While many of us are building bridges across the gulf that exists between men and women, zealots continue to demand that we all pick a side and fight.
—
Maybe I’m cut from the same cloth as American Catholics. You know, a person who joins the Catholic church and then picks and chooses which part of the church’s dogma they’re going to actually buy into. American Catholics are known for supporting the use of birth control even though the use of it is clearly condemned by the church. But the fact is, we all have to do do this sort of thing in our social, political and religious lives. It’s part of a long and honored history of free thinking. We align ourselves with a group or issue and then we proceed to create our own version of the ideology as we marry the complexity of our life experience with the various rules or expectations associated with that group. Some folks consider joining any given group to be more trouble than it’s worth, but not me. I’m a born ideological tinkerer, a men’s rights feminist; and a lot more besides.
Feminism and men’s rights are too important to be left in the hands of the true believers. Those people never get anything accomplished. They preach to the choir. They alienate the rest of us. They’re an odd combination of angry and boring. They are the past, yelling at the future.
|
As citizens and human beings we are not only entitled, but in fact, obligated to intentionally engage the ideological bell curve. We must question the dogma pop quizzes. We must self identify as heretics in the cathedrals of accepted wisdom. I’m making this my life’s work because feminism and men’s rights are too important to be left in the hands of the true believers. Those people never get anything accomplished. They preach to the choir. They alienate the rest of us. They’re an odd combination of angry and boring. They are the past, yelling at the future. An exercise in angry impotence.
No single point of view can ever be a litmus test for movements as fluid and wide ranging as feminism or men’s rights, but there will always be those who consider themselves to be the ideological gatekeepers for these movements. This small but vocal minority among MRA’s and feminists think they hold the keys to the kingdom of thought, to what is acceptable dialogue and what is not; which articles should be permitted to be published, what subjects can be discussed, what is allowed. Period. They are binary to their core, neither permitting nor hearing the kind of iterative and curious conversations that lead to real growth and change.
Valid causes that are being undermined and marginalized by people who show over and over again that they need to maintain the primacy of their ideological stance more than they need to solve the problems we all are facing.
|
Their arrogance borders on laughable were it not for the damage they do to the very causes they seek to advance. These are causes we should all be concerned about; causes that seek to advance basic human rights, justice and equality. Valid causes that are being undermined and marginalized by people who show over and over again that they need to maintain the primacy of their ideological stance more than they need to solve the problems we all are facing.
And this is the problem with labels and movements. While many of us are attempting to build bridges across the gulf that exists between men and women, zealots stand in the gap with laundry lists of ideological absolutes, demanding that we all pick a side. And if we don’t pick a side, they slander and assault us with such open savagery that many of us are left shocked and silent.
“Fuck you, assholes,” is all we can muster.
And therein lies the biggest trap of all. “Fuck you, assholes,” is a recipe for intellectual and spiritual death. When you allow yourself to be drawn into a binary stance in opposition to the worst aspects of some opposing camp, that ideology begins to define you (as its opposite.) I would suggest that we all carefully consider the ideologies we are choosing to be in opposition to. If that ideology is a blunt and simplistic generalization, how can the opposite of it be otherwise? And yet, we are invited into binary discussions every day. By the loud and the arrogant who ply their binary trade.
For the record, I am APPALLED by extremist feminists. As much as I am APPALLED by extremist Men’s Rights activists. But I love many of the ideas and philosophies from both camps and I do not let the rabid few steal my right to speak into these spaces, nor do I allow them block my curiosity about the wider range of ideas they seek to monopolize. I think the issues of gender, family, society and sexuality need layered and complex conversations. These issues deserve innovative thinking that tracks the ongoing evolution of our culture and our society so that dialogues and solutions necessary thirty years ago don’t become unexamined engines of oppression today.
It is clear that the future of humankind hinges on these conversations becoming more mainstream.
Those of us who seek to break free of the antiquated social rules that govern gender, sexuality, and politics need to be growing the range of allowable dialogue and discourses, meeting people where they are, not entrenching ourselves in idealogical grudge matches.
Because, if we’re not talking, we’re not changing. And the conversations that create real change are always a two-way street.
♦◊♦
Update: I wrote this in response to a protracted set of comments below, the majority of which amount to a wide ranging critique of feminism. I would like to state clearly that I am not a feminist. Nor am I an MRA (Men’s Rights Activist). I am a Men’s Rights Feminist. Which is a whole ‘nother kettle of fish. My comment follows:
“Tom, I would prefer that you call me a man’s rights activist as well as a feminist because I am both and therefore…neither, (but that part of it is completely getting lost here, as some of us seem to be obsessed with assigning and then condemning labels). I am working as a writer for the Good Men Project to insure that men have equal representation for our issues but I do not advocate from a position in opposition to extremist feminists or MRAs.
There is a ton of good work to be done that will open up the spaces for men to present their side of the story without engaging in that binary debate. When we fall into those binary debate spaces the extremists on the feminist side and the men’s rights side have us right where they want us. As troops in their ongoing grudge match to the death. I am not going to get dragged into that unending war when there is so much else that goes unspoken in the public spaces where the general public can and is being educated. THAT’S where change will come. A battle for hearts and minds. For example, just making public the story about millions of stay at home dads is changing the landscape around divorce and parenting dramatically. And that space has little to do with the battle between the extremist parts of the feminist and men’s rights movements.”
♦◊♦
If you like our article, please feel free to share it via the buttons below. And thanks!
ht tp://jezebel.com/5992479/if-i-admit-that-hating-men-is-a-thing-will-you-stop-turning-it-into-a-self+fulfilling-prophecy How can feminism be for men’s rights, when the idea of misandry is denied? Gee it’s not like conscription doesn’t hate on men and place their lives as lower than a woman’s. Of course conscription is done because the world loves men, so much so that they don’t have the right to choose to be in a military but an OBLIGATION punishable by jail, death in some cases (hopefully that is more in the past but still it exists around the world in some places). Of course misandry also exists heavily in culture, can anyone tell me the… Read more »
Precisely. As the many areas where men are discriminated against are being brought to the attention of men there is no way most men are going to buy that feminist story. It is so clear to me when reading her attempt at trying to explain that there is no misandry that men are not going to by that story at all. It did work back in the day when men did not see that men where discriminated against in any way and bought the story that women where worse of in every way. At the time they just accepted the… Read more »
Trying to equate feminism being for Men’s Rights is hogwash. Its just an attempt to absorb their critics and silence them. Historically, and still today, their legal and political campaigning has had nothing but disdain for men; any positive effects for men have been few and coincidental. The well being of the male of the species had been no where in their thinking. This new found ‘concern’ for men is an attempt at the re-branding of a product that few want to buy anymore. Most of this re-branding is simply a re-framing of old ideas to make them seem beneficial… Read more »
To be fair, I nether think Mark is trying to push that idea that feminism is for men’s rights, nor is he trying to silence men’s issues. I generally agree with your perception of feminism trying to absorb (to silence) men’s rights advocates. But I need to give Mark credit here, as he is the first feminist I seen suggesting the MRM and feminists work together, that has said feminism has to make a move too. Part of that move, of course, will need to be to relinquish the sole claim to the gender discourse, and acknowledge that they don’t… Read more »
interesting….
