The partisan voices that seek to maintain the ideological status quo will continue to encourage us to go binary and fight. But here’s what happens when they don’t get their way.
Recently, I posted an article titled Why I’m Proud to Be a Men’s Rights Feminist.
As usual, there was some partisan, binary comments and some more generative dialogues. Then, on the evening of March 20th, a most remarkable conversation was sparked when HeatherN posted the following question.
@Mark Greene: I am a feminist (surprising no one here), but I am curious what MRM “ideas and philosophies” you love?
HeatherN posed the question to me, but I was off taking care of my son, oblivious of the conversation which followed until a day or so later.
I don’t mean to imply that this thread is all hearts and flowers. But constructive open-minded dialogues like this one are very much needed. And the Good Men Project is one of the few places where constructive dialogues are happening despite efforts to shout them down by more partisan voices in the Men’s Rights and Feminist camps.
|
I don’t mean to imply that this thread is all hearts and flowers. But constructive open-minded dialogues like this one are very much needed. And the Good Men Project is one of the few places where constructive dialogues are happening despite efforts to shout down these dialogues by more partisan voices in Men’s Rights and Feminist camps. But these binary voices are losing sway or shifting as a growing number of us seek to explore and determine our own interpretations of feminism and men’s rights issues.
This thread represents a groundbreaking model for what civilized dialogue looks like between feminists and men’s rights advocates. It includes a range of gender voices. It represents an open dialogue in which all sides were able to move into a nuanced and layered discussion about the issues surrounding men’s and women’s rights.
And most importantly? You can see that all parties are making a conscious effort to not be reactive.
Accordingly, I believe this conversation transcends simple debate. I see evidence of genuine curiosity, mutual respect and a willingness to bridge the gulf. The points made in this conversation, on both sides, represent a huge learning experience for me. Budmin, NotBuyingIt, Archy, Schala, Erik, and especially HeatherN and Danny have broken important ground. This is college curriculum level stuff. And its deeply human.
Bottom line? These folks have taken an abstract idea, that feminists and men’s rights advocates can be in dialogue and they have made it manifest. (Please excuse any editing errors or odd turns of phrase. The conversation is pasted in “as is.” I suspect all parties were typing very quickly. LOL)
Welcome to the GoodMenProject. This is why we exist.
-
HeatherN says:
@Mark 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 pretty much anything and everything that falls under that category).
-
budmin says:
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.
-
Not buying it says:
“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.
-
HeatherN says:
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?
-
Archy says:
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.
Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free-
HeatherN says:
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. My support of trans* rights largely stems from my agreement with the feminist philosophy that gender is a social construct.
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…
-
Schala says:
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, much of it does stem from men being limited in wardrobe choices however. And drag queen/king is exaggerated on purpose shows (and would exist regardless of gender norms).
For non-binary folks I can’t say, I’d rather let them talk for themselves.
Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free-
HeatherN says:
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, vanity, and being too emotional, etc. are feminine is a social construct…collecting all of those traits (and a bunch of others) together and labelling them “woman,” is a social construct. (Same thing goes for “man). This is pretty straight forward, as other cultures have different traits they’ve collected together and labelled “woman” and “man” (and sometimes other categories that aren’t “woman” or “man”).
I agree that trans people are biologically their identified sex (just like cis people are biologically their identified sex)…but sex and gender are not the same thing. So I’m a female and I was raised a girl and I identify as a woman…but I do things that are masculine sometimes. I went through a period where I wore men’s clothing and shaved my head. I was kind of aggressive in many ways (for a variety of reasons) and I generally eschewed a lot of feminine behaviour. I didn’t identify as a man, though…because gender is a social construct. A woman can do masculine things (and a man can do feminine things) without giving up their identity as a woman or a man.
-
Danny says:
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 discrimination. In fact it’s also what breeds sexism against cisgendered people as well.
-
Erik says:
Which cultures see 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.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Danny says: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.
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
I believe that when men go to prison there are two things:.1. That he is there because he actually did something wrong to end up there.
2. Once there that those men have an actual opportunity to reform (yes I agree some people are beyond redemption, but how can you tell with the way they are treated).
Belief being that when it comes to men and crime there needs to be a way to make sure they are properly treated (and yes this touches on false accusations) and offered a proper opportunity for redemption.
over-diagnosis of boys with behaviour disorders, etc.
1. So that instead of boys being diagnosed as a way to declare them “defective” they are diagnosed as a way to help them.2. To correct the policies, structures, etc…. in effect that cause those misdiagnosis.
The belief that boys need not have their gender held against them when being diagnosed and treated for ailments.
Circumcision:
A boy’s bodily autonomy should not be violated for any reason other than medical necessity.Now as for how these compare with feminist ideas they may sound similar but I think in all honestly that feminism has one minor shortcoming. The way it diagnoses the ways men are harmed and the prescribed treatments for resolving them.
-
HeatherN says:
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 what are the MRM critical theories that attempt to explain why circumcision happens so commonly? What are the MRM philosophies that examine how male circumcision fits into the larger cultural norms about sex and gender in modern society? What are the MRM’s theories about gender, in general? There are so many myths about male circumcision, what are the MRM’s explanations for why those myths keep being perpetuated?
See what I’m getting at here? Big picture…I’m interested in how the MRM explains the big things.
-
Archy says:
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 n women were both oppressed by the elites. Basically a patriarchy except women had more power than feminism appears to credit them, and men didn’t have as much, but both men n women at the very top had ENORMOUS power. Basically class mattered a huge amount more than gender, and that men had some privileges whilst women had other privileges (like not being drafted).
-
Danny says:
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?
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 idea that girls are more precious than boys maybe.
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 idea that girls are more precious than boys maybe. That when it comes to genitals the penis is being held to a narrowly acceptable standard of what it should look like. “He should look like his dad.” “So that girls won’t think it’s gross.”
As for how it fits into the norms of sex and gender as I said above its a matter of where other people’s views on what a guy’s penis should looking are taking precedent over what his own views might be. Surely you see similar thing happen to girls.
When it comes to theories on gender I’m of the mind that there is a system in place. And this system exists not to hold any one above any one else except for itself. It will mow down anyone regardless of gender, race, financial status, etc…. The system keeps people in the places where they will be the most beneficial not to themselves but to the system. In practice this is quite harmful to damn near everyone. The only way to free everyone up is to undo this twisted system. The main road block is that in keeping people in their places (sorted by gender, race, etc…) we are pitted against each other. (Which is Mark’s point about trying to end the fighting and get to the changing).
As for the myths behind circumcision there may be a few things:
1. The data on the supposed health benefits of the practice have been contested for quite some time. For every study that has a pro circ conclusion there’s one that has an anti-circ conclusion. (I wish I could find the link again but did you know that a year or so ago there were clinics in Africa that were actually going to schools and circumcising boys, without their parents knowledge?)2. In the fashion of men being cast as success and utility objects I think that part of reason the myths continue is that people simply don’t care that much about the bodily autonomy of boys. I think this may be why despite the violation of bodily autonomy people are willing to accept conditions for why the practice should be done.
3. I’ve seen more than a few people argue that circumcision should be banned….but with a cultural/religious exception clause. Seriously, we’re gonna in one breath say that cutting a boys genitals when he has no say in it is wrong and but then turn around in the next and say that it’s okay to do it because of the religion of his family?
