

      @ BigBadBob

      That’s the problem with most of the commentary about the MRM from a feminist point of view. Feminists want to say that feminism will address the concerns of men when they they’re fully aware that it won’t. They don’t want to address the concerns of men and in some cases wish to do harm to men or at least choose to advantage women regardless of it’s detriment to men. Look at the adoption laws. It’s MRAs pushing to tighten the laws.

      The other thing is what if it is reactionary? Maybe it needs to be. I remember when the father’s rights movement started in Illinois. One of the things it pushed was criminalizing visitation interference. The women’s lobby (feminists) pushed back hard saying what they normally say. Men are evil and women are good. Women would never deny a child and father a relationship out of spite or for financial advantage in the divorce. It will only force women to interact with these evil, abusive, men and people still claim Schrodinger’s Rapist doesn’t actually hurt men.

      There was a case just last year were the Michigan chapter of NOW opposed a law that would allow a man who fathered a child with another man’s wife to seek paternity. I haven’t found a feminist outside of that chapter who opposed the law although all surmise that the opposition must have been sparked by their concern for the woman’s safety (or the child’s when in the care of it’s mother). I don’t argue that because it does fall into line with the men are dangerous and women and children need to be protected from them line.

      • Tom Brechlin says:

        NOW,being visible and a power force wrote this “There is a national crisis for women and their children in the family law courts of this country. Affirmed by experts and leaders in the women’s movement, the existence of this crisis is verified by women in every state who report injustice in their family law cases…” Accordingly they have done this “In response to the discrimination and harassment women often face in family courts, the NOW Family Law Ad Hoc Committee has developed a brochure that provides practical recommendations for women encountering a difficult divorce or child custody case.

        I find this interesting in that we all know that women are more commonly given custody of the kids and dads are given a bill.

        MRM’s are radical ?!?!

    • Pretty much. Instead of addressing them its just a race to associate then with something else that’s already established as bad.

  4. john Anderson says:

    “it just never, ever has”

    With all due respect, I’m calling bullshit.

    “When women get away with the sexual harassment of their male employees”

    They don’t need to. They already get away with vastly more rapes than the most predatory men can ever dream to. The CDC as well as numerous other studies have found that women are the vast majority of the sexual abusers of men / boys and men / boys are abused in comparable numbers to women / girls. When a female sexual predator has the same chance of being held accountable as a male sexual predator, maybe you’ll have an argument.

    Men pay more for auto, life insurance, and health insurance,. They pay the majority of taxes. Social services for men are nearly non-existent as compared to women. Men pay more to social security, but die sooner as on this case their life expectancy is not taken into consideration. Some jurisdictions have upheld “ladies nights” making it legal to discriminate against men. Domestic violence laws were strengthened only to be changed again when women were being arrested for domestic violence in greater numbers than men. Yes, only in this case can a law be changed because the gender they wanted to arrest wasn’t the gender committing the majority of the offenses.

    You mention the school to prison pipeline. Do you even know who this primarily affects? It’s boys. Men and boys are also given disproportionally harsher sentences than women or girls. Do you even wonder why rape in cases where no one is killed often draws harsher punishments than when a death is involved. I’ll give you an unlimited number of guesses and when you get to most prosecutions are prosecutions of men, you’ll be a winner.

    Men are 9 times more likely to be killed in industrial accidents. We hear about equal pay day. What about equal risk day. It’s 9 years in the future if you waiting. That’s when women’s risk will equal men’s. Check the guidelines under PREA. Cross gender pat down searches of women are banned. Training female guards is supposed to solve the problem of sexually abused men. Rape is the worst thing that can happen unless of course it’s compared with a woman not getting a job. Then it’s an acceptable occurrence.

    When there are comparable DV shelters for men, when government spending on social programs for men are comparable to women, who abused men are no longer arrested for being abused let alone actually protected from their abusive female partners, when women especially sexual predators are held to the same lebvl of accountability as a man, when men don’t have to beg to see their children, or have their children stolen from them in adoption and child custody proceedings, then you might have a point.

    • Tom Brechlin says:

      John, I can all way count on you to point out what SHOULD be the obvious. Information you’re presented has been information that even here at GMP, has been disclosed/discussed. And I’d like to add that you’ve only touched on the issues.

    • Josh K. says:

      “The CDC as well as numerous other studies have found that women are the vast majority of the sexual abusers of men / boys and men / boys are abused in comparable numbers to women / girls.”
      Actually most studies still show most boys/men are raped by other men. Most men are raped in prison by other men. But girls and women are the vast majority of sexual abuse victims out of prison.

      “Men are 9 times more likely to be killed in industrial accidents. We hear about equal pay day. What about equal risk day. It’s 9 years in the future if you waiting.”
      Yes, more men enter risk jobs. Most women OR men don’t necessarily want these jobs, though. If it is risky, we need more security… not necessarily have more women taking these jobs, it won’t help the actual problem at all.
      And the equal pay is about equal JOB.

      “When there are comparable DV shelters for men”
      Men do need more DV shelters, but not the same amount. Most will be empty.

  5. wellokaythen says:

    In trying to understand reality, I try to take ideas and arguments at their face value, separate from the people making those arguments. I try to separate ideologies from their practitioners, and I try to distinguish between the ideas and the things done in the name of those ideas. Judging ideas by the people who present them is not a very good approach to determining whether those ideas are valid or not.

    This is how I try to approach the MRM and feminism, and how I try to approach religions, for example Christianity. At the center of Christianity are some great ideas about forgiveness, charity, compassion, humility, and peace. Those are great things. If I judge Christianity by the actions of its most outspoken followers, I’d be tempted to dismiss it as insanity, when in fact there are some great ideas there.