HeatherN said : “We’ve begun to raise our daughters more like our sons…but few have the courage to raise our sons like our daughters.” and “Women are not going to be equal outside the home until men are equal in it” – Both are by Gloria Steinem” The second isn’t actually what Steinem (I do believe Karen DeCrow did say something of the sort though, but her view of modern feminism isn’t nerely so positive). What Steinem actually said was: “Women won’t be able to be equal outside the home until men are raising children, and cooking, and housekeeping as… Read more »
HeatherN Comment: “It’s like the MRM is reinventing the wheel rather than taking the current wheel and making modifications, or something. It’s like they saw someone using a wheel badly and instead of just using that wheel themselves, they decided to make their own. (That analogy’s not perfect, and I’ll stop with it before it gets to weird, but you get what I’m saying). And you might say, sometimes you have to start over, or something…but you don’t.” And if the person they saw using the wheel wrong (in their opinion) refused to let them modify it the way they… Read more »
To HeatherN: Firstly I’d like to say, I for one appreciate what you’re trying to do here. It does give me a bit of hope for the world when feminists try to bridge the gap. I’m still remain unconvinced by feminism’s tenets, but I don’t really have anything to add to the other guys’ arguments, they’ve covered the thinking of a lot of men pretty well.
But I would like to know one thing: As a feminist, do you accept the concept of “misandry”?
I’ve been trying to focus on things I agree with, rather than disagree with and been trying to be simply explanatory in my own ideas, rather than debate my opinions on ideas I don’t hold…mostly to keep the conversation more of an exploration and discussion rather than an argument…however…nope, misandry is not a thing. Individually? Sure! There are people out there who hate men and act in ways that are harmful to men based on that hate (RadFemHub comes to mind). But as an institutional form of discrimination, stereotyping and hatred? Nope. To quote Wikipedia quoting Alan Johnson, “people often… Read more »
Thanks for your reply Heather. I think what we’re arriving at is there really isn’t a lot of common ground between feminism and MRM to work with. You can dismiss misandry outright, but have you taken on board anything the other commenters have said? Anti-male bias exists in our society, and only grows stronger, in legislature, the law, health, academia, and pop culture. If this is not “misandry”, then what is? The corollary is, then, that “misogyny” does not exist either. If there’s to be any meaningful dialogue between feminism and MRM, then feminists must acknowledge that systemic bias against… Read more »
“Feminism must also seriously revise the notion that (some aspects of) masculinity are inherently pathological, and that in effect men must be “cured of themselves”, while maintaining the notion that all aspects of femininity are good and pure.” Yeah, no. That’s not what the concept of toxic masculinity is. And that’s certainly not the feminist concept of femininity. As I said… I dunno if it was here or elsewhere…but femininity and masculinity aren’t inherently anything (at least not to a feminist). They’re only what we, as a culture, make them. The toxic aspects of masculinity (such as violence, rejecting emotion,… Read more »
Hi Heather,
Just dropping in to state that if toxic masculinity leads to rejecting emotion, then I know a lot of toxically masculine women. A LOT of them. It seems to me were assigning some pretty broad behavioral generalizations along gender lines. Did I mention the women I know who hit? In fits of rage? They hit. Draw blood. That sort of thing.
So first, of course, individual experience will vary. Of course. We are individuals…and not everyone just blindly follows the cultural norms in which they were raised. This is what I was trying to explain elsewhere…when feminists talk about something like toxic masculinity, we’re talking about the cultural narrative that tells men (well, tells all of us, really), that it is unmanly to show emotion. But not every individual follows a cultural narrative…which is why a cultural narrative (men don’t cry) is usually so very different from the reality (plenty of men cry for all sorts of reasons). But what that… Read more »
I need to ask, How is it determined what are behaviors attributed to masculinity? There is no societal overlord giving the final word. No decree’s carved in stone from on High. So how do we determine what is and isn’t masculine, and what is and isn’t toxic (and while we’re on the subject, please point me to a book or mainstream article discussing toxic femininity, or does no such thing exist, and only masculinity can be toxic? And please do make sure the definition of masculinity you use is likewise used in the book/article)? Because it seems to me that… Read more »
“But as an institutional form of discrimination, stereotyping and hatred? Nope”
Good job ignoring selective service, conscription (still exists in some areas), etc.
Actually I would classify that claim as more or less the most misandric claim you can make. You categorize a lot of things as misogyny but be aware of the fact that if you are wrong on some of the key things we are talking about here you are in fact holding misandric views.
Right, basically what I’m seeing in your comment is the suggestion that feminists (and feminism) is refusing to accept any change or critique…which is wrong. Feminism is all about the critique…there’s more feminist critique of feminism than feminist critique of patriarchy. (Okay maybe not quite, but nearly). Judy Butler wrote Gender Trouble and a bunch of feminists went to town critiquing it…and she wrote Undoing Gender in response (I believe it was that one). The bell hooks article I’ve been linking everywhere is a critique of contemporary ideas of male privilege, as much as it’s a critique of toxic masculinity.… Read more »
HeatherN,
Not sure if this link would cast a bit more light on the whole MRM question. It’s from the GMP back in 2011- it examines some of the parallels between the MRM and feminism (generally speaking), though Blanchette’s article is more about where they are both off base, rather than on base, so it might not be what you’re after. Still, I thought it a fascinating read:
https://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/playing-the-victim/
Heya again, just saw this. 🙂 “All movements attract cranks and loons: why MRAs should be judged by some of their more vocal fringe members is not clear to me.” So this is in that other article you linked…and to me the difference is that the MRM is being run by it’s fringe. Feminism is being run by it’s unfortunately not-quite-intellectual middle. And, yes, intersectionality and the concept of the kyriarchy are totally important. Both concepts I learned about in my gender studies class, by the way. But like I was saying before, I don’t think gender is just another… Read more »
” is refusing to accept any change or critique…which is wrong.” Not “any” change or critique, just any change or critique that challenges the current narrative that portrays women as vulnerable and in need of protections and special treatments to make up for those vulnerabilities, or anything that could show the narrative that any discrimination felt by men is nothing more than a side effect of hurting women. I would never, for example, suggest feminism doesn’t critique or change in order to strengthen the victim narrative, the ever shifting definition of domestic violence and sxual harrassent is evidence of that.… Read more »
Look I’m not going to start arguing, because that’s kind of counter to the point of this article. However, what I will say is that Butler’s work has completely challenged and changed the core ideas of feminism. At the time she wrote Gender Trouble, a lot of what she was writing was actually counter to what a lot of feminists at the time thought…particularly with regards to drag and the concept of an inherent female identity. Her work has been argued against, absorbed into mainstream ideas, and still continues to be critiqued. Any time you hear someone talk about the… Read more »
Can you address the other points I made, such as your assertion that Warren Farrell’s approach doesn’t work? Because that IS essential to the article. If we are to work together, that doesn’t mean adopting a feminist starting point and only using feminist approved methods.