4. As for the supposed health benefits being contested I wonder about the depth of sexual education for boys. Circumcision is being pushed as the way to reduce HIV/AIDS transmission in a place where it is believed that having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS?
Mind you I don’t pretend to have the explanation for all things that go on.
-
HeatherN says:
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).
-
Danny says:
So okay, now again I’ll ask…what overarching MRM theories/philosophies do you agree with?
This is where it gets fun.Men as a class 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 men as a class 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 long run men have a lot of heavy lifting ahead of them.
That a man should be free to determine his own path in life (barring the fact that he doesn’t harm other of course).
Similar to the way feminists believe that women shouldn’t be expected to have their existence define in relation to men men should not be expected to have their existence defined in relation to women.
Most of what I can think would fall under one of those four but I don’t pretend them to be all inclusive of MRM ideas (and in fact I bet other MRAs might disagree with me on them, just as there is disagreement among feminists).
As JQ has says Feminism has about a 60 year head start over the MRM (and could be longer than that because I’ve read a few articles here and there that date feminism back to the abolishinists in the 1860s). Like any movement its formed as a response to things in society and culture that its members feel are not being properly addressed.
-
HeatherN says:
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.
-
Danny says:
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 assume, this means you think that now men are defined by their relationship to women
Yep.-
HeatherN says:
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.
-
Danny says:
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 by his assigned gender role. How dare he be the internal provider?!? Its a change that men have had to make in order to get away from the past limitations. (Flip that coin over and I’m sure you’ll find the legacy of the expectations and limitations imposed on women.)
* – Internal/External provider: My own way of labeling the husband aka “breadwinner” and the wife aka “homemaker”. Let’s be honestly they both provided in their own way. One was expected to provide from the outside and the other was expected to provide from the inside.
-
HeatherN says:
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)
-
Danny says:
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.
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).
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 described below).
Just saying, “But that’s feminism” doesn’t really get down to why there are feminists that seem to either not be pushing for what you quote there or may even be pushing against what you quote (or even in the worst case actually taking advantage of the inequalities that are mentioned in that quote).
Now:
“We’ve begun to raise our daughters more like our sons…but few have the courage to raise our sons like our daughters.”
This sounds great. People are willing to break the limitations that are imposed on girls but they are still not willing to break the limitations that are imposed on boys. (Personally I think that’s due partly to the system still wanting men in their own limited little place, nothing gives up power easily.)“Women are not going to be equal outside the home until men are equal in it”
Yes this is something I agree with. However as I said below despite there being things that I agree with when it comes to feminism there are still some things that I think it gets wrong. But even then that wouldn’t be so bad on its own. No its the unwillingness of feminism (on the large scale) to even allow those things to be questioned much less changed (such as recognizing that the limitations and harms imposed on men actually do harm men on an institutional scale and the limited depictions of rape culture).Fine well and good I suppose. But at the end of the day feminism isn’t going to fix everything by itself (at least as it is) and if it doesn’t want to hear that then people are bound to look to other places.
I hope you aren’t about to tell me that I never gave feminism a chance or that if I don’t embrace feminism then that means I am against equality….
-
HeatherN says:
No no, 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 anyone to take on any label. I’m interested in ideas.
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.
Like, feminism (gender studies, whatever the hell) is this collection of a whole bunch of ideas about gender (some of them even primarily concerned about men)…it’s this whole body of knowledge that’s been critiqued and challenged and changed over decades. And so some feminists are using that knowledge in some shit ways (or totally misunderstanding that knowledge and screwing it up).
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 is feminism.
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 is feminism. And then they started over, and not only that…they generally construct most of their ideas as specifically anti-feminist. Like, “what do we think feminists say about this issue? We say the opposite!” Kind of reactionary. And because it’s so reactionary it gets a lot of feminism wrong. And it gets a lot of history wrong…like, it just does.
But what the MRM could do, and be a lot more constructive if they did so, is take a bunch of feminist ideas (or gender studies ideas, whatever) that focus on men and masculinity..and build from that. Like, build from the body of knowledge that’s already there. And call it whatever you want…as I said, totally not doing the whole label thing…call it men’s rights or the MRM or whatever.
-
Danny says:
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 is feminism.
Yes there are those that do that but I’m actually not trying to do that. Maybe that’s way despite my claims of MRM I really don’t get much mention among them.But what the MRM could do, and be a lot more constructive if they did so, is take a bunch of feminist ideas (or gender studies ideas, whatever) that focus on men and masculinity..and build from that.
That’s actually what I would like to do and you know what happens when I cross paths with feminists over this? I get told “But that’s feminism!”. And not in your way of just saying “Hey that’s a part of feminism too! Let’s talk!”. No it’s usually “Quit biting off of feminism! If you’re about equality then you must be a feminist and if you aren’t a feminist you’re against equality.” To which I have to bite my tongue else it will slip and a, “Well if you hadn’t of fucked it up in the first place then maybe I wouldn’t be picking up your pieces behind you!”And that’s not a lack of thinking about feminism Heather, that’s actual experience. But in thinking about my own anger I think I know where that reactionary contempt comes from. It comes from repeated experiences of trying to work with feminists but at the first sign of disagreeing with them they attack. And viciously. Regardless of what the words might if they are being endorsed by people who can’t handle being disagreed with on the slightest detail (prime example, most feminists will fight against the ideas of female privilege and sexism against men to the last breath).
In short the reason they are saying, “what do we think feminists say about this issue? We say the opposite!” is because of feminists that say, “what we say about the issue is right!”.
So there is a lack of critical thought on all sides here.
I suppose that after that I splinter off from other MRAs on the matter of still seeing and acknowledging the parts of feminism that I agree with while still expressing where feminism frankly gets things wrong.
-
-
-
-
-
Erik says:
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:
-
-
-
JQ says:
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 Elam calls it “Gynocentrism”, and I’ve read his thesis on it, unfortunately it’s 50% nuttery but does raise some good points.
2. if women to truly want to close the gender gap, then they must accept equal responsibility and *accountability* as men. But MRM sees the feminist movement not as closing the gender gap, as it mandates, but widening it, especially to the detriment of men. Again, look at the issues you raised. But more importantly, through its emphasis on such things as rape culture and violence against women, as well as bias in women’s health etc., it accuses feminism of continually casting women as the “victim”. On the flipside feminism continually casts men as the “perpetrator”. Not only does this ignore the significant instances where women are the perpetrators and men are the victims, it ironically forces women into a disempowered childlike state. MRMs contention is by giving women equal accountability, the effect will actually be women’s empowerment.
I think that’s about it.
-
HeatherN says:
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 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.”
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.”
-
Danny says:
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. And this is a bit of a point of disagreement for me.
To me I think patriarchy at best only describes parts of the system that really does benefit men over women in terms of gender. And I think its honestly misnamed on the grounds that it implies that when its all said and done, men are better off over all than women. I’m not sure that is true. That’s why I’m more of a fan of calling the system. Its there. Its exists. Its screws people over in different ways.
To me I think patriarchy at best only describes parts of the system that really does benefit men over women in terms of gender. And I think its honestly misnamed on the grounds that it implies that when its all said and done, men are better off over all than women. I’m not sure that is true. That’s why I’m more of a fan of calling the system. Its there. Its exists. Its screws people over in different ways.
However I’m willing to look past that on the condition that when it comes to dealing with the various inequalities that plague us the different inequalities are properly identified and dealt with accordingly for everyone’s sake, not just for the sake of one side with the promise that it will benefit the other.