    Same with the men’s rights movements. Some of their arguments are screwy, and some of their spokesmen are screwy. I say the same thing about feminism. Both have ideas that ought to be rescued from their worst representatives.

    As for simply being an attempt to hang on to privilege, no doubt that’s part of the story. I don’t think that’s the full explanation, however. That sounds a bit like fighting straw man with straw man. (Or is that straw person?)

    • john Anderson says:

      @ wellokaythen

      “As for simply being an attempt to hang on to privilege, no doubt that’s part of the story. I don’t think that’s the full explanation”

      The problem I have with that is what privilege are they trying to hold on to? I think that’s an assumption or maybe a wish. It may also be a reaction to the MRM challenging female privilege and an attempt to hold on to that.

      Like I said in another post, many people argue that feminism is about equality. They point to the dictionary definition. I then asked how does a feminist define equality? This whole concept of privilege seems to be an attempt to treat individuals unfairly and label is as equal.

      • Paul Blest says:

        “It may also be a reaction to the MRM challenging female privilege and an attempt to hold on to that.”

        In the spirit of trying to keep this a concise argument I’ll try to address a lot of your points in one post. Forgive me/let me know if I’m missing something

        Paying less for insurance – something is completely capitalistic in nature. Young men are statistically more likely to get into accidents, etc. Also, the people who run every major insurance agency are majority men. Just looked up the top 5 insurance companies and all of the CEOs are men.

        Men are nine times more likely to get into industrial accidents – Because more men work in industrial jobs? You haven’t really described how this relates to “female privilege”, only that it happens. Again, this is a problem with capitalism, and companies who try to cut corners rather than ensuring safety for their employees, not with women controlling the conversation. Abortion rights? Those are men controlling the conversation making decision for someone who deals with a different set of problems than them.

        Oirish’s sexism point – Because “reverse sexism” isn’t real on a large scale. If you show me a company run by women where men are fired for refusing the sexual advances of their bosses, I’ll concede that there was prejudice and possibly sexism involved in that. But on a large scale, no, we still live in patriarchal society.

        Oirish’s point about Saunders’ first point – Come on – I don’t need to spell it out for you. It’s implied that when you talk about a man being hurt by a woman avoiding him on a dark street at night, it’s trivializing WHY they’re doing that. There can also be some inherent racism involved (white men = okay, men of color = not okay), but sorry, I’m a white man and don’t blame any woman for avoiding me at night. You get catcalled on your way to work, called a “bitch” when you refuse someone’s advances, and you’re just supposed to assume that I’m an upstanding gentleman? That’s not the way real life works.

        “They don’t need to. They already get away with vastly more rapes than the most predatory men can ever dream to. The CDC as well as numerous other studies have found that women are the vast majority of the sexual abusers of men / boys and men / boys are abused in comparable numbers to women / girls. When a female sexual predator has the same chance of being held accountable as a male sexual predator, maybe you’ll have an argument.”

        First off, I’d really love to see those numbers. A quick Google search found nothing of the sort. Secondly, I’d like to see some kind of feminist literature that says a female sexually abusing a boy or a man is okay. I’ve never read that anywhere, although I have seen some incendiary stuff that talks about killing all men. I will never take anyone who says anything like that seriously, nor should anyone.

        “You mention the school to prison pipeline. Do you even know who this primarily affects? It’s boys. Men and boys are also given disproportionally harsher sentences than women or girls. Do you even wonder why rape in cases where no one is killed often draws harsher punishments than when a death is involved. I’ll give you an unlimited number of guesses and when you get to most prosecutions are prosecutions of men, you’ll be a winner.”

        First part – explain how this is due to female privilege rather than a racist justice system? Second part – because more sexual assaults are committed by men. I’d love to see some statistics proving otherwise.

        Do you argue the fact that most decision makers within American society are men? Most positions of power are held by men? Most laws are made by men, most court sentences are handed down by men? The fact is that we DO live in a society where people may be considered equal under the law in theory but in practice, those lines are a lot more blurred. If we lived in a society where the roles were reversed, I’d be right there with you fighting for men’s rights. But it’s not, so I’m not. I’d rather have equality.

        If you go back and read the article I wrote, I didn’t say anything about “men’s issues” not existing, and I cited The Disposability of Boys article as well as something within Avery’s article as legitimate “men’s issues”. But I’m not willing to concede that the issues that Saunders talked about are important whatsoever, or that they’re a problem created by a matriarchal society. Because we know that’s not the case – and that’s why I said that the mainstream MRM within online communities like Reddit (I talked about this several times in the article, I don’t know why I need to know the history of the movement when I wasn’t addressing their points) are reactionary, not proactive in actually furthering issues that actually affect men. It’s just counter-feminism. Look at your responses to my article: they all talk about the “feminist agenda” and how “feminists try to convert people”. I wrote this article as a response to two very specific things that seem, to me anyway, to be representative of the men’s rights movement as I’ve read about it. If you disagree with anything Saunders said based on the grounds that it doesn’t represent the MRM, I’d love to hear those things.

        Finally – I’m not trying to “convert” anyone. I think the beauty of this site is how much we promote different viewpoints, and anyone who has read my articles knows I’m someone who tries their best to respond to anything that the commenters on my articles think is unfair or wrong. I enjoy the debate, and just because I’m a writer for this site doesn’t mean I’m on any kind of pedestal over any of you. If you want to write something for the site explaining why you think anything I said was wrong, feel free to email me at [email protected] and we’ll have a conversation about it.

        Thanks,
        Paul

        • John Andersin says:

          @ Paul Blest

          Let me see if I can address some of your issues and if the mods let me.