From what I have read of Warren Farrell’s work, it seems kind of intellectually lazy. Taking feminist ideas about the way society treats women (i.e. sex object, patriarchy theory, etc.) and simply attempting to find the equivalent for how society treats men, assumes that either social narratives about men and women are equal to each other, or that society actually treats women as better than men. So the success object, for example. In order to make that fit, he’s had to ignore a lot of the defining aspects of what the feminist idea of a “sex object,” is. He’s shoehorning… Read more »
What is wrong with the success object theory? Men face enormous pressure to perform in terms of gaining wealth, status, success and be confident and socially dominant in order to satisfy the desires women have for men. Large percentages of the male population bore themselves all their working lives in jobs they only took because it would earn them more money they perceived they needed to be desirable to women instead of doing what they would want for themselves. THat is a huge impact on a mans life. Research also shows that men who loose their jobs get dumped but… Read more »
“From what I have read of Warren Farrell’s work, it seems kind of intellectually lazy.” But isn’t that precisely what you’ve been advocating? Start from a feminist base and build on it (presumably from a man’s perspective?)? “and simply attempting to find the equivalent for how society treats men, assumes that either social narratives about men and women are equal to each other, or that society actually treats women as better than men. ” Doesn’t feminism state men and women are equally capable? Why then is it unreasonable to assume this has always been the case, and feminist theory is… Read more »
There is also the little concept of either being anti feminist or agreeing with a feminist idea, but not talking about it as a feminist idea. Maybe we do that because such ideas do not belong exclusively to feminism or the ideology includes that concept. Just because one brand or flavor of feminism include those ideas doesn’t mean they represent the whole group, just like the radicals. The fact that they are brands or variants show those ideas are optional and do not fit the criteria that feminism is based on. Atheists can see value in concepts and beliefs of… Read more »
My point is there’s no middle ground according to feminism (the main stream ), the basis of the feminist ideology which is patriarchy (men oppressors, women victims always) narrative absolutely doesn’t except it, for MRA’s even if they except the claims of males being oppressors in certain situations, time periods & currently in other countries, spheres or corners of this whole world, the idea that all men are still oppressors will not fly or be excepted period while the average dude can’t even get an acknowledgment of the possibility of being treated unfairly by a biased made up hypocritical academic… Read more »
See I think there is a middle ground but like you say neither side is willing to alter their own narratives and ideals for the sake of equality. This is why you have feminists that will grudgingly (and if you listen closely you can actually hear their teeth grinding) admit that men are harmed but will nearly always do so only on the condition that women have it worse and that the harms that befall men are actually attributed to some other factor (like race or religion). At the same time you have MRAs that will grudgingly cop to the… Read more »
I believe your intentions are genuinely good & fair, Mark since you seem to be looking for some sort of middle ground, between MRA’s & feminism adherents as two boles, unfortunately you seem to be avoiding the simple fact that one of the boles which is feminism is ruling & holding the public narrative of gender relations without much of a challenge or debate as to the soundness, fairness & logic of it’s discourse on both sexes & any dissenting view no matter how slight or justified is met with accusation of misogyny, male or female. Period, no discussion is… Read more »
There’s no need to single out Catholics here. Just about everyone picks and chooses their battles, no matter how dogmatic they hope to be. People who are 100% consistently adherent to dogma are extremely rare, and in fact they may not even exist. Dogmas by their very nature tend to have internal contradictions that cannot be resolved in a logical fashion but instead require faith and/or denial. This is what’s so incredible and so messy about the human mind – we can believe totally contradictory things and still function perfectly well, even be perfectly happy doing so. I believe five… Read more »
@Mark Goblowsky Greene: I am a feminist (surprising no one here), but I am curious what MRM “ideas and philosophies” you love? To be clear, I’m not asking which issues they raise that you find important…that could be a fairly obvious list of: father’s rights, attention to male victims of DV and rape, the great proportion of our prison population that is male, over-diagnosis of boys with behaviour disorders, etc. I’m curious which MRM philosophies you find work better than feminist philosophies? (Keeping in mind that when I say “feminist philosophies,” I’m not necessarily referring to mainstream ideas. I mean… Read more »
If I may be so bold as to interject, the majority of MRA’s I communicate with don’t believe in collectivized prosperity, are dogmatically stoic & eager to prove their worth to society and them selves by throwing their lives in front of harms way to protect & provide for their loved ones. We’re raised to show courage in the face of danger. Men fight & die for the silent religion that is masculinity & for the life of me I cant say if it’s right or wrong.
“Which MRM philosophy” !!!?? , forget about MRM philosophy How about the tried, true & tested human philosophy of father’s in their children’s lives provided that they are not harming them without prejudgment & safe guards against both parents as basis of family law for starters & a full over whole of the gender relations that is based on facts instead of the slowly being debunked ideology which is being rejected even by 70% of women currently.
Okay, but, aside from “fathers are good,” what MRM ideas do you agree with? Not, which feminist ideas do you disagree with……but which MRM ideas do you agree with?
For me, the MRM ideals I agree in are: Financial abortion rights, raising awareness of female abusers (along with male), getting rid of selective service, massive overhaul of family court and for non-violent mothers n fathers allowing joint custody should they wish. Although some feminists hold the same position, so the MRM and some parts of feminism appear to be the same but neither has monopoly on equality.
But those are goals. That’s like, okay a feminist goal I agree with is maintaining Roe v. Wade and protecting abortion rights. But that’s not a philosophy.
The feminist philosophy behind my support of abortion is that of bodily autonomy. And like, okay, my support of trans* rights largely stems from my agreement with the feminist philosophy that gender is a social construct.
So, I’m curious what MRM philosophies Mark (and anyone else) agree with. That’s what I meant by ideas…
my support of trans* rights largely stems from my agreement with the feminist philosophy that gender is a social construct. Mine doesn’t stem from that. Discrimination for reasons that do not cause undue harm (and harm to a brand image is not real harm – not a reason to not hire or to fire) is bad, period. Regardless of wether it’s inborn, chosen, a lifestyle, or born-this-way. I think trans people are largely biologically their identified sex (in as much as brains are biological), and I don’t think gender even enters the picture for most transsexual people. For transgender people,… Read more »
Yes, of course, discrimination of anyone is always wrong. So, I suppose, my support of any discriminated against group really has roots in that knowledge. However, what I meant was that specifically, my active support for trans* rights comes from the feminist idea that gender is a social construct. – Like, not just passive “discrimination is bad,” but actively being an ally. When I say gender is a social construct, I don’t quite think you get what I mean. I mean the idea that male=man and female=woman is a social construct. I mean the idea that a passive nature, weakness,… Read more »
For me its like this. People shouldn’t be bound to a certain life style that is based on an arbitrary event. The results of the chromosome dice roll shouldn’t be what determines what type of life a person should live. From the moment the Y or the extra X is discovered (whether by checking ahead of time or looking at the genitals at birth) people get are locked into a certain path (well you call them bundles). This expectation that one can only follow one set path that was predetermined by a random even is what breeds the acts of… Read more »
Which cultures se men as more emotional than women? Which cultures see men as more passive and receptive and women as active?