(And I think this is where one of my main points of contention with feminism is. When it comes to identifying the inequalities by gender they are not laid out in terms of what is going on but instead in terms of “how does this affect women, and oh yeah how does it affect men”.
I see this in the form of the idea that homophobia against gay guys is actually misogyny and homophobia against gay woman is actually misogyny.
I think that’s bull. Or when it comes to parenting the idea that men aren’t stereotyped as inefficient parents because of their gender. No its actually because women are stereotyped as superior parents thus dads get the short end of the stick.
And here is a personal best I’ve been told. The body image issues that I deal with have nothing to do with my gender. But when it comes to women their body image issues are tied to their gender. Remember that body image series I did last year? In the opening post the first thing I wanted to address was the fact that in most articles you see about men and body image male body image issues are usually presented in relation to female body image issues. I wanted to ask what is so wrong about presenting male body image issues on their? But let’s just say the editors weren’t feeling that. And I also originally wanted to specifically eliminate any mention of female body image issues but I knew that wouldn’t fly so I didn’t bother bringing it up.
Then there’s also the proposed solutions to these problems. Take the recent rape culture posts going on right now. Despite it being defined as gender neutral most of the time when its brought up in practice rape culture is limited to male against female rape. Now we’ve talked this out already. I like how you are for the idea of using data to tweak the theory. Problem is most proponents would rather ignore the data if it doesn’t fit the theory, which is usually presented when talking about male against female rape.
By it’s logic that inequalities that harm men are not features of a system that is designed to keep everyone down for its own sake but rather they are bugs in a system that is meant to keep the masculine above the feminine. In other words it treats the harms of men as side effects and collateral damage of the harms of women. Its not sexism against men they are feeling its just some sexism against women that splashed on to them.)
-
HeatherN says:
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 ideas. But the reality is that there is a heck of a lot more nuance in feminist discussions than what you’re describing. Not necessarily online, I’ll grant you…but in actual, real life feminist circles there is a lot more nuance in feminist ideas, and critique of those ideas.
-
Danny says:
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 later when I get the chance but let me ask real quick. Does bell hook believe that the ways that the system screws over men relates to their being male?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 ideas. But the reality is that there is a heck of a lot more nuance in feminist discussions than what you’re describing.
I’m sure there is more nuance. Which is why I haven’t gone full on anti-feminist. But at the same time there is going on in what feminist ideas I’m talking about that warrants a little bit of discussion. Discussion that frankly most of them don’t want to have as far as I can tell.Now I will say this. You are one of the VERY rare feminists I’ve come across that I have actually been able to discuss this with and didn’t just resort to tossing links to some major feminist sites with an air of “And don’t come back until you agree with me.” As in feminism is the one movement in human history to be right on every issue (now that doesn’t mean that there is never any internal critique, by this I mean that as an outsider non-feminist I’m wrong just be disagreeing with anything about feminism).
-
-
-
Erik says:
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 of their brain that is masculine was formed. Women who behave masculine, like men who behave masculine, have highly masculinized faces. They also tend to have the finger ratio that correlates with high testosterone exposure in the womb. It is not an accident that when I read feminist sites on the net and look at the pictures the men tend to have far more feminine faces than average and the women tend to have far more masculine faces than average. Have you ever looked at photos where you can see the same face modified to be either the face of someone with extremely high testosterone to extremely high estrogen and everything in between? I don`t understand how anyone can see that and not understand that there is a huge biological component in behavior and masculinity and femininity is not a social construct at its core.
Anyway, as I believe gender differences are not socially constructed. You saying that feminists believe masculinity is the problem just underlines to me just how much you hate ME and who I am at the core and will always be. As long as you are saying masculinity is the problem you are saying who I am and always will be is the problem. You are also saying that I need a radical personality change and need to be feminized. And that is precisely what feminism has tried to do, feminize men. Which partially works not he surface but just makes them miserable, dysfunctional and unattractive to women. This comment was meant as a comment to HeatherNs comment that masculinity and not men was the problem.
-
-
-
-
-
This is a completely arbitrary stopping point. No one gets the last word here. The conversation is still going on, all across the GMP and the net. Change is happening, but it will only happen in the places where ideological extremism and silencing are not the rule of thumb.
The partisan voices that seek to maintain the status quo will continue to fight for their ideological turf. Over and over, they will attempt to use hot button issues to keep us all in unproductive and binary debates. But, god willing, they will not set the rules of engagement for the rest of us. No matter how hard the try.
♦◊♦
More by Mark Greene:
Why I’m Proud to Be a Men’s Rights Feminist
Click here for more GMP articles by Mark Greene.
♦◊♦
If you like our article, please consider sharing it via the button below. And thank you.
—
REMAKING MANHOOD–Available now on iTunes and Kindle
Good Men Project Executive Editor Mark Greene’s articles on masculinity and manhood have received over 100,000 FB shares and 10 million page views. Remaking Manhood is a collection of Greene’s most powerful articles on American culture, relationships, family and parenting. It is a timely and balanced look at the issues at the heart of the modern masculinity movement.
“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.” ” Danny didn’t endorse feminism. I won’t speak for him, but I didn’t see him imply it at all also. Steinem’s first quote just makes an observation. I won’t address the second quote,… Read more »
@HeatherN: If there is an MRM founding intellectual (just as Betty Friedan and Simone de Beauvoir were the founders of Second Wave Feminism), it is Warren Farrell PhD in the USA. He has written 10-20 books, and loves to give public lectures, which radical feminists have tried to shout down and otherwise interfere with. As for masculinity being in trouble, here are 3 canaries in the coal mine of social statistics: * 80% of suicides are male; * >95% of incarcerated persons are male; * the student body in the typical OECD public university is or will soon be 60%… Read more »
HeatherN, You asked: ” 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?” From what I can tell, most people in the MHRM would agree that the primary MHRM philosophy… Read more »
Doug, Thanks so much for this thoughtful comment. It really helps illuminate a bit of the underlying force of the MRM. The simplicity of an inquiry such as “if something harms men or boys and is not necessary, then it comes as wrong” is really appealing. I bet I would agree with 90% of the practical application of this approach. But the other part about “MHRAs often enough do NOT really care what sort of philosophy you have as to *why* one of their issues needs corrected” makes me really curious. In comments on other threads I’ve drawn a distinction… Read more »
Hi Kari, I think you have some interesting questions there. I don’t really know how to answer them at present though. I will say that the issues that need corrected I do not think of as isolated problems, and do seem systemic, at least in some sense. Male-only draft registration comes as a governmental problem. Neonatal, involuntary male circumcision (MGM) can get maintained as violating the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment (and as I understand some law in Canada), since neonatal, involuntary female circumcision (FGM) is illegal (this is NOT a comparison of the pain of such practices… Read more »
Sorry, Marcus, I should have put the second part down here in a separate comment because I didn’t mean your comment was the end of civil discourse, I meant the whole thread has gone a bit awry. Maybe it hasn’t quite reached the level of personal attacks and rudeness (yet) but the tone has definitely shifted. I really respect all of the folks who are carrying on this conversation and usually find all of you to post well thought out, on point, respectful and interesting comments. But my sense here is that you are starting to talk past each other… Read more »
I think its a lot to ask of a thread as potentially combustive as this one to hold the high ground for too much longer. Thanks to all for participating. We might want to take a time out… Go have a cocktail. Park this one for a while, yes? Just a suggestion.