          “Paying less for insurance – something is completely capitalistic in nature ”

          Yet, there are laws in place that specifically bar insurance companies from charging women more. There are also laws in place that require insurance companies to provide women with coverages that are not provided to men. For example, women have the ability to define an OBGYN. They can see this person without a referral fee. If I want to see a urologist, I have to see my primary doctor at $25 and then see the urologist. Women’s contraception is covered by law. I still have to purchase condoms. When men pat more it’s capitalism. When women pay more it’s discrimination. You also haven’t addressed why I should have to pay more into social security and receive less of a benefit. Men dying sooner doesn’t seem to matter there.

          “Men are nine times more likely to get into industrial accidents – Because more men work in industrial jobs?”

          Men also take higher paying jobs and work more hours so I guess we’re never going to hear about the “gender wage gap” anymore.

          “Again, this is a problem with capitalism, and companies who try to cut corners rather than ensuring safety for their employees, not with women controlling the conversation ”

          Wrong, this is a problem of society believing that men disposable. If society doesn’t believe that a man’s life is worth as much as a woman’s, why would companies be run in a different manner? If women were nine times more likely to be hurt, there would already be laws against it. Just look at the protection they get from circumcision. Infant males can be circumcised and if his genitals are cut off (rare but does happen and there are many more times other complications or issues like skin being drawn too tight if too much is cut off, etc.), it”s just a mistake, but try even the ceremonial nick on a girl, you’re looking at 5 years in prison.

          “Oirish’s sexism point – Because “reverse sexism” isn’t real on a large scale.”

          Is it not real or is it not complained about? Is it not real or is it not something that could happen on a large scale until recently because women have just recently become the majority of managers?

          http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19536167/ns/business-careers/t/male-sexual-harassment-not-joke/#.U1FqtaKmU1I

          “While the number of sexual harassment cases overall has consistently declined in the past few years, “sexual harassment filings by men have consistently increased, doubling over 15 years,” says David Grinberg, a spokesman for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC.”

          “And that’s cases that get to the EEOC. Many labor experts say men are less likely than women to speak up about such cases of harassment for fear of being mocked by coworkers, and even fewer would take the charges to a government agency and risk widespread knowledge of their plight. ”

          “Oirish’s point about Saunders’ first point – Come on – I don’t need to spell it out for you. It’s implied that when you talk about a man being hurt by a woman avoiding him on a dark street at night, it’s trivializing WHY they’re doing that ”

          And when men speak out against it and are silenced do I really need to explain to you that this silencing trivializes the way Schrodinger’s Rapist. is used to deny men custody and visitation rights. If you look at PREA, this reverse concept that women are always safe puts men at greater risk of sexual abuse as women are not prohibited from performing searches of men, while men are prohibited from performing searches of women.

          “First off, I’d really love to see those numbers”

          http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf

          Page 24

          “For three of the other forms of sexual violence, a majority of male victims reported only female perpetrators: being made to penetrate (79.2%), sexual coercion (83.6%), and unwanted sexual contact (53.1%).”

          Page 18 Table 2.1 estimated rapes of women last 12 months 1,270,000
          Page 19 Table 2.2 estimate men forced to penetrate another last 12 months 1,267,000

          “Forty-three percent of U.S. high school boys and young college men report they had an unwanted sexual experience — 95 percent with a woman.”

          http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2014/03/25/4-in-10-high-school-boys-young-men-report-coerced-sex/3421395770501/?spt=sh

          Those are just two of the studies. Noah had links to about 40 studies on women’s sexual predation in another GMP article. Seeing the numbers and believing the men are two distinct things. After seeing the numbers, do you believe the men?

          “Secondly, I’d like to see some kind of feminist literature that says a female sexually abusing a boy or a man is okay.”

          Recently? How about within the last month?

          http://queensjournal.ca/story/2014-03-30/opinions/letter-editor-march-31/

          It’s embedded in the comments sections. In response to an MRA pointing out that 95% or so of staff sexual misconduct in juvenile detention was perpetrated by female staff against male inmates.

          Adele Mercier – “So the 95% that you cite is of MALE YOUTH who experience sexual misconduct involving FEMALE STAFF WITHOUT FORCE.”

          Seems to me that she implying that 1. At least male, some of whom are underage, can give consent to sex with their female jailers and 2. It isn’t as bad as rape.

          Adele Mercier is with some feminist, Canadian, group. I don’t remember off hand, but could probably find out. Although I think it’s bad enough that she’s an instructor at Queens University and has not to my knowledge yet been repudiated by any feminist organization or her employer. Contrast that with men who’ve been fired for making less offensive remarks.

          This is getting long. I’ll respond to the rest in another comment.

        • John Andersin says:

          @ Paul Blest

          Assuming my last comment gets approved. Here is the rest of the response to your comment.

          “First part – explain how this is due to female privilege rather than a racist justice system?

          Simple, you just need to answer one question. Why there many times more minority men in prison than minority women? If it was just based on race, why are the prisons not equally full of minority women?

          “Second part – because more sexual assaults are committed by men. I’d love to see some statistics proving otherwise.”

          That doesn’t explain why male sexual predators are SIGNIFICANTLY MORE LIKELY to face justice than female sexual predators. That doesn’t explain why women have a much better chance of receiving justice in a rape case than a man. Are you suggesting that because women commit fewer sex crimes, male victims are not believed? Are you suggesting that being believed is not privilege?

          Numbers are in my last comment. Now I challenge you to show that it’s not female privilege. Where are the comparable shelters / victim’s services for men? Why is the proportion of females PUNISHED for committing sexual predation so far below the proportion for male punished for committing sexual predators?

          “Do you argue the fact that most decision makers within American society are men?”