There is vast solid evidence for biological gender differences. Claiming otherwise is like being a member of the flat earth society.
father’s rights That when it comes to raising children men should not have their roles in parenting determined by people other than themselves (unless of course it could be proven that he is unfit). I believe that when it comes to men and parenting there is only one thing that should determine their capacity as parents, their actions. attention to male victims of DV and rape A man should not have his gender used against him as a weapon to silence him when he is in an extremely vulnerable position. the great proportion of our prison population that is male… Read more »
I do not mean to keep asking, and I think I might not be communicating my question wrong…or just not well enough. Everything you listed are like, practical, policy issues. So, like, okay…we’ll just take circumcision as an example, in part because I agree with you, and in part because it’s a fairly uncomplicated issue. On the practical side of what you want to see happen, you say you want circumcision to stop (except for medical reasons). On the practical side of what happens now, you recognize that circumcision is quite a common practice, often for aesthetic reasons. But, okay…like… Read more »
From what I’ve seen of the MRM I THINK one is that society grew up for the benefit of both men n women, what is called patriarchy was more of an accepted agreement between man n woman due to the nature of childbirth and lack of breast milk replacements, the father would be the breadwinner and the mother looked after the family n homestead whilst both combined made a family unit what was good back then. Then you have the elites who ruled over the peasants, men had some power, women had some power, but peasants had fuckall power, men… Read more »
I do not mean to keep asking, and I think I might not be communicating my question wrong…or just not well enough. No no no ask away. Unlike most feminists you are asking what we mean instead of telling us what we mean. Communication! But, okay…like what are the MRM critical theories that attempt to explain why circumcision happens so commonly? Why so commonly? I myself believe that when it comes to bodily autonomy the consideration that we often see afforded girls is not extended to boys. I think it may have something to do with a few things. The… Read more »
So now we’re getting closer to what I was asking. Stuff like the “success object” and the idea that men’s bodily autonomy is less recognized than women’s. The idea that there’s an overarching system that is more important than race, class, gender,etc. and it pits everyone against each other. – These are the sorts of theories I was looking for.
So okay, now again I’ll ask…what overarching MRM theories/philosophies do you agree with? (Not everything, obviously. If I were to write down every feminist theory I agreed with or disagreed with, it’d take ages. But just in general…the big ones).
So okay, now again I’ll ask…what overarching MRM theories/philosophies do you agree with? This is where it gets fun. That men as a classed are specifically harmed in ways because of their gender. AKA yes sexism against men exists (and as I said in “This is not how you support men’s issues” its not a matter of one being worse than the other or one being more important that the other, they both exist and they are both bad). These things must be deal with. That in order for men to have the changes that will help everyone in the… Read more »
So the middle two you listed still don’t quite fit what I’m saying…cuz they’re more like, general desires for life. But the first, okay…that men are harmed because of their gender. And the last, that men shouldn’t be defined by their relationship to women (and I assume, this means you think that now men are defined by their relationship to women).
The reason I asked, originally, is because Mark said in the article that there are feminist and men’s rights philosophies that he loves…so I wanted to know which men’s rights philosophies he agreed with.
As for those middle two I’ll give you the one about the long term work but as for the other: That a man should be free to determine his own path in life (barring the fact that he doesn’t harm other of course). Would you say that for women to have this same freedom is more of a general desire and something not specific to feminist ideas? I’m wondering because under that I was mostly thinking about how men are restricted in what they are “allowed” to do just as women are (the gender construct you mentioned earlier). and I… Read more »
Yeah, if you want to frame it in terms of gender roles, then it’d have to be more like, “that gender roles have limited the lives men could lead,” or something.
Well, it doesn’t HAVE to be that…but I mean, in order to be a specifically MRM philosophy it kind of has to deal with gender in some way. And simply, “we wanna live our lives,” kind of doesn’t…unless it’s framed in a way that suggests men couldn’t in the past because of gender roles.
Well now if you want to get specific I can do that. In the past men’s live were limited by gender roles in the form of the expectation that in the family unit the man was the external provider* (while the woman was to be the internal provider*). These expectations limit what types of providing a man was “allowed**” to do. As a sign of progress look at the increase and rising voice of the stay at home dad. For a long time (and still yet) the stay at home dad was regarded as not fulfilling his expectations to abide… Read more »
But Danny, that’s feminism.
“We’ve begun to raise our daughters more like our sons…but few have the courage to raise our sons like our daughters.” and “Women are not going to be equal outside the home until men are equal in it” – Both are by Gloria Steinem
Feminists would just add that being the “internal provider” has long been undervalued when compared to the “external provider.” (To use your terms)
You know I was expecting you to say that eventually but after a commenting several times and not saying so I was ready to eat some crow. Here’s the thing Heather. Are there commonalities between feminism and MRM? Sure (they are both about gender so that would make sense). But as I said below one of the reasons that MRM exists is because the inequalities that men face are not being addressed (or at least not being addressed properly). So regardless of having similar ideas there are still problems with the way feminism seeks to correct those inequalities (as I… Read more »
Nono, look, the reason I keep going on about MRM philosophies is because generally when I ask what I get is either something that’s framed as being anti-feminism (this is what we think feminists say and we think the opposite). OR what I see is someone basically agreeing with a feminist idea, but not talking about it as a feminist idea. The only reason I said “that’s feminism,” was because literally everything in that comment you’d made was covered by some brand of feminism…wouldn’t have said so otherwise. But look, screw the labels for a moment…I’m not trying to get… Read more »
The only reason I said “that’s feminism,” was because literally everything in that comment you’d made was covered by some brand of feminism…wouldn’t have said so otherwise. And the reason I was expecting that was because usually when people bring that up they bring that statement up as a way to shut down what I’m trying to say. And so the MRM saw the crap feminists doing some crap things and went “right, we’re not only against those crap feminists, we think feminism itself is wrong,” without really looking at and critically examining that whole vast collection of ideas that… Read more »
Danny –
What did you mean by “That in order for men to have the changes that will help everyone in the long run men have a lot of heavy lifting ahead of them.”?
Sorry about missing this comment Kari.
By that I mean that men themselves have to do a lot of work. Talking about the pains we’ve been told aren’t valid (and learning how to do so in ways that are not unhealthy). Working with those that would rather we remain silent.
I mean that in order to bring positive changes for men, men have a lot of work to do.