It has become very apparent that feminists do not understand how masculine men process emotion or what their emotional lives are like. They share this with current western society and I believe feminism is the cause of that lacking understanding. People from the third world that I speak to seem to understand this far better. Masculine stoicism has two parts. One is where you feel so secure and strong and solid that you actually don`t have any negative feeling towards something that many others feel wounded by such as an insult. It is like you have an armor that just… Read more »
Thank you, Erik and Jacob.
HeatherN: So right now, as I said in the comments that became this article, what we’ve got are a lot of MRA types saying “This is what I think feminists think, and so I think the opposite.” – But that’s not engaging critically with the issues. I think that is an unfair take on their comments. A more accurate take would be “This is what feminists think, and this is why I think the opposite.” I do not think that men’s rights activists or feminists critics get feminism wrong. Ideologues often do not see anything wrong with their views and… Read more »
I agree with Jacob (as I have throughout this discussion). The bit I’ll tack on is that I’m very, very used to people arguing that I (or people like me) only reject their positions because we don’t understand them or haven’t read the right sources yet, but that’s not just a feminist complaint. Atheists get it all the time from theists, who are sincerely convinced that no one could possibly disbelieve their god or sacred text except out of close-mindedness or being deprived (willfully or otherwise) of the learned interpretations that explain “the real thing”. PZ Myers even gave a… Read more »
No, I most certainly know you are intellectual enough to understand and decide for yourself. I just don’t understand WHY you see it differently. My ideology does indeed differ from yours and I can honestly say I don’t understand you or understand why you believe why you believe. Which is not the same thing as saying I don’t understand the goals, texts, and dynamics of what you believe only that I don’t understand why you believe them. Which is a level of cognitive dissonance I find extremely uncomfortable thus, my desire to blame your beliefs on “not understanding” what I… Read more »
My ideology does indeed differ from yours and I can honestly say I don’t understand you or understand why you believe why you believe. I think one difference is going to be what you come up with when assessing the current state of things and what you come up with when you think about how to achieve those goals, how to formulate those texts, and how to forumlate those dynamics. Which is a level of cognitive dissonance I find extremely uncomfortable thus, my desire to blame your beliefs on “not understanding” what I believe instead of rejecting what I believe.… Read more »
Danny, for me it’s more-I know enough about Marcus personally (from working at GMP with him, to talking to him in chat and on G+) to know that our basic political and cultural leanings are pretty similar. We agree on say 90% of things like race, sexual orientation, liberal type positions. So it is often confusing to me as to why that one other section is not similar between us. If we agreed on feminism and sexual orientation and he displayed beliefs about race that were oppositional to mine, I’d also have a hard time. Or sexual orientation, if he… Read more »
We agree on say 90% of things like race, sexual orientation, liberal type positions. So it is often confusing to me as to why that one other section is not similar between us. I bet that other 10% comes down to a difference of perspective, experience, and other unique things. Even for as much as you and Marcus agree at the very least you’re a woman and he’s a man. That alone could account for the difference. When I meet someone online or off and it’s clear that our politic and world view are diametrically opposed, I don’t feel that… Read more »
That 10 percent is incredibly personal to me. So yeah, it’s hard.
Which may be part of the bigger issue on a bigger scale. Not you, the general cognitive dissonance. Yes. I probably mean “yes” about cognitive dissonance in a different way than you meant it, but I think it plays a big part here. It so happens that a lot of the explanations I find wrong in Rape Culture are better explained by a combination of cognitive dissonance and group dynamics. (The former is a well-established and studied phenomenon in psychology, but I’m using “group dynamics” more loosely since I don’t have a better term, but I’m mainly talking about how… Read more »
In your example about my son above, if it played out that way? I’d be really ashamed that my husband and I didn’t teach him differently about delaying gratification and getting clearer communication with his partners. I’d feel horror at the idea of prison of course, but if you’ve read any of my work it’s because I don’t believe prisons rehabilitate and instead are basically torture chambers for profit. Also, I never ever have stated that I’d broad brush all criminals as total monsters. I think you are selling me quite short on the topic of cognitive dissonance. Of course… Read more »
Julie, my pillow-punching hypothetical was based on a GMP comment thread where that very example came up and it was suggested that it rose to the level of coercion and therefore rape, despite consent being given to a man who showed no sign of forcing a sexual act if he didn’t think he had consent. I picked that example because I find it such an absurd extreme to where “Rape Culture” theory can lead, treating behavior as rape that isn’t anything close to rape. So, if you would feel ashamed if your son was such a pillow-punching rapist, wishing only… Read more »
You may not mean to say that “[critics of feminism] are wrong because they disagree”, but I think that’s what you (feminists) end up saying anyway, because if you think the only possible reaction to understanding feminist theory is to agree with it, then disagreement is literally evidence of being wrong. I can agree with this. Even if they don’t mean to it seems that “you don’t agree because you don’t understand therefore you are wrong because you don’t understand” has become a reactionary catch all to disagreement. …and it wouldn’t salvage my view of Internet feminism…. While I know… Read more »
While I know it can make some difference I’m not so inclinded to believe that there is some dividing line between offline feminists and online feminists where if there is miscommunication or disagreement or hard line ideology it can always be chalked up to the difference between online/offline. I’m not really convinced there’s a divide, so much as allowing for the possibility. There’s some irony to me saying that the more I’ve learned about feminist theory online, the less I’ve believed it, because prior to maybe a couple years ago, I considered myself either a feminist, or supportive of the… Read more »
Thank you, Marcus, Danny and Julie.
I hope to elaborate that in a long article that’s already outlined in my head, but it’s going to be a big one and I don’t think it’ll be a natural fit for GMP, so between that and being a busy dad, it’s one that’s easy to procrastinate on. I really hope you follow through on writing that article as I’ve really liked what you’ve had to say on this subject thus far. The point you make comparing the belief in certain types of feminist theory with that of religious faith is a good one, especially considering the very vocal… Read more »
To Everyone: I am not saying you all would agree with feminism if you understood it better. I’m not saying that critical analysis requires you to agree. I’m not saying that academic feminism is the “right” feminism and you should just ignore internet feminism. What I AM saying, is that I have seen MRM articles on MRM sites, and MRA comments on feminist sites which simply do not understand feminists perspectives. I mean, MRA comments on feminist articles probably highlight this most…because a feminist (on the internet) will be saying one thing, and the MRA will completely misunderstand what the… Read more »
I´ve read your replies in the other thread and will answer there. From where I stand what you are describing is precisely how I have understood feminism and IMO what you are advocating is a view of masculinity that that sees universal masculine traits that are inherent to most men because they are a product of testosterone as evil/toxic. You are describing competitiveness, stoicism, dominance, strength and aggressiveness as toxic traits. I`m not sure how you define aggressiveness but depending on definition I might view that as negative or I might not. All the others are positive masculine traits that… Read more »
Okey pokey dokey. The thing is, most feminists would say that the traits you say are inherent in men due to hormones, aren’t actually inherent in men. Dominance, competitiveness, etc…those aren’t innate in men, not as a group. Of course, individuals might be innately violent…some people are more competitive than others…of course. Sometimes that’s innate. But it’s individuals, not genders-specific. We just do not recognize it when women are competitive or dominating. The movie Mean Girls, for example, is a perfect example of the way society has created spaces for women to be competitive, violent, and dominating, without actually recognizing… Read more »
“those aren’t innate in men, not as a group” But I that is not what I am saying and the link with the testosterone varied faces was about that point precisely. And my argument does not rely on that at all. Feminists seem to always run back to the argument that since something can not be said to be true of all men or all women it says nothing about men or women but that is a completely non sensorial argument. As long as there are statistical differences between men and women of a certain size that says a lot… Read more »
Just a short fast reply: why is competitiveness seen as a negative trait? bein comptitive should be a positive trait since it “force” you to perform better, to adapt, to improvise etc. I dont understand why it is seen as a “bad” trait. Look at sport, they are all competitive, look at chess look at various games. IMO being competitive is one of the best traits. Granted not only for males, but for everyone, regardless of race, gender, age etc. Its over all positive (IMO).