          Men put in more time than women. They work more hours. They don’t get on the mommy tract. Why is it than when bring up industrial fatalities, it’s not sexism it’s the choices men make, but when women make the choice to raise families and not commit as fully to the job, it has to be sexism? Take your pick. I won’t let you have your cake and eat it too. When you’ve made up your mind, we can start again. BTW about 53% of the electorate are women.

          “or that they’re a problem created by a matriarchal society. Because we know that’s not the case”

          And how do we know that because your gender studies class said so? Most people are raised (ie most heavily influenced) by their mothers. How is that not a matriarchal society? Look at primary school teachers, mostly women. Most peoples interactions with authority when they’re youngest and most heavily influenced is with female authority figures.

          “I didn’t say anything about “men’s issues” not existing”

          I don’t believe that I said you did, but if I had it was inadvertent and I apologize. My issue is with the assertion that these are not indications of female privilege, which I believe that they are.

          “when I wasn’t addressing their points) are reactionary, not proactive in actually furthering issues that actually affect men”

          Look at my response to you when I talk about the MRM specifically father’s rights issues. The MRM wasn’t reacting to what feminists did. It was actually feminists who tried to block the progress that the MRM was trying to make. Demand to criminalize visitation interference opposed by feminists. Demand to allow men to establish paternity opposed by feminists. Feminists have reacted to the MRM and then (apparently based on your article) turned around and accused the MRM of acting in reaction to them. The MRM is currently pushing joint custody or shared parenting. Want to guess who’s opposing it?

        • courage the cowardly dog says:

          Paying less for insurance – something is completely capitalistic in nature. Young men are statistically more likely to get into accidents, etc. Also, the people who run every major insurance agency are majority men. Just looked up the top 5 insurance companies and all of the CEOs are men. – See more at: http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/fatal-flaw-mens-rights-activists-pb/#sthash.s5yjkicV.dpuf

          Yes young men are more likely to get into accidents, like car accidents and auto insurance will pay for injuries suffered in an auto accident, not health insurance and auto insurance premiums for young men is commensurately higher than they are for women. Similarly, someone injured on a premises the medical bills will typically be paid by a bodily injury premises liability insurance policy, not health insurance. The fact is women use services paid for by health insurance at a higher rate than do men and thus their premiums are higher. It is fundamental economics, nothing more. The fact is that men are the CEO’s of insurance companies is completely irrelevant. It was an all male congress that proposed by a two thirds majority the 19th amendment to the constitution giving women the right to vote. It was a white male southerner who fought for the 1964 Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts and the Great Society programs sought to help the poor, many of which were African American. To insinuate that because men run an insurance company it is inherently unfair to women is just plain wrong. As women gain power the incidents of sexual harassment by women on men is rising. A sheriff deputy in Texas recently was awarded a half million dollars for sexual harassment directed at him by his female boss. If you think this is the only incident of that sort that is happening you are either blind or choose not to see.

        • Tom Brechlin says:

          I just need to throw this in about auto insurance. Men’s rates have been historically higher simply because men in the past, drove more then women, accordingly, they were at a higher risk. I believe the ratio of men verses women have more then likely leveled off, why should they change the rates, men are still paying. Yet another example of men being oblivious.

          • courage the cowardly dog says:

            In all due respect Tom, my 20 year old son’s automobile insurance is about 60% higher than my 18 year old daughter’s. So I am not sure where you get the idea that they have leveled off. Not in my experience and not in the experience of friends who have children who are driving.

            • Tom Brechlin says:

              Courage, what I mean by “leveled off” is that men and women are driving at equal levels now yet men’s rates are still higher. Point is that men are still paying the higher premium without questioning the higher rates.

        • Paul:

          Oirish’s sexism point – Because “reverse sexism” isn’t real on a large scale. If you show me a company run by women where men are fired for refusing the sexual advances of their bosses, I’ll concede that there was prejudice and possibly sexism involved in that. But on a large scale, no, we still live in patriarchal society.

          The point is that even some feminists will describe what is termed female privilege as benevolent sexism. I would agree that reverse sexism isn’t a real thing – because it’s just sexism, pure and simple.

          Beyond that your argument simply boils down to an arbitrary and subjective value judgement of “no, these issues are more important / happen more, therefore patriarchy/privilege”.

          Oirish’s point about Saunders’ first point – Come on – I don’t need to spell it out for you. It’s implied that when you talk about a man being hurt by a woman avoiding him on a dark street at night, it’s trivializing WHY they’re doing that.

          The actual point was that it is arguably an advantage/benefit to women that they are treated with greater trust. As your own point goes on to demonstrate, this mindset is little more than naked and hypocritcal bigotry.

          There can also be some inherent racism involved (white men = okay, men of color = not okay), but sorry, I’m a white man and don’t blame any woman for avoiding me at night. You get catcalled on your way to work, called a “bitch” when you refuse someone’s advances, and you’re just supposed to assume that I’m an upstanding gentleman? That’s not the way real life works.

          So it’s unacceptable to discriminate on the basis of someone’s race (well, if they’re black), but fine to do so on their gender?

          Please explain the logic in this statement – assuming there even is any.

          Do you argue the fact that most decision makers within American society are men? Most positions of power are held by men? Most laws are made by men, most court sentences are handed down by men? The fact is that we DO live in a society where people may be considered equal under the law in theory but in practice, those lines are a lot more blurred. If we lived in a society where the roles were reversed, I’d be right there with you fighting for men’s rights. But it’s not, so I’m not. I’d rather have equality.

          Gender norms are reinforced by both genders, I’d like to remind you. It strikes me as rather patriarchal to dismiss women’s responsibility in reinforcing the system as men did.