HeatherN, Warren Farrell provides a theoretical framework such as the one your are asking for. His framework is very close to the views of many MRAs. Agirlwriteswhat has a lot of blog posts that provide a lot of a similar framework. Her post on the disposable male and her patriarchy posts for example. THe disposability article is on avoiceformen.com at least and the patriarchy articles here:
http://owningyourshit.blogspot.no/search/label/patriarchy?updated-max=2012-03-25T18:49:00-07:00&max-results=20&start=3&by-date=false
Fair question. It’s difficult to answer because MRM hasn’t crystalised into a stringent set of philosophies of theories at this time, unlike feminism… it’s more a reaction to the issues you listed. But if I had to pick a couple: 1. MRM doesn’t subscribe to Patriarchy Theory, but rather, the reverse.. it is women who have held privileged status, as evidenced by the responsibility and *willingness* for men to sacrifice and die to support his family, and by extension, society. Women are considered precious while men are considered disposable. Hence ultimate power was (and is) held by the feminine. Paul… Read more »
Okay, but that is largely reactionary. Mostly what you’ve said is stuff you disagree with…and even the things you agree with, they are largely just the opposite of feminism. Or rather, the opposite of what you think feminism is saying. And here is where I point out that a lot of what you’re saying feminism is about, isn’t what feminism is about. (Like, I’m not even talking about the fact that there are different kinds of feminism and what-not. I’m literally just talking in broad strokes, feminism isn’t what you’re saying). Feminism doesn’t actually cast men as the “perpetrator;” it… Read more »
Feminism doesn’t actually cast men as the “perpetrator;” it casts masculinity and patriarchy as the perpetrator…which is entirely different. And there is plenty of great literature about the nuance of power in patriarchy…patriarchy theory isn’t simply “men were in control of everything.” Now here is where I see things a bit different. Its not that feminism casted men as the perp and women as the victim. No its more like feminists (or at least some of them) had no problem taking advantage of that casting when it suits them, regardless of its origin. Also about what patriarchy theory is about.… Read more »
Alrighty, I’m not going to go into the ways in which homophobia is and isn’t tied to misogyny, because that’ll just end with me very angry. Not at you, necessarily, but still angry. As for patriarchy theory, well here’s an article by bell hooks that explains it well. The concept of toxic masculinity, arguably, examines the ways in which the patriarchy has screwed over men. That’s kind of the point of it. Like, okay, I see a lot of what you’re saying. I get where you’re coming from in your reaction to a lot of what you perceive as feminist… Read more »
Alrighty, I’m not going to go into the ways in which homophobia is and isn’t tied to misogyny, because that’ll just end with me very angry. Not at you, necessarily, but still angry. Fair enough but I’ll just say this. Homophobia is tied to misogyny but its not as all encompassing as “all homophobia is rooted in misogyny”. As for patriarchy theory, well here’s an article by bell hooks that explains it well. The concept of toxic masculinity, arguably, examines the ways in which the patriarchy has screwed over men. That’s kind of the point of it. I’ll read that… Read more »
I kind of explained this in my comment below to Erik, but it’s more like this…mainstream society’s concept of masculinity hurts men. Feminists call it “toxic masculinity” for a reason. Men aren’t the problem…what we tell men they should be is the problem, because we raise our boys to believe they need to be emotionless psychopaths in order to be “real men.” (That’s kind of a simplistic definition of mainstream definition of masculinity, but you get what I’m saying). Toxic masculinity screws over women too…because we’ve ended up defining femininity as a bunch of characteristics we find frivolous or unimportant.… Read more »
As for me being one of the very rare feminists who’ll talk about this nuance. Online, yeah, probably. But within academia, this is damn common. Feminists write books that critique each other all the time…that’s basically what bell hooks was doing with that article I linked you. She was critiquing 1980s second wave feminists who were ignoring masculinity and men. But even for all of that critique a lot of third wave feminists seem to still argue against the idea that the parts of the system that harm men are institutional. (So apparently the system harms men but at the… Read more »
I think it comes from the fact that women are kind of doubly harmed by the system, as understood by feminists. To explain things simply: 1. We place a high value on ass-hattery behaviour (strength, stoicism, domination, violence, etc). We raise men to be asshats. – this screws over men (see the ways in which male victims are ignored, etc.). 2. We then tell women that they cannot access this high-value ass-hattery, not really. – this screws over women (see the crap said about how women are too emotional to be CEOs and what-not, etc.). 3. We have created a… Read more »
It’s the fact that we’ve placed a higher value on the masculine that pushes things over the edge…that’s what #3 stems from. We have two groups (masculine and feminine), and because we just can’t have two categories without placing one above the other…we had to go and assume that one group is more valuable than the other. And we went with masculine…and if you place a higher value on the masculine (and if the masculine is already a collection of traits that are pretty mean and dominating), then you create a system in which the masculine dominates the feminine. Now… Read more »
The “sexism against men isn’t institutional,” theme comes from a couple places…one is from feminists who are unable to see how our gender system screws over men. But more than that, is that it is dependent on what you mean by “institutional” and “sexism.” Our gender system could be considered an institution, and thus the screwing over of men through toxic masculinity could be considered institutional. But usually when we talk about “institutions,” we mean more grounded institutions…something like our laws, politics, company practices, etc. And, there is a very real bias to the masculine in these institutions…because we value… Read more »
The “sexism against men isn’t institutional,” theme comes from a couple places…one is from feminists who are unable to see how our gender system screws over men. But more than that, is that it is dependent on what you mean by “institutional” and “sexism.” Our gender system could be considered an institution, and thus the screwing over of men through toxic masculinity could be considered institutional. But usually when we talk about “institutions,” we mean more grounded institutions…something like our laws, politics, company practices, etc. And, there is a very real bias to the masculine in these institutions…because we value… Read more »
1 question on homophobia of butch lesbians, do you know of any hatred of them being more like a male in the sense of more violent, more caveman? I’ve seen misandry used to portray men as dogs, violent cavemen, was wondering if that particular hatred went towards butch lesbians or even just women doing male gender role type activities often?
Basically, homophobia against lesbians (particularly butch lesbians) can boil down to assuming that lesbians are just trying (and failing) at being men. There’s more to it, but that’s basically what’s underneath most homophobia against butch lesbians. Freud came up with this idea back in the day that lesbians had “penis envy,” and so in an attempt to obtain a phallus, they dressed in men’s clothing and had sex with women. In his mind, lesbians all want to be men. (Needless to say, Freud was a little crazy). And the idea’s kind of stuck around. It’s what’s behind a lot of… Read more »
To me it is not as I am a (flexible) gender essentialist. By that I mean that i think there are large statistical gender differences that are biological and can not be erased but will express themselves somewhat differently in various contexts and depending on how people are raised. I fully recognize that there are people who break the norms and that there are some large variations but I believe this is also primarily biological. Women who behave in a very masculine manner have high testosterone or have been exposed to high levels of testosterone during pregnancy when the part… Read more »
This comment was meant as a comment to HeatherNs comment that masculinity and not men was the problem.
Except it’s not ALL masculinity that’s the problem…it’s our society’s conception of masculinity that’s the problem. And even then, it’s really just the toxic aspects of our society’s masculinity that’s the problem. So, for example, placing great value on aggressiveness, rationality, ambition, domination, independence, and physical strength…these are all things that are considered “masculine” in our society and that we treat as being more valuable than their “feminine” counterparts (compassion, empathy, weakness, vulnerability, interpersonal relationships, etc). I’ve heard many an MRA talk about how horrible it is that we have a society that tells boys they should repress their emotion…denies… Read more »
I’m also not saying there is NO biological basis for gender. But it’s really not as strong as a lot of people assume, and science is catching up to that idea. I suggest taking a look at this article https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/8-myths-about-sex-differences/
and Agustin Fuentes’ book Race, Monogamy and Other Lies They Told You. He really explains this idea that humans are both social and biological (and that we wouldn’t be human without BOTH) really well.
HeatherN, Lots of stuff to digest through the posts there, but thanks- quite engaging all the way through. I would be inclined to believe that the modes of behavior you mentioned earlier (both positive and negative) are more diffused than simply along gender lines (as you said, no individual embodies everything). Even in the broadest societal sense, what we associate as “masculine” and “feminine” – even our most basic stereotypes of those, (when we actually try to articulate them) are fuzzy these days. And if anything, I think that might be a sign of progress. I don’t disagree that… Read more »
“It’s not gender. Gender itself as the nexus, is a veneer; obscuring the real matrix for power relations, which is far more amorphous. In short, I’m thinking gender is a player in the orchestra, but not its conductor, and its notes are receding. Not a great metaphor, but it’s what I’ve got for now.”
This is closest to what I believe that there is a graph with a Y axis of power and an X axis of poles fighting for that power.
I agree with a lot of what you’re saying Mostly_123…almost all of it, in fact…but I don’t have quite as optimistic view of the progress we’ve made. I was talking to a young woman in the town I grew up in a few months ago and I mentioned how I don’t want children. She looked at me as if I had a third eye…she could not understand how/why a woman wouldn’t want kids. We just had that big dust-up about the CEO of Yahoo! no longer allowing people to work from home…and in terms of families, the vast majority of… Read more »
“Feminism doesn’t actually cast men as the “perpetrator;” it casts masculinity and patriarchy as the perpetrator…which is entirely different.”