One of the biggest hurdles I’ve had is in explaining how feminism is often all about cultural narratives…and then examining the effects those cultural narratives have on people. This is the part that belies the other part about not saying that “y’all” (MRA’s, non-feminists, whoever) would agree if they understood better, because the explanations on which you rely pre-suppose that common belief. For comparison, consider a Christian who says, “I’m not saying you would agree with Christianity if you just understood it better,” and subsequently says of the biggest hurdles in explaining their faith to non-believers is explaining how grace… Read more »
Hm do you honestly think that feminists don’t believe in science? I don’t think this example works. It’s nice and snarky though.
That was, indeed, incredibly snarky…and no, Marcus, what you’re saying doesn’t work. (I mean, what the hell is this nonsense about “the sky performs blue?” The whole point of performativity is that it requires a freaking conscious and subconscious to do so.) Look, feminists don’t deny biology…we do, however, challenge the implicit faith most people have in biology. We challenge the idea that science is completely objective…because science is created by people, and people aren’t ever completely 100% objective. And as for presupposing a “common belief” in cultural narratives…well, okay, yes…you got me there. But that’s not feminism; it’s not… Read more »
That was, indeed, incredibly snarky It was also directly inspired by your imaginary dialogue about “The sky is green” being absurdly responded to with, “Stop hating clouds”, then “Wha? I wasn’t even talking about clouds.” So, if making up funny dialogues about the sky is snark when I do it, what is it when you do it? (I mean, what the hell is this nonsense about “the sky performs blue?” I know, it sounds totally silly, right? The whole point of performativity is that it requires a freaking conscious and subconscious to do so.) That hasn’t sounded like the point… Read more »
That’s too broad a question to answer with a simple “yes” or “no”. I do think that some feminists think that a long list of rhetorical observations confirming what they believe to be evidence of “Rape Culture” demonstrates something scientific, when I don’t think it does. For example, calling a pizza ad campaign Rape Culture with no evidence whatsoever of a link between that campaign and beliefs or behavior — not science.
Ok Marcus, that made me laugh out loud, several times. 🙂
And, so much for civil discourse. It’s sorta sad we couldn’t get through one GMP thread about feminism without it going awry. We almost had it…
I’m glad it made you laugh :D, but sorry you saw it as the end of civil discourse. 🙁 I’m not sure what was un-civil about it, since Heather used humor in a little made-up dialogue to make a point, and then I did the same thing. I didn’t think either example sank to a level of personal insults or rudeness.
Heather, I was thinking, isnt it possible that the feminist bad behavior expressed by Eric and others, are due to the nature of politics? The politicization of feminism has slowly pushed it into other dynamics, like taking sides regardless of the results, similar to democrats vs republicans. Generally speaking the common person believe that feminism represent women. Rather than gender equality. And this misconception (If I can use this term) has also infected the echelons of political feminism (feminists in the government, congress etc) and it explains the why of their “abnormal” behavior, like making laws for supporting women, refusing… Read more »
I have a message in moderation….
Mr. Supertypo: Messages get put into moderation automatically for a wide variety of reasons. It doesn’t mean anyone thinks your comment is a problem. It might just have a word in it that automatically puts it in moderation. There are very few moderators, so sometimes it takes awhile for something to get put out of moderation. A little patience goes a long way.
Hi Heather thank you for the reply. I didnt complain about the moderation, I just pointed out that I have a message in mod. Thats all 🙂
Not every MRA, obviously. But my point, again, isn’t that if they understood what feminists were doing they’d agree. Rather, it’s that if they understood what feminists were doing, their critique would be better. It’s like a feminist says “The sky is green.” And an MRA replies with “Stop hating clouds.” And the feminist is sitting there going…”Wha? I didn’t even mention clouds.” Or something. From my own perspective its something like this. Feminist: The sky is blue because…. MRA: Yes the sky is blue and most of you say does apply but there are some parts…. Feminist: You skysogynist!!!… Read more »
Also with the snark, Danny. Come on. And your example there is of “callout culture,” which many internet feminists have written on. http://ozyfrantz.com/2012/12/31/some-propositions-concerning-callout-culture-part-three/ And for pete’s sake, of course some feminists misunderstand feminist ideas. Not everyone who is part of an ideology necessarily understands every bit of it. But, again, most of the time what I see is a feminist writing in such a way that s/he assumes the reader will understand what s/he means when s/he uses certain terms, or even when s/he talks about “men” as a group. And so someone comes in and is unfamiliar with those… Read more »
So we are supposed to seriously consider your experiences with MRAs but our experiences with feminists are just snark? That experience bit there was how even when starting off agreeing and trying to find some common ground the moment we come across something we disagree with we are presumed in worst faith. And for pete’s sake, of course some feminists misunderstand feminist ideas. Not everyone who is part of an ideology necessarily understands every bit of it. But, again, most of the time what I see is a feminist writing in such a way that s/he assumes the reader will… Read more »
But if I did ruin the dialog I am sorry for that and I will anyway attempt to make my posts less hostile in this thread in the future.
Then there are feminists opposition to paternity testing: http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/france-upholds-the-ban-on-paternity-tests/ Feminists have successfully lobbied to have the military in many countries let some join the army while not being able to pass the same physical standards as men just a much lower female adjusted standard. This works against men both by taking away military jobs the men earned and the women that did not pass male standards did not and it works against men by leading to the death of men. How? Because a female soldier that can only cary half the weight a male soldier can cary and can`t carry… Read more »
Another important example of feminists working against the interests of men. I`d like to add that feminists have also opposed to opening of mens centers at the universities I am aware of that have tried to open them.