          I find it rather curious that because a slightly larger (but overall still tiny) fraction of men have held political power than women have, it’s acceptable to stereotype/generalise them as Having Power. It is the exact same mindset as generalising all Muslims as terrorists or potential terrorists because a slightly larger minority of them have committed terrorism. It is group favouritism dressed up in sociological jargon.

          I wrote this article as a response to two very specific things that seem, to me anyway, to be representative of the men’s rights movement as I’ve read about it. If you disagree with anything Saunders said based on the grounds that it doesn’t represent the MRM, I’d love to hear those things.

          Please. You cited two articles.

        • Finally – I’m not trying to “convert” anyone. I think the beauty of this site is how much we promote different viewpoints, and anyone who has read my articles knows I’m someone who tries their best to respond to anything that the commenters on my articles think is unfair or wrong. I enjoy the debate, and just because I’m a writer for this site doesn’t mean I’m on any kind of pedestal over any of you. If you want to write something for the site explaining why you think anything I said was wrong, feel free to email me at [email protected] and we’ll have a conversation about it.

          For real? You think a pro-MRM article will be published here?

          Thanks for that Paul, I’ll get back to you when hell freezes over.

        • courage the cowardly dog says:

          Finally – I’m not trying to “convert” anyone. I think the beauty of this site is how much we promote different viewpoints, – See more at: http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/fatal-flaw-mens-rights-activists-pb/#sthash.zlp7dtJQ.dpuf

          This site promotes different viewpoints? Really? That is false. My viewpoint though in full compliance with the commenting policy is routinely deleted without explanation. The Commenting policy leaves within the discretion of the editors and writers the authority to delete any comment without explanation. That is not a policy that promotes different viewpoints. To say otherwise is nonsense.

  6. “And just like those championing the “plight” of white people, it has and will continue to fall into intellectual obscurity, because it is patently absurd.”

    Possibly. Only one way to find out, really. Then again, if it’s really destined for the dustbin of history, then I wonder why it would ever be necessary to say so much about it. This sounds like wishful thinking. I’m also curious what it means to be perpetually falling into obscurity. Sounds almost zen, really.

    Besides, right or wrong, whether a movement is absurd or not, or intellectually bankrupt or not, has very little bearing on how successful it is. It would be hopelessly naive to think that only sensible, accurate ideologies win out.

    The most obvious example is one you mention in your article: patriarchy. By all accounts, patriarchy has been phenomenally successful at reproducing itself across the planet for thousands of years. Has it fallen into obscurity yet because of its absurdity? Beware absurd ideologies — they are some of the most powerful things humans have every created!

  7. avoiceofreason says:

    “The men’s rights movement is a reactionary, desperate attempt to hold onto social and political power.”

    The social power of being laughed at for being a sexual assault victim, and the political power of getting more severe sentences for the same crime(compared to a woman), it would seem.

  8. john Anderson says:

    It’s amazing and probably a testament to the site that there could be this article and this one

    http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/talk-men-top-10-issues-today-gmp/

    I would suggest that the author of this article read the other (and the comments). It might change his perspective.

  9. courage the cowardly dog says:

    Ah, the old “Your comment is awaiting moderation” in other words as soon as you log off, the comment comes down because we can’t have the truth be seen even if it is seen by only a handful of people, because God knows nobody reads this site anyway.

  10. courage the cowardly dog says:

    I see my speech was suppressed. Not surprising. Goodmenproject the conversation no one else is having especially those who disagree with us, at least not here. Mr. Saunders made 18 points of female privilege not the least of which was being able to decide whether or not to have a child. A woman can decide to kill a man’s child and the man has no recourse or a woman can bind a man to a lifetime of financial obligation by giving birth to a child the man may not want. That privilege virtually trumps all other privileges a man might have and these days men don’t have the kinds of privileges they once did and women now enjoy. Like my prior comment this probably won’t see the light of day because the goodmenproject isn’t really interested in having a conversation, but rather a tightly controlled philosophical monologue.

    • Tom Brechlin says:

      Courage – The benefit of being a premium member is that I get to see the trashed responses. And yes Courage, I agree with you. But I don’t think anyone at GMP ever denied this is a feminist site. Accordingly, one has to look at much of what’s written is from a feminists perspective. Attempts to sway anyone at GMP from the feminist camp is futile at best. Their attempts to sway MRM into the feminist camp should be just as futile.

      • courage the cowardly dog says:

        In all due respect I do not want to financially support the viewpoints expressed on this cite particularly in light of the fact that my viewpoint is routinely suppressed. I might consider purchasing a premium membership if I had assurance that my posts were not deleted by the editorial board. Once they have my money there is nothing I can do to get it back and nothing to stop censorship of my posts.

        • Tom Brechlin says:

          Courage, I know, I cringe at the thought of subsidizing but there is a convenience factor in that I don’t have to deal with all those advertisements which is another for of revenue and much more then a membership.

          I read the “trashed” responses and I’m often confused as to why they get trashed. One of mine recently went in the (strike that) three of them went in the dumpster and I sent one to Lisa to ask why. It also appears that the authors may also have authority as well. One in particular that I’m green with envy. Cough Cough…..

    • Paul Blest says:

      Yes, The Good Men Project suppressed your viewpoint, but somehow let the 15-20 other comments aimed at proving that I don’t know anything about the Men’s Rights movement or…anything, slide. Instead of being immediately cynical about this, repost it, and if it’s not anything irrationally offensive then I’ll personally let it go through.