How exactly do you divorce men from masculinity so as to say masculinity (AKA male behaviour) is inherently homophobic, but men who like being men, are not? And would it be just as acceptable for me to suggest that femininity is inherently narssisistic and melodramatic (seems the only negative traits assigned to femininity have been ones that conveniently support the women as victim narrative)?
As an aside, I’m curious what you think of this article:
http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/the-sexual-politics-of-meat-20130320-2gfx0.html
Masculinity isn’t INHERENTLY anything. Femininity isn’t INHERENTLY anything either. That’s the point. That’s how you separate masculinity from men and femininity from women. In our culture, femininity is defined as vain, weak, vulnerable, emotional, irrational, compassionate, caring, sexual object, etc. In our culture, masculinity is defined as strong, able-bodied, sexually aggressive, rational, violent, capable, etc. Think of a behaviour, and our society as probably put it into either the “masculinity” or “femininity” category. And then we assigned “masculinity” to men and “femininity” to women…and we assume that if you are a man, you MUST be all the things we’ve defined… Read more »
HeatherN, thanks for the perspective (I know I tend to go all over the map at times) I myself would cautiously say I’m not so much an optimist, as I am simply pessimistic along other vectors… (To paraphrase Oliver P. Smith – ‘Progress!? Hell- we’re not progressing, we’re just retreating in a different direction.’) …maybe not. Seriously though, thanks. In any case, really liked the summation & the clarity here: “Masculinity isn’t INHERENTLY anything. Femininity isn’t INHERENTLY anything either. That’s the point. That’s how you separate masculinity from men and femininity from women. In our culture, femininity is defined… Read more »
“Trying to look at it pragmatically then, however one defines (or ceases to define) ‘femininity’ and ‘masculinity’ the definitions themselves are ephemeral.” Very true. Fragile and ephemeral…and vulnerable. I think it’s so difficult to get people to change their ideas about masculinity and femininity because it feels like doing so would cause everything to come crashing down, y’know? I think that’s why you get people talking about the “dangers” of feminizing men or making women too masculine or whatever…because they don’t realize how changeable these categories are in the first place. As to the veracity with which we define these… Read more »
“There are fewer consequences for no longer adhering to the dogma of our gender system. But I think that the very fact of it’s breadth gives it a certain amount of depth…the fact that it’s everywhere makes it seem so normal to just follow along. And there are places, even in the “western world,” where it still runs quite deep…in places without access to education and/or technology, because the alternative hasn’t quite become normalised yet…and so in order to become aware of the alternative you have to have been introduced to them in a much more deliberate fashion.” Yes- in… Read more »
Masculinity isn’t INHERENTLY anything. Femininity isn’t INHERENTLY anything either. Is anything inherently feline or canine? Why do we associate one with cats and the other with dogs? Both describe mammals who give birth to live young, nurse them, can be pets, and have many other numerous commonalties, and yet we assign these arbitrary labels. What’s wrong with a dog being trained to poop in a box? Or taking a cat for a walk on a leash? I’m sure there are examples of both, so these labels seem far too restrictive. That sounds a little silly, right? The meaning we assign… Read more »
PS. Sorry I fell behind in the comment thread, so hope my last thing makes sense… anyhow I don’t have an answer to your circumcision example. Only that scarification (especially of men) has been both a right of passage and a visible marker of inclusivity for millennia, and male circumcision is probably an example of that. This is also what differentiates it from female circumcision (aside from the other obvious things).
Good point! I think there are several reasons for this but an important one is that there are a lot of people that have a vested interest in this for financial, career and prestige reasons. What would the womens studies researchers do? What would the enlgish litterature professors that have invested 20 years in analysing litteratur from this perspective do? What would the womans studies graduate that works for a government agency on sensitivity training or some such do? What would an activist that has worked full time for NOW do? And so, so many journalists have built their carrers… Read more »
I do not, nor could I ever, call myself a feminist. And here’s why. When it boils down, there are 3 parts to feminism: 1. Feminist ideal — The notion that everyone is equal regardless of sex/gender, and everyone should have the same opportunity to live their lives and have personal fulfilment. I subscribe this to ideal. And so do most reasonably minded people. 2. Feminist theory — This is, at its heart, a model of how society functions based on the dynamic between two polar genders (male & female). It makes two initial assumptions: First, that females have been… Read more »
Re: JQ 2. Feminist theory One could go on at length into detail, but I think you did it in short order and touched on something that is at the very core of much of contemporary feminist theory there. The way I see it, the problem is that this theory, this narrative, is now sacrosanct in too many corners: Whether that feminist model of power relations is correct or incorrect, much of contemporary feminism (or those powers that be that claim to speak for it) have staked everything on persuading people to acquiesce to the validity of this particular narrative itself,… Read more »
THIS!
Agree to all.
“Michigan proposed legislation supported by these groups would impose joint custody on parents who are in conflict over custody. Most studies report that joint custody works best when both parents want it and agree to work together.” This is a quote from NOW.I should note that what’s said here is that the courts will impose joint custody when there is a “conflict.” Also stated by NOW is “The Michigan legislation states that in a custody dispute the judge must presume that joint custody is in the “best interests of the child” and “should be ordered.” To make any other decision,… Read more »
“NOW also states “The truth is that in 90 percent of custody decisions it is mutually agreed that the mother would be sole custodian. According to several studies, when there is a custody dispute, fathers win custody in the majority of disputed cases.” Anyone know what studies they’re talking about?” I believe the first statistic is incorrect. it is, in 90% of cases, it doesn’t go before a judge. That’s not to say it is decided sole custody. This also ignores the impact that the courts current bias has on the decision making process (would you spend $100K to fight… Read more »
As to NOW, their official position on fathers rights groups and men daring to fight for time with their children, is that these men don’t care about their children, they care about abusing their ex’s. The very idea that a man would be willing to fight for access to his child because he actually loves his child and wants to spend as much time with them is completely foreign to them. That says a LOT about how they view men. Here is their official word on the matter
http://www.nowfoundation.org/issues/family/FamilyLawNewsletter-Fall2012.pdf
From what I’ve read, NOW is campaigning against the legislation in that they fear that these children will be forced to live with abusive fathers. Now, 500,000 strong have a loud voice. They represent feminism and it’s not the “let’s everyone get along” feeling some so called modern feminists want to portray. Mark, do you recognize NOW as a modern day feminist group? If so, do you or any open feminists at the GMP, go to their site and voice your opinions? If you do, I’d be curious as to their response. Mark, I do believe you and many other… Read more »
om, I would prefer that you call me a man’s rights activist as well as a feminist because I am both and therefore…neither, (but that part of it is completely getting lost here, as some of us seem to be obsessed with assigning and then condemning labels). I am working as a writer for the Good Men Project to insure that men have equal representation for our issues but I do not advocate from a position in opposition to extremist feminists or MRAs. There is a ton of good work to be done that will open up the spaces for… Read more »
Mark, what’s your position on the “Shared Parenting” legislation that’s being proposed in some states?
I’m concerned that its a little one size fits all, but on the whole its positive because it empowers dads. They are no longer defined, by default, as being absentee ATM machines.