IMO feminism gains poppular support through these core issues and will loose almost all popular support if these issues are no longer seen the way feminism sees them. That women are paid less than men, that domestic violence is almost exclusively male on female violence and that the motivation is patriarchal, that almost all violence against children is committed by fathers, that sexual abuse/rape almost solely is a male offender/female victim issue, that women are unfairly held back in their careers by a glass ceiling, that gender is a social construct, that what attracts men and women to each other… Read more »
There is a time and place for this, and this was not the right thread for this. We are attempting a dialogue, and I fear that while there are likely valid points in what you have written they come across as hostile, the exact opposite of what we need for having a dialogue. I feel as though your first post had much to add to the conversation, although as I mentioned before I don’t believe that the majority of the negative impact feminism has had on men is due to intentional hatred so much as over-enthusiastic zeal. This second post,… Read more »
I don`t get it. All those points I mention as core beliefs of feminism historically where the consensus in scandinavian countries up until recently and to a fairly large extent they still are. Men as sole perpetrator of domestic violence and violence against children and sole perpetrator of sexual violence most certainly. THese where core beliefs instilled in me by my teacher, by the media, by everyone around me and most certainly every feminist I heard on TV or read about in newspapers up until 10 years ago or so. The Norwegian minister of justice still ONLY talks about male… Read more »
Erik, I am sorry if I came across as silencing or negating your contribution to the conversation. Looking back at my response to you I realize that it was probably too quick to the draw; the last thing I want is for anyone to feel as though their thoughts do not matter. I do agree that your criticism of where feminism has failed is valid and that your examples are strong examples of the problems with the current dialogue around gender equality. In my mind this is exactly what happens when spend too much time “focusing on the root cause.”… Read more »
KC Krupp, I appreciate the reply. I don`t have ime to write anything today but will get back to it tomorrow. I would be perfectly happy to have the post deleted if it derails the conversation. No hard feelings about that if I sidetracked things with a post that lessens the possibility of dialog.
HeaterN, you have claimed in this thread that feminists never work against the interests of men so I will provide you with a long lists of examples of feminists doing exactly that. Feminists spread the myth that women got harder punishments than men for doing the same crime. Based upon that belief a wide range of special programs and means of support was put in place in England (and probably many other places as well) in order to help women to compensate for this. A wide range of studies from several different countries, and the english justice departments own numbers,… Read more »
Erik…that’s a longer comment than my Rape Culture article…and that was a long article…so I’m not reading the whole thing. Sorry. But, I’ll reply to the first bit. I didn’t claim feminists have never worked against men. I claimed feminism isn’t about hurting men. And, again, without having read your comment…I’ll also say that the usual examples people provide of feminists doing things that hurt men, are times when feminists have been caught up in the patriarchal systems they were originally trying to take down. Fathers rights is great example of this. It’s the patriarchal gender system we’ve got now… Read more »
You said “But no feminist organization is actually using our cultural/economic/political system to harm men” I the provided you with a ton of examples of feminist organizations doing EXACTLY that. Here is a quick summary of some of those ways. Claiming that women get harsher punishments for the same crime as men and using that to get lots of support for special programs for women only to compensate for that when it is in fact men who get punished 50-70% harder. In Norway giving women extra credits for entry into 136 different subjects in higher education but only giving the… Read more »
Apologies. It was days ago. I wasn’t quite sure which comment you had been referring to. Anyway…what the key to that comment was about intentionality. As I said, when feminists fail to really break away from patriarchal (or kyriarchal) modes of thinking, then they sometimes get stuff wrong…and that can cause harm. To men and women. But they aren’t intentionally using the system to screw over men. That is not the goal. That is my point. No feminist organization is actively trying to screw over men. (And, of course, places such as RadFemHub are the exception to this…but they have… Read more »
You’re turning feminism into a religion, Heather. You claim that, even when feminist organizations are actively screwing over men with their actions (I’m reminded of back in 2007-2008 during the recession when the Obama administration set aside billions of dollars for construction projects and other programs to help male-dominated industries tha were hit the hardest… and then NOWswooped in and demanded a large chunk of the money for female industries that were actuall *growing* Why? because they- and I’m quoting here- didn’t want the money to go to “help burly men”) they aren’t “really feminist.” It’s completely circular. Feminism can… Read more »
Wtf HeatherN?? He gave you examples of FEMINIST GROUPS doing exactly the kind of bad you say they do NOT do. Then you try divert the blame to patriarchy? For one you’re treating feminists like children, an extremely misogynist behaviour I might add by dismissing their agency and you’re assigning the blame to patriarchy as if those feminists don’t actively stop male issues being supported. “No feminist organization is actively trying to screw over men. ” The Indian feminists WERE trying to screw over men. “I’ll also say that the usual examples people provide of feminists doing things that hurt… Read more »
Then you just demonstrate that feminism is unreliable in combating men’s issues regarding discrimination because feminists/women are not being held accountable for their responsibility and agency in establishing/reinforcing anti-male practices and activities as convention and norm in our organizations and culture. Hating men may not be a requirement to be a feminist, giving a damn about what happens to them isn’t either, and we wonder why men would make their own movement in response to such apathy, lethargy and self-serving condemnation of their requests for help.
Well if MRM is what I found on A voice for men, I rather be a feminist man than a MRM, while stll fighting for men rights , because what I found on that site is clearly misogyny. And agree with Heather, I still wait for anyone to show MRM site which is not anti-feminist / misogynist. I guess GMP is not MRM site right?
There is an uncomfortable ring on truth in that statement. I don’t spend that much time in either feminist or MRM web spaces and when I do I find both uncomfortably alienating. The feminist sites I’ve seen have always felt to me very anti-male (if not overtly at lest in subtext.) Part of this is that I disagree very strongly with Patriarchy theory and large portions of Rape Culture theory (as I touched upon above.) From the little bit I’ve dabbled into the MRM the space feels chillingly anti-feminist and in many places anti-woman. Even GirlWritesWhat, who I feel as… Read more »
Well the internet isn’t the place to find updated social theory. Okay, in some spaces it is…but in general, the internet isn’t where you’re going to find the most forward-thinking debates about gender theory. Your analysis of rape culture theory, for example, is fitting…if we’re talking about the rather rigid version that is a few decades old. But it’s been updated…maybe not everyone’s got the memo about the update…but it has been updated. And patriarchy theory isn’t why the FBI won’t acknowledge female-on-male rape…feminists aren’t the ones ultimately creating the legal definitions of rape. Rather, it’s the inability for the… Read more »
What is mainstream is the expression of the dominant theory. It doesn’t matter what is coming out of the academics, until it is accepted and expressed by the mainstream that sentiment is on the fringe. Heck, From Margin to Center was published in the ’80s, if the mainstream hasn’t caught up in 30 years when this stuff is being distributed, taught, and consumed within an actively engaged demographic then that shows that the majority of the mainstream doesn’t really believe it. The mainstream pays lip service to bell hooks when it suits its purpose. As for the new FBI definition,… Read more »
Well in case you come around again and catch this…right see, I totally get that. I totally get that some of the mainstream feminist positions are actually quite steeped in the patriarchal culture they are trying to overcome. Why the heck would you have such a difficult time understand that male victims of rape exist, unless you’re unable to get over your patriarchal notions that men are strong and stoic? I totally get that. But I’ve never seen a self-professed MRA that understood that. Okay, no wait…I have…but just the one. But anyway, my point is that from what I’ve… Read more »
What exactly on avoiceformen is misogyny? I`ve been reading the site for long and completely disagree with you.
http://manboobz.com/?s=a+voice+for+men
I looked at the posts on the first page. None of that is misogyny. It is just manboobs, the least credible man to ever write on the internet, trying to twist something into being against women when it is not. In fact I would argue manboobs in an excellent example of someone spreading misandry.
I guess GMP is not MRM site right?
It was when Jill Filipovic was demanding that GMP get rid of any MRA presence and called for any outlets that had ties with GMP to cut those ties until GMP did so. In fact I think the phrase was “MRA hell hole”.
Thank you all for such a thoughtful, engaging conversation.
Mark, Heather, Danny, KC, et. al.-
Your discussions were rigorous, but also kind. I had begun to give up on the GMP. Ad hominim attacks, drama, bullshit? I was just about done.