      • courage the cowardly dog says:

        I did not save it so unless I reconstruct it I cannot repost it. I don’t make posting comments here a career. To go through that much trouble is not time effective for me and since my writing is spontaneous I am not sure I could articulate the same point as effectively. I think you should adopt a policy that when a comment violates any provision of the published commentary policy it be removed and an explanation for its removal be posted in its place. My comments are routinely censored without explanation and that doesn’t strike me as having a conversation whether it is one anybody else is having or not.

        • Paul Blest says:

          I’ll forward that to our executive editors, but we get hundreds of comments on this site and we have a system that approves them. Sometimes I get an email from the system saying someone commented, and giving me an option to approve or reject it. This time, I’ve gotten no such emails.

          Was this the comment?

          “Ah, the old “Your comment is awaiting moderation” in other words as soon as you log off, the comment comes down because we can’t have the truth be seen even if it is seen by only a handful of people, because God knows nobody reads this site anyway.”

          • courage the cowardly dog says:

            No, that got posted. My problem with your article is that you addressed the merits of maybe one or two of the 18 points of privilege Mr. Saunders articulated in his article and then you associated the whole movement with discredited white supremacy and that is not fair. Mr. Saunders referenced the following 3 points of privilege women have and they are not insignificant:. Female privilege is being able to decide not to have a child.

            7. Female privilege is not having to support a child financially for 18 years when you didn’t want to have it in the first place.

            8. Female privilege is never being told to “take it like a man” or “man up.”

            I mean a woman can kill a man’s child and the man has no say so in the matter, furthermore, a woman can bind a man to a lifetime obligation and again the man can do nothing about it except fulfill the obligation or go to jail for his failure to do so. I leave my office late at night sometimes and I see a lot of homeless men but very few, if any homeless women. Men’s suicide rate is 4 x higher than women. Do you suppose that is because men generally live such privileged lives. Mr. Saunders sought to balance the fallacy of male privilege with the facts of female privilege and you trashed him for it associating him with racists. Whenever you want demean something call it racist, may not be true but it matters not.

        • Tom Brechlin says:

          Courage, if you want, I can cut and paste what you wrote … see if it gets past the monitors? But then again, this one may not make it.

    • deciding whether or not to have a child isn’t privilege… it’s called biology.
      It’s about reproductive capabilities- what are you reproductively CAPABLE of doing?
      laws shouldn’t be based on people’s feelings and hopes and dreams. We don’t live in a fairy tale.

      and men can decide whether or not to have a child too… just with a different means (because they have different reproductive capabilites)…
      a man who doesn’t want a child refrains from sex or uses a condom or tries a new age method or a vasectomy. that’s a man’s capability. that’s his biology, that’s his reality – What is really being said is the “privilege” of still still having a choice after the sex is had (again, based off biological capabilities)… which is based on people’s feelings; their hopes and dreams – not their reality) The truth is men have reproductive capabilities and they should have a right to decide on said capabilities. but that doesn’t account for feelings – which is what seems to be the biggest problem.

      If you have to lift 100lbs to be able to get a job, that job shouldn’t have to lower the standard to 80lbs because somebody can’t lift 100lbs but really wants the job.
      If you have to gestate to have a baby, no one should be forced to gestate for you just because you can’t and you really want a baby.

      again.. this doesn’t factor in people feelings which is what seems to be the biggest problem..

      • John Andersin says:

        @ lilbit

        “eciding whether or not to have a child isn’t privilege… it’s called biology.
        It’s about reproductive capabilities- what are you reproductively CAPABLE of doing?”

        It’s not just a question of having the child. It’s also the question of what happens after. When we say that a man can’t decide what a woman does with her body for 9 months by giving birth, but a woman can effectively decide what a man does with his body through his labor for 18 years by paying child support, it does become a matter of privilege rather than biology. Since his labor is utilized for the benefit of another against his will, some may equate this with slavery.

        Why should a mother not pay child support to adoptive parents? Does the child no longer need to eat? Why should a father not have the option to “adopt” a child to the mother? If not, why do people think it’s just that a mother can adopt a child to someone without the expressed consent of the father established through a paternity test. Every state I’m aware of simply requires that the father not contest. He doesn’t have to agree. So if it’s not a matter of privilege simply biology, I think we cab all agree that a mother should be required to pay child support to adoptive parents unless she gets the consent of the father to an adoption. Barring that, I think we can all agree that a father should be able to opt out of parental responsibilities without the consent of the mother as long as it’s a matter of biology rather than privilege.

        The MRM doesn’t want to take away abortion rights although that would be a fair way of balancing the choices. The MRM is concerned with making things more fair.

        • Tom Brechlin says:

          Since we’re talking about abortion which a women had the right to do. The way the laws are written. If a women grabs her keys because she’s leaving to go to the abortion clinic, hubby is angry that she’s getting an abortion, they tussle, she falls and looses the baby. The reality is that the husband will sustain additional charges for harm to the unborn.

          • courage the cowardly dog says:

            Wow, the irony of that is compelling. Dad gets jail for unintentionally killing an unborn child Mom intended to abort without the threat of facing any consequences for aborting the child. That’s not a privilege is it?

      • John Andersin says:

        @ lilbit

        “If you have to lift 100lbs to be able to get a job, that job shouldn’t have to lower the standard to 80lbs because somebody can’t lift 100lbs but really wants the job.”

        Then why isn’t women’s athletics privilege? Why not have two teams, an A team and a B team, and have them compete with the men / boys for a spot on either team? We shouldn’t have to lower the standard of athleticism because some people aren’t as athletic, but really, really want to be on the team.