I think the one size fits all worry is alieviated by the room for parents to be proven unfit. The popular crticism anti-dad crowds have against shared parenting is that it will allow abusive dads to hold children hostage to hurt the mom. What those folks don’t acknowledge is that most of the advocates I’ve seen for shared parenting specifically call for there to be room to show that one (or both) parent is unfit, and therefore should have limited custody or possibly none at all. Another funny note is about those anti-dad types is that in all their concern… Read more »
Danny,
My one size fits all concern is for dads or moms who do not wish to be an engaged parent after divorce. In some cases it seems like they must be labeled as “unfit” in order to not be obligated to be engaged. Some folks don’t want to co-parent, they just want to pay child support. They shouldn’t be stigmatized for that if the arrangement works for the custodial parent.
Some folks don’t want to co-parent, they just want to pay child support. They shouldn’t be stigmatized for that if the arrangement works for the custodial parent. I would imagine that there would be room for parents to voluntarily stap back from co-parenting as well. The point of a lot of fathers rights work is to help out (mostly) dads who want to be in their children’s lives but are being kept away by nothing more than mothers that prioritize their own grudges over the father/child bond. I don’t see a lot of effort to force people to be co… Read more »
Don’t get me wrong, Danny. I’m a divorced father who is co-parenting. I’m living this stuff every day. I understand the downside to the family court system intimately. Yes, please, let dads parent their children. A-men. Shared parenting has my support. Fully. I thought we were just looking under the hood.
Ah I dig.
“My one size fits all concern is for dads or moms who do not wish to be an engaged parent after divorce.”
Except the rebuttable presumption of shared parenting is if the courts are the ones forced to decide. If the decision is made before it ever reach’s court, nobody will be forced into anything. The only time your concern would actually come up is if the two parents were fighting over making the other parent take the child because they don’t want it… and that’s a whole different problem.
If labels are the problem, mangling two together isn’t a great move.
A light third way is a better call. I reject both labels and garner the best points from both sides. Having done this for some time, I can say that feminism isn’t the solution it claims to be, and the MRM isn’t the demon it’s made out to be.
I think that by engaging those labels we can change them. I say, why leave powerful brands like those in the hands of people who are weaponizing them?
So, what are you doing about the tragedy of family courts that is practically ignored on this blog?
Well, here’s my article on that issue from a couple of months back… https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/megsahd-how-the-war-on-dead-beat-dads-is-hurting-co-parenting-and-fathers/
Bam!
Doesn’t really address legal issues that the majority of father’s rights activists address.
Perhaps you are capitulating too much to feminisms.
Not much depth to your critique there. Are you always this thorough?
Well i did not do that did I. I just said that the feminists she mentioned are man haters and that the fact that these women are, for the most part at least, icons and heroes to most sections of feminism speaks very badly about most of the movement. I agree that there are feminists that have a lot of reasonable positions. I also do not believe that all feminists carry a personal hatred of men. However, I have a problem with all feminist theory and I belive that the key faults of all feminist theory creates hostility towards men… Read more »
I wish this blog had upvoting.
Yes. It’s no surprise that the most trenchant and relevant critiques aired by Erik will go un-addressed by the author of this piece—they fly in the face of his argument and can’t be easily dismissed by charges of true-believerism. The fact of the matter is that even mainstream/moderate/respectable feminists organization (like NOW) have been and are currently engaged in deploying false statistics, opposing shared parenting legislation, alimony reform, etc. Yes, there are good feminists who believe in true equality—but they are not now and have never been in positions of power and they don’t wield any real influence on the… Read more »
Yes exactly. How many years has the absolutely false and garbage narrative of “Super Bowl Sunday is the day with the most domestic violence” been going on? It wasn’t true to begin with and isn’t true now. It doesn’t stop them from trotting it out every year.
Did I write an article offering some blanket defense of feminism? Because I don’t recall doing so.
Yes. It’s no surprise that the most trenchant and relevant critiques aired by Erik will go un-addressed by the author of this piece—they fly in the face of his argument and can’t be easily dismissed by charges of true-believerism. I think instead that its for the same reason he would not address relevant critiques of MRAs. While those crititques may be valid (and honestly I think a lot of what Erik said is valid) the problem is getting so bogged down in whose critiques are the most valid and whose side has the worst extremists the messages of unity are… Read more »
“While those crititques may be valid (and honestly I think a lot of what Erik said is valid) the problem is getting so bogged down in whose critiques are the most valid and whose side has the worst extremists the messages of unity are sacrificed for the sake of “scoring points”, “calling someone out”, and writing up zinging “take downs”.” You and Mark are missing the point of Erik’s critique, I believe. It’s not to wallow in the moral superiority of MRAs or engaging in valueless point scoring. What you and Mark need to acknowledge is that it’s not the… Read more »
Dragnet …. wow, you hit the nail on the head.
Just to let you know, Danny, I penned a thought-out response to your post and it briefly appeared…but is now gone.
I really hope I’m not being censored here…
It could just be that there was a word in your response that triggered the auto filtering, thus sending your comment to moderation.
A human will go in and moderate the comment but for the time being it sounds like your comment was caught by an auto filter whose process is quite literally, “It has this word in it. MODERATE!!!!”.
“While those crititques may be valid (and honestly I think a lot of what Erik said is valid) the problem is getting so bogged down in whose critiques are the most valid and whose side has the worst extremists the messages of unity are sacrificed for the sake of “scoring points”, “calling someone out”, and writing up zinging “take downs”.” You and Mark are missing the point of Erik’s critique, I believe. It’s not to wallow in the moral superiority of MRAs or engaging in valueless point scoring. What you and Mark need to acknowledge is that it’s not the… Read more »
Dragnet. Why do you insist that I condemn leading feminists? Its borderline compulsive what you’re doing here. Really. I’m AMAZED by how completely you are missing the point of my article, while simultaneously making my case for me. That people who are deeply entrenched in ideological dogma and binary conflicts are unable to discover common ground or create generative dialogue.
Really, you don’t need me here. You’re just enjoying the echo chamber.
Again Dragnet …outstanding!
What you and Mark need to acknowledge is that it’s not the nice, reasonable, honest proponents of genuine equality that are wielding power in feminist circles and influencing legislation in the halls of Congress and various state capitals Believe me when I say I understand this. You and Erik aren’t the only ones that can pull examples where feminists have supported unfair treatment of people (and not just men either). But what this means in practice is that you will be working with feminists who wield no actual institutional power and never have. Unfortunately I agree with you here. In… Read more »
“Unfortunately I agree with you here. In my own experiences I’ve noticed that there is (usually) a direct proportion between how close a feminist is the mainstream and how likely that feminist is to have reasonable positions on various topics. Frankly the closer they are to the mainstream the less likely they are to have reasonable positions on topics.” They do have one small degree of power, they influence pubic perception, both by pushing the ideal in discussions, as well as by inflating the numbers of supporters the mainstream can claim to have backing them. In effect, they shield the… Read more »
” as he is the FIRST feminist I have seen openly state feminism has problems (that he picks and chooses out.) and that, they too, need to take steps towards a common ground.”
For clarification, when I say first to acknowledge, I’m referring to both criteria simultaneously. The first I have seen a handful of feminists acknowledge the first, sometimes just paying lip service, sometimes actual acknowledgement. The second I don’t think I’ve ever seen, and certainly not both at the same time.
Dragnet, You said, “You are committing the cardinal sin of believing that the truth must always—always!—be midway between two poles. ” No, my friend, I am not. You are committing the cardinal sin of believing there are only two poles. There are a lot more. And it is in those other spaces where men will insure they receive equality and respect. By pushing into the media with clear and powerful narratives about full time dads, we are shifting the public perception of what men are at the most basic levels. This is in turn impacting how divorces play out in… Read more »
There is no parity here. You cannot compare the hard, diamond edge of a newborn movement to the steady, smoldering hatred of a 50 year-old one. Men’s Right’s could, as most movements do, cool with age, popularity and success. The Women’s Movement never did. Each success only brought more demands. Expanded popularity only lead to greater extremism.