But, if I can look forward to more of this kind of interaction, I’ll certainly be back more often. In fact, these threads have encouraged me to consider trying to write something myself.
Again, thank you all.
Does it really matter whether men describe their issues using feminist frameworks or not? What does it really matter?
I feel like it’s amazing that men are actually talking about their issues in the first place, why then whale on them because they aren’t doing it in precisely the way you want them to? Maybe your way isn’t the best way, ever consider that?
After reading all the comments, I’m as awed as Mark that such an intelligent and civil discussion about Feminism and Men’s Rights could come to pass. And that after 160+ comments (combined over the two articles), the conversation is still civil and intelligent and hasn’t devolved into the personal attacks and repetitive talking-past-each-other I’ve seen on many other threads. This is exactly why I follow GMP. It seems to me that out of all the responses, Joanna articulated the most concise and direct answer to Heather’s original question about what “ideas and philosophies” define the MRM – “to draw attention… Read more »
In my mind that is exactly what really matters. I don’t care if the stigma against stay-at-home dads or negative views of fathers is due to patriarchy, evolutionary psychology, male disposability, or whatever other social theory you want to believe in; what I care about is the action taken to remove that stigma and the subsequent results that come from that action. In general the ideal world views of the MRM and feminism are the same: gender equality (IMO.) I see the primary difference between the two is in what they consider to be a priority and what consequences they… Read more »
From what I have seen the biggest criticism the MRM has of feminism is that most voices of feminism that I and they seem to hear is feminism seems to feel like it owns any and all conversations and issues related to gender equality. Damn straight. An attitude of the idea that if feminism isn’t at the center of the gender discourse then the conversation is automatically wrong. We’ve seen that unfold right here at GMP a bit last year when we got a few posts written by people almost demanding that feminism MUST be in the conversation (if not… Read more »
“In my mind that is exactly what really matters. I don’t care if the stigma against stay-at-home dads or negative views of fathers is due to patriarchy, evolutionary psychology, male disposability, or whatever other social theory you want to believe in; what I care about is the action taken to remove that stigma and the subsequent results that come from that action.” Except that in order for your actions to have any real effect and in order to have any real change…we need to understand the reasons why these problems exist. We have to understand the underlying social narratives that… Read more »
I disagree about always needing to know the underlying cause, especially in the case of dealing with social narratives. The grizzly bear example is way too simplistic and you know it. One guy guy gets bitten on the shoulder by the bear, a second guy gets clawed in in the back, and a third guy gets away without physical injuries but suffers PTSD from watching his friends get attacked. In all three cases the root cause is a bear attack, but you don’t treat each of these injuries the same way (and in all three cases the band-aid is inappropriate.)… Read more »
Um…right well…basically most of your last paragraph was rape culture theory, in a nutshell. You want to educate people about what is rape, and stop institutions (and individuals) from ignoring it when it happens. Yup, sounds about right.
But you can’t know the best way to go about educating people…and you can’t know the best way to go about fixing our institutional ignorance about rape, until you understand why those things are there in the first place. Telling people, “This is rape. Don’t do it,” doesn’t work. We tried that, and this is where we are now.
Um…right well…basically most of your last paragraph was rape culture theory, in a nutshell. You want to educate people about what is rape, and stop institutions (and individuals) from ignoring it when it happens. Yup, sounds about right. Except for the part of rape theory that insists that the reason we normalize rape is because rape is a tool used by men to keep women in fear and under man’s control. Rape culture theory ignores the fact that rape is viewed as an evil act across societies. You know the whole “king has the right to any woman he wants”… Read more »
But your bear analogy doesn’t quite work. Yes, each of the three injuries must be treated differently. But focusing on treating injuries will not prevent future bear attacks.
In my mind that is exactly what really matters. I don’t care if the stigma against stay-at-home dads or negative views of fathers is due to patriarchy, evolutionary psychology, male disposability, or whatever other social theory you want to believe in; what I care about is the action taken to remove that stigma and the subsequent results that come from that action. In general the ideal world views of the MRM and feminism are the same: gender equality (IMO.) I see the primary difference between the two is in what they consider to be a priority and what consequences they… Read more »
I think part of the problem is that feminism cleverly positioned itself as a catch all banner for all discussions dealing with gender equality. It didn’t matter if you disagreed with feminist theory or commonly held feminist views, if you wanted to discuss gender in egalitarian terms, you were a feminist damn it and would label yourself as such. Failure to do so meant you were either a coward afraid of the label, a closet misogynist, or ungrateful scum not paying proper respect to the first women who fought for equal rights. But while feminist can talk all day about… Read more »
About homophobia against gay guys. The reason I disagree with the idea that homophobia against guys is really about devaluting the feminine is the same reason I disagree with the idea that the thing that really makes the Taliban dangerous is their access to AK47s. To the Taliban the AK47s are the weapon, nothing more. If we woke up tomorrorw morning and every AK47 had disentigrated to nothing does that mean they are no longer a threat? Of course not. In a similar vein while a common (but by no means only) weapon homophobes use against gay guys is the… Read more »
I agree Danny. I like your AK47 analogy. The weapon (AK47) is a tool, but its not the tool that is the problem. But the one who use it, because as soon that tool is gone, they will look for another weapon.
We most look at the ‘elephant in the room’ is the concept of masculinity to narrow? do we need to reform masculinity and make it more inclusive? or remove it altogether?
Except that because our system is binary, everything that isn’t “acceptable masculinity” is femininity. (And everything that isn’t “acceptable femininity” is masculinity). “The key to dealing with homophobia against gay guys is to open up masculinity so that guys are free to practice it as they see fit without it being held against them for not doing it a certain way.” Feminists would agree with you…particularly anyone involved in queer theory. So a lot of homophobia is tied up with policing how men perform masculinity. If you speak with a high voice and use hand gestures and like clothes, let’s… Read more »
So far, so good. But liking clothing and speaking in a high voice isn’t just “not masculine,” it’s feminine. So homophobia is tied to men not performing masculinity well enough, because they are performing femininity too much.
But again the policing comes from “you’re aren’t ranking in masculinity high enough” regardless of how much femininity is being performed.
When approaching a guy that likes clothes and speaks in a high pitch the thought isn’t “he’s acting feminine and therefore not doing masculinity enough” its more like “he’s not doing masculinity right. what’s this? he’s doing feminine stuff.”
I hear a lot of talk from you guys about opening up masculinity, but what do you really mean by that? I’ve said on this site before, that I think any attempt to create a “new masculinity” will be just as problematic as the old one was. And if we are going to say that the “new masculinity” is that men can adopt any traits they want and still be men then wouldn’t we be correct in saying that the “new masculinity” is that there isn’t one? I’m really curious as to what you guys have to say about this… Read more »
Well, I’ll jump in here and I tend to be about getting rid of the idea of masculinity and femininity entirely. Binary systems of categorizing people’s behaviour kind of suck. Just let people be people and stop trying to force them into neat little categories.
But that’s kind of radical and if that ever does happen, it won’t be any time soon. So in the meantime let’s at least make masculinity and femininity less rigid.