      • courage the cowardly dog says:

        If you have to gestate to have a baby, no one should be forced to gestate for you just because you can’t and you really want a baby. – See more at: http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/fatal-flaw-mens-rights-activists-pb/comment-page-1/#comment-1300320

        When the man and the woman got into bed and engaged in the act that conceived the life did it run through either party’s mind that the act they were engaging in could create a life. Say the man fully realized and appreciated what he was doing at that moment (to so otherwise is irresponsible), but the woman in the heat of passion communicated to the man that she also appreciated the significance of the act, but decides later she doesn’t want to go through with it even though she said she would, she enjoys the privilege of being able to change her mind when the man does not that is a privilege women enjoy but men do not. Conversely, men generally enjoy the privilege of being able to perform physically demanding work that women can not do. In the long run these privileges can turn into burdens as the privilege of having a child turns into the burden of raising one and the privilege of performing physically demanding work turns into debilitating injury and earlier death.

      • John Anderson says:

        @ lilbit

        “eciding whether or not to have a child isn’t privilege… it’s called biology.
        It’s about reproductive capabilities- what are you reproductively CAPABLE of doing?”

        One more thing to consider. There is biology and biological capability and there is the law. Currently the laws favor those who’s biology can be classified as “female”. Should the laws favor this biology and what is the morality behind it? While these laws favor the people with this “female” biology, is it tantamount to female privilege?

        Let’s look at the abortion scenario. Currently women can have abortions and men are expected to pay child support. The laws give women advantage as 1. they are the gatekeepers to men’s reproduction. If she chooses to abort, he can’t prevent it. 2. If she chooses to have the child and he does not, he is obligated to financially support her decision. Laws advantage female biology.

        Let’s say abortion is banned. If a woman has an abortion, she faces the consequence of the law., not the father She has the same obligations to the child unless and until adopted as he, but she has to carry the child and go through labor also because we know who the mother is, she is less likely to be able to avoid these responsibilities. The laws would advantage male biology.

        One type of biology will be advantaged over the other regardless of the laws we have. The question the MRM proposes is simply, why shouldn’t the laws be changed to disadvantage the disadvantaged biology the least?

        • courage the cowardly dog says:

          Let’s say abortion is banned. If a woman has an abortion, she faces the consequence of the law., not the father She has the same obligations to the child unless and until adopted as he, but she has to carry the child and go through labor also because we know who the mother is, she is less likely to be able to avoid these responsibilities. The laws would advantage male biology. – See more at: http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/fatal-flaw-mens-rights-activists-pb/#sthash.I1DHaSnN.dpuf

          If abortion were illegal and the man knew his gf/wife was going to have an abortion and he did nothing to stop her, such as reporting her to the police or he drives her to the place where she has the abortion or he pays for the abortion he could be charged as an accessory before the fact. If he learns of the abortion after it is performed and he does not report her to the police he could be charged as an accessory after the fact. If abortion were illegal men would not escape criminal liability so easily. Besides, abortion is not illegal so as it is the woman’s biology endows her with a privilege men don’t enjoy and it is not a small one.

  11. Starting from the first point, which actively seeks to promote the idea that a man who is avoided on a dark street is damaged in the same way (or worse) than an actual victim of a sexual assault,

    The heck it does. It claims nothing of the kind. It simply claims it is an advantage and one that follows gendered lines. Something you need to realise is that people often compare these things based on similarity in principle, not by degree. It is no less arbitrary than feminist framing of privilege.

    His manifesto ends with the argument that “female privilege only applies to women”. Essentially, reverse sexism

    And yet it’s curious that feminists will call these things listed “BENEVOLENT sexism”. So it is still sexism, just it is women who are always painted as the victims. As ever there is more than one way to frame these problems.

    What the advocates of these no-evidence arguments don’t realize is that these ideas – racism, sexism, ableism, and so on and so forth – are grounded in power. The power that has allowed only a fraction of women (when compared to men) to hold positions of power in government and business

    What you don’t seem to realise is that power takes more forms than just the ones that feminism and simliar movements obsess over. I agree – if you define terms so that women are always oppressed and men are always privileged….then hey presto, that’s what you’ll get. I can’t say it’s a particularly impressive approach though.

    When the MRA movement first started gaining major ground online a few years ago, it struck me as very similar, albeit vastly more organized, to those who held the warped view that, essentially, any real recognition of the African American community was inherently racist.

    You really, really need to pay more attention. The fact that you are apparently unaware that the MRA is aware of, and concerned about male disposability only illustrates how dire this need is.

    • john Anderson says:

      @ OirishM

      “if you define terms so that women are always oppressed and men are always privileged….then hey presto, that’s what you’ll get.”

      They say that’s how they define it, but I suspect the way they really define it is men are the oppressor (always) and women are the oppressed (always). We get an article out of Slate that suggests that since women are entering into traditional seats of power, we probably should start defining sexual harassment differently.

      http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/04/17/locket_ceo_yunha_kim_talks_about_getting_unwanted_sexual_advances_on_the.html?wpisrc=hpsponsoredd2

      “All of which is why it’s important to focus the discourse around sexual harassment on the issues of boundaries and consent, instead of looking at it strictly through the lens of who officially holds the most power. “

  12. Tom Brechlin says:

    MRM’s fatal flaw? How I see it is that they continue to have to “justify” who they are and who they represent. They struggle with getting their information out to the mainstream because a lot of time and energy is spend defending who they are and why they exists. They’re also charged with getting a society to see that there are men’s issues and that men are in fact facing problems, which as we have seen here at GMP, there’s an effort to show that men are privileged and are perceived to have an upper hand. Article after article here at GMP address men’s issues and then the proverbial, “men are privileged” article/comments come into play. But I digress….