When the MRM manages to put bias into law, the way the feminism movement has repeatedly done in both criminal and family law, then you can write an article like this. Until then, it’s a false equivalence.
These are the words of what I call a true believer. Everything you are saying may have some basis in truth, on some level, in some places, but it is a carefully selected and partial truth. You avoid acknowledging the full range of political and social movement that is taking place led by men and women of good will. You focus on the negative because that validates your own entrenched position. Great. Spend your days pointing out the worst. But be aware, it defines you as well.
But it has only gotten worse and worse and truly extreme laws are starting to get passed and that same process of things moving in that direction is evident in every single country I have some knowledge of. There is some positive movement amongst some feminists but that has only come about because of outside pressure. I mean if feminist genuinely cared about domestic violence against men they would not have been trying intensly to try to cover it up for decades etc. etc. I am not going to have any faith in a movement that has treated my issues… Read more »
Mark, I appreciate your efforts and I guess I understand why you continue to consider yourself a feminist. You said, “Maybe I’m cut from the same cloth as American Catholics. You know, a person who joins the Catholic church and then picks and chooses which part of the church’s dogma they’re going to actually buy into. American Catholics are known for supporting the use of birth control even though the use of it is clearly condemned by the church.” For one thing, we have to clarify that the Catholic Church isn’t against birth all control. They openly support rhythm method… Read more »
Mark, great article- I applaud your idealism, your conviction, and the principle that says one can & should embrace those individual truths that are best in any given ideology; rather than those that are the most divisive or doctrinaire. Commonality of goals and values transcends differences (even fundamental differences) in ideological structuralism. What I would like to see is more examination of (and deconstruction of) the appeal of extremism over moderation – there was a great quote I read a few years back, from, I think, Hubert H. Humphrey: “I’m a knee-jerk moderate” – and the trouble is, moderation doesn’t sell… Read more »
Excellent post, sir. Especially your comment “moderation doesn’t sell”.. Too true, too true.
Yes, very well said. Thanks for posting.
the problem is, zealots are the ones who show up. Moderates are the ones who talk a good game, but mostly only wave from the sidelines. If they do anything at all, it won’t be half of what you need, even less of what you asked for, and nothing that they promised. Moderates don’t really believe. They just want to get things done. The problem is, they usually just want to get ANYTHING done, even if it won’t actually solve the problem. To a lot of people, a ‘moderate’ is someone who simply dislikes conflict — even when that conflict… Read more »
Since my last post didn’t pass moderation (bafflingly), I’ll take a different tack. I’m in the WCWAJGA camp; having said that, I am male, and I grew up in the “All me are pigs and deserve to die” era, and so I’ve had no love for feminism. That changed recently after seeing some feminists try to extend the olive branch toward the MRM, with sincerity I believe. And to be honest, it hurt me to see their efforts met by a lot of trolling and consternation. I won’t defend or excuse this behaviour, but I do understand it.. however, it… Read more »
I recomend Pelle Billings blog. He is conciliatory.
This article makes a shocking amount of sense. My only real criticism is this. There isn’t parity between feminism and MRM. Feminism is carrying around 50+ years of ideological baggage which is hamstringing any efforts of moderates to address real egalitarianism — most notably the prevalent female-victim / male-perpetrator dichotomy. Feminism also possesses a huge amount of political clout, as evidenced by the ability of hardliners to actively quash any honest discussion on valid men’s issues, to rewrite the rules to deny that men’s rights even exist, and to enact legislation with an obvious anti-male bias. The MRM, for its… Read more »
The sad thing is both groups, most of them I believe want the same outcome of equality.
Personally, I wouldn’t be anti-feminist if it was just the extremists who I had a problem with. They’d be easy enough to ignore.
Unfortunately I see the leading mainstream feminist activists and largest feminist organisations pushing for censorship and restrictions on personal freedom, spreading false claims and statistics, and calling for special treatment (e.g. gender quotas and all women shortlists) rather than equality. Unlike the extremists they’re the ones who are listened to and often get their own way.
This is one of the key points for me as well. Even the mainstream feminist organisations and those individual feminists with clout in the media and universities constantly spread false claims and statistics, call for special treatment, utterly ignore male perspectives and call for censorship and restrictions and espouse attitudes that are very hostile to men. So although there certainly are quite reasonable feminists and while most non activist women that define themselves as feminists without being very involved usually don`t hate men, the broad feminists movement functions as something very negative. It is not just the biggest loonies, it… Read more »
Bravo, Mark…! I heard Catherine MacKinnon and various other feminists (like Gloria Steinem, Eve Ensler, Anita Hill, and Emily May) speak at an event at Hunter College about a year ago…It was to commemorate the anniversary of Anita Hill’s testimony before Congress about workplace harassment…she had just published a book on housing equality (and the observation that large numbers of working black women were caught in the vortex of the housing crisis a few years ago)…I just wanted to say that the auditorium was filled with hundreds of people with a whole spectrum of views, and that many people got… Read more »
Eve Ensler is an advocate of pedophile rape. In the original version of the vagina monologues, that was playing for years, there was a part where a 24 year old women raped a 13 year old girl and the girl saw it as a healing experience because it taught her she did not need a man. The fact that she is a feminist icon speaks volumes about feminism. And what was Mckinnons views on heterosexual intercourse again? Your claim that these women are not man haters is absurd. That is exactly what they are.
Many many feminists are not man haters. Lumping all feminists in with the most extreme voices in the movement is absurd. As it would be to lump all Men’s Rights activists in with the most extreme voices in that movement. What drives me nuts is how predictable the binary back and forth is in these comments. It’s as if we need a monolithic enemy in order to feel validated. Frankly, this obsession with the binary is spiritually dangerous as well as a social and cultural dead end.
While I certainly agree with you, I think much of the problem is that, while the man haters are so visible, as is their support (Eve Ensler is a popular icon in that movement), the ones who support men and seek to address men’s issues, and those who speak out against the man haters, if they even exist to any relevant degree, are virtually invisible. It is unfair to lump all of one group in with their extremists… but when it becomes difficult to tell which are the extremists due to a very small range of visible activity, then what… Read more »
Which of course feeds the mentality of “It’s okay for us to take all of you in worst faith or insult/attack you but if you do the same to us its wrong.”
I can tell you first hand there are people on all sides of this (myself included) that will on one hand speak about trying to seek out people to make changes regardless of label and then turn around and say/do something that attacks someone because of their label.
My impression of Mark’s main point is that we need to truly listen to each other and focus on what so many of us find logical – choices for people – both men and women – to do with their competence, their desire to love and care for their families, their right to own their bodies. The labels are problems, clearly, as they are emotionally charged for some, and less so for others. “Feminist” to me means something very different than it does to you, @Eagle35 and to you, @Erik. And I’ll quote what Mark writes which is, as I… Read more »
I am cautious about a group that allows the extremist strand that hurt me a place in their tent. Too many times I’ve been burned.
If you experienced the kind of things they said to me, you’d understand. Next time, try being called a “Privledged white male that benefits from oppressive systems” or have your hurt minimised or labeled an anomoly because “Women have it worse off.” Then tell me about coming together.