    I don’t believe that the majority of Americans recognize that men need a movement because 1.) mainstream media is in the feminist camp and accordingly minimizes men’s issues and / or completely ignore men’s issues and commonly place women’s issues in front of men’s issues 2.) most men “think” all is fine until their worlds collapse. They’re like addicts, it’s not until they hit rock bottom that they realize there’s a problem. As an example, it isn’t until a man is denied custody, inequities in family courts isn’t anywhere in their sight.

    I had a male associate who used to laugh at what appeared to him to be over reacting when it came to men’s issues and problems in family court. That was until his wife filed for divorce. Then all of sudden he was in my office asking for help because he was being screwed over.

    MRM’s still haven’t had the opportunity to educate because society doesn’t see the need, because society, including feminist organizations like NOW, seriously still see men as privileged and don’t need help.

    • I had a male associate who used to laugh at what appeared to him to be over reacting when it came to men’s issues and problems in family court. That was until his wife filed for divorce. Then all of sudden he was in my office asking for help because he was being screwed over.

      I believe that many men who rubbish the MRM have simply either not become aware of injustices facing men or have not suffered personally from them.

      MRM’s still haven’t had the opportunity to educate because society doesn’t see the need, because society, including feminist organizations like NOW, seriously still see men as privileged and don’t need help.

      Indeed – there is no point in a concept like privilege when it is just used to prop up what are effectively new gendered stereotypes.

  13. Jon Jay Obermark says:

    THE fatal flaw of thinking about men in this way at all is the focus on RIGHTS to begin with.

    The basic cause sets this up perfectly. The oppression of men being sent to war, for instance, is hard to combat as a rights issue. When there is no war, no one is making you do anything. When there is one, what kind of a piker are you, subverting the war effort, when we are all giving up rights for the cause?

    Most of these people are confused by the framing. Their intuition something is wrong is good, but we have no handle on it. In almost all cultures, men have more rights than women. But those rights do not translate into real stability or real advantage. They split us between different groups defending different kinds of rights, and make us ignore the underlying abuse.

    Getting the numbers of the homeless, the incarcerated, or the victims of crime to be more equal, for instance, cannot be accomplished by focus on RIGHTS.

    • courage the cowardly dog says:

      I think the article here and the one referenced had to do with PRIVILEGES, not rights. They are different. There is really no right to low insurance premiums, but there are privileges that go with a safe driving history which include low auto insurance premiums. The author here has attacked an article which argues that women have 18 privileges men don’t. Mr. Blest has basically said that is nonsense and men enjoy more privilege (not rights) than do women, a premise I disagree with and a big one is a woman’s privilege to decide whether to terminate the life of child who is some man’s son or daughter without giving that man any say so in the matter or the inverse which is to obligate an unwilling father to a lifetime of responsibility that he did not want (of course, from my viewpoint he should never have engaged in the activity that created that life in the first place, but neither should have the woman if she was not willing to take on the responsibility of caring for that life).

    • courage the cowardly dog says:

      The discussion is not about Rights its about privileges. There is a difference. I think the article Mr. Blest attacks lists 18 privileges women enjoy that men do not. Mr. Blest attacked a couple of the listed privileges and then associated the men’s rights movement with white supremacy, which is absurd. He then concludes that because men occupy many positions of power in industry and government that what they do results in disadvantage to women. A premise I reject and really is unsupported in the article. Examples of that are that two-thirds of an all male congress voted to support the 19th amendment to the Constitution, that a white male southerner strongly supported and pushed through Congress the Voting Rights Act and the 1964 Civil Rights Act (for those who don’t read history that would be Lyndon Johnson from Texas). Mr. Blest declares that women get a raw deal from the Insurance Industry because men are the CEO’s of most of the big insurance companies. That is absurd. He offers no empirical support for that assertion. He just wants you to believe it.

  14. The fatal flaw of the men’s rights activist movement is not that the members are “neckbeards”, “virgins”, or anything else. It’s that the whole movement is s a desperate, reactionary attempt to hold onto complete control of social and political power. And even more than that; it’s not based in reality, and has to create problems to fix. And just like those championing the “plight” of white people, it has and will continue to fall into intellectual obscurity, because it is patently absurd.
    So trying to do something about the way boys and men are lagging behind in education is absurd? Trying to get some focus on the rather high suicide rates of males is not based in reality? Addressing the dismissive ways that male victims of sex crimes is absurd?

    By reading your post it seems that you’ve seen but one type of MRA and concluded that the whole lot must be that way.

    • Tom Brechlin says:

      Danny, exactly …. this is how many if not most feminists view the MRM. So MRM’s spend a lot of time disclaiming falsehoods rather then getting the message out to and educating men. You stated three very real issues that get little to no media attention.

  15. courage the cowardly dog says:

    Sorry, but our system has recognized you may be a spammer. Your comment has been held in our spam moderation queue. A human will review it shortly and if it’s not spam, we’ll publish it.If you believe this hold to be in error, please first ensure that you have Javascript and Cookies enabled in your browser. If after checking that you are still having this problem please contact us so that we can rectify the situation. – See more at: http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/fatal-flaw-mens-rights-activists-pb/comment-page-1/?spammer=confirm#reply-title

    Why was my post responded to by the above?

    • Tom Brechlin says:

      Courage, this is confusing because I would think that the “spam filter” would apply to everything you write?

      And BTW, I don’t think AVFM could use GMP because I’m sure they have the name trade marked.

      • Tom Brechlin says:

        The problem I have is for example the above post shows up now but I have experienced situations where it shows up and is later removed. To me this means that it passed the filter but a human reads it and removes it.

        I suppose some one could say that there is no relevance in what I said, to the topic at hand but I would disagree. There are a few of us who run against the grain, a few of us “men” who don’t conform and accordingly, the removal of some responses, reflect that the diversity of men is being denied and silenced.

Speak Your Mind