I agree with you here HeatherN in that I’d rather get rid of binaries as well. The only problem I could see is that I think biological differences between the sexes may always lead to general trends in the behavior of both sexes. I know researchers are still debating the role of nature vs nurture, but I can’t help but wonder if regardless of our culture the differences between the sexes will still generally manifest in some way. Because of this men or women who fall outside of the behavior and actions generally seen within their gender will still face… Read more »
I suggest reading Agustin Fuentes’ book “Race, Monogamy, and Other Lies They Told You,” or check out his article here at GMP: https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/8-myths-about-sex-differences/
But also, whether or not some behaviours are more likely in men or women, kind of misses the point. The point is about how our culture talks about those differences. Do we even associate those differences with gender, or do we recognize it as a spectrum in which different individuals behave differently? Or do we treat it as we do now; a binary in which everyone must fit into one or the other.
I’m familiar with most of the info in that article, but its not the only point of view. I notice that at number 7 for example, he says that men don’t actually want more sex than women and points to the reported amount of sex that both genders have. But I don’t see how that proves anything if the question is whether men or women desire sex more, not how successfully they get it. There was a study done, that showed that men think about sex more and get aroused more easily. Looking at number 4, I think most people… Read more »
“In fact in general a lot of the article seems to be saying “the differences aren’t as big as some think and culture plays a role as well”.”
Yeah, basically, that’s a good general summary of the article. It’s not all that revolutionary, except that it’s coming from an anthropologist and not a gender studies type. And, yes, categorizing is in human nature and categorizing by sex is easy…but it’s also kind of lazy and really fraught. We seem to be unable to simply categorize without enforcing those categories, and creating a hierarchy for those categories.
I don’t think it’s that radical, although I do disagree with the idea of just letting people be people. I think we do need to have some sort of standard by which we determine if someone’s actions are acceptable for society, and I see these behaviors as being focused on universal qualities rather than something that should be considered a masculine or feminine trait, valuing things like integrity, ambition, compassion, respect, and personal responsibility, all qualities that I expect of both the men and women in my life.
Heather, It seems to me that the message of the militant MRM movement is reaching more and more men who, to follow HeatherN’s analogy, are not militant Republicans. This new wave of men fall across the entire political spectrum. I, for one, am a progressive. But I see and acknowledge the legal and social mechanisms cited by both MRMs and Feminists. But any of these analogies we seek to use are all blunt tools. They attempt to shift the frame of the discussion by deconstructing labels but they simply rely on more labels. (Awkward at best.) It is however, central… Read more »
I keep asking because I want to see what such a space would look like. But okay, I can see how my continued rigid use of “MRM” can be polarizing. You ask if by pointing out the extremist element in the MRM, that creates an “upper hand” for feminism? I suppose my questions could be used that way, but that’s really not my goal. I’m just genuinely interested in finding non-radical MRM spaces. And of course I’m not suggesting the MRM needs to eliminate radical voices in order to be on equal footing with feminism. Feminists have clearly not eliminated… Read more »
“So not even the “right” direction, necessarily…show me an MRM group whose anger isn’t directed at feminists and/or women…I guess that’s what I’m asking for.” Well you seem to be taking the position of feminism has no blame, but you do read the MRM stuff right? They have some fucking goood points about SOME parts of feminism actually doing harm and being bad. I disagree with them when they generalize heavily but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see harmful feminist work at play. Look up “The plan – Australian domestic violence” and the gendered bullshit added to that,… Read more »
Through this conversation, and some others, I think there are kind of two main ways in which feminism bumps up against the MRM’s ideas. The first, is in interpreting the data about things that are happening now. – so MRM concepts like the “success object,” misandry, male disposability, etc. For starters, they tend to be reactionary to feminism, which we kind of talked about in these comments. But more, they’re just wrong…and that sounds judgemental but just give me a second here. After this conversation (and others, but particularly this one), it strikes me that the reason I think a… Read more »
Who gets to define an “official” mens rights space? As a proponent of men’s rights, I consider my official space to be the Good Men Project. Perhaps not what a lot of MRMs would consider an official MRM space, but official spaces, be they feminist or MRM, are not typically the places where generative dialogue and communication are going to occur. Because those spaces tend to be more about consolidating and organizing ideology. However, I do believe the Good Men Project is an MRM space (and a feminist space and a space for everybody else, too). Because it is clearly… Read more »
But GMP doesn’t identify itself as an MRM space. That’s what I mean…spaces which identify themselves as being part of the MRM. (As I said, there are tons of spaces that seek to examine masculinity and are proponents of men that are wicked awesome…not one that identifies as MRM). Here’s the thing, most feminist spaces aren’t anti-male (and even a few aren’t automatically anti-MRM)…not a lot online that aren’t anti-MRM I’ll grant you, but that’s generally because of a lot of what I described above. And it might sound like a bit of a challenge, and I guess it is… Read more »
My sense is that like the first feminists, the first MRM’s are the sharp edge of an awakening among men in general. The MRM movement is going to evolve. Good point about many men and women not falling in either camp. I guess what I was getting at was that we all fall prey to pressures that are far more about class and economics than specifically gender. I call myself a Men’s Rights advocate. I care about a lot of the issues that the MRM movement cares about. I would suggest that we be careful not dismiss the voices of… Read more »
“My sense is that like the first feminists, the first MRM’s are the sharp edge of an awakening among men in general.” I’d be more open to that as a possibility if so much of what I’ve seen among the MRM wasn’t a call for a return to “the good old days” before feminism. With the exception of being pro-stay-at-home-father, I see a lot of the same traditional gender norms being perpetuated in MRM spaces. I mean, not just the outright misogynistic gender norms…just general gender norms. Actually, a lot of times it seems kind of counter to what they… Read more »
you’re holding MRAs to a standard that feminists don’t even meet. You’re asking for a consistency of philosophy when feminists have “waves” that are con stantly fighting eachother.
For the record “return to gender roles!” people are actually traditionalists. The usual response from mras is to tell them to screw off.
Note: just because someone disagrees with feminists doesn’t make them an MRA (And also, just because feminists don’t like them doesn’t make them MRAs either- i.e Pick up artists.)
Agreed, Heather, does feminism even have the standard you’re using? I don’t think I’ve ever seen a NON anti-MRA feminist site/place, I have seen some that don’t seem to have misandry but they do feel rare.
Side-note, I am not an MRA, nor a feminist. Only term I would use is egalitarian. I am critical of both feminism and the MRA, but I am not anti-feminist nor anti-mra. Some parts of both movements I find are good, other parts are not.
” I see complaints of the way in which men’s emotions are denied them…and then a rallying cry that glorifies the way men will sacrifice themselves without regard for their own well being. You see the problem there, right?” There’s no problem here. MRA’s want to be allowed to have emotions, and part of that means being allowed to CHOOSE to sacrifice themselves without being EXPECTED to. The phrase “women and children first” riles up a lot of MRAs because it’s an expectation inherent in society that men have the responsibility to place themselves last in life-or-death situations. It tells… Read more »
Oh, and one other point, Heather. Why does the space you want to see where MRM’s are playing nice have to have MRM emblazoned on the masthead to be legitimate for your purpose? Just asking. Cause that privileges a certain kind of official space as legitimate over other more open spaces (like the GMP). I’m not sure why MRMs making nice here wouldn’t qualify as proof that such creatures exist.
Ah see I think you misunderstand. I’m not questioning whether MRAs are out there that can make nice with feminists. I’ve met plenty of individuals who do. I’m also not questioning whether there are spaces out there that deal with men’s issues that can play nice with feminists who come across them…again, I’ve come across those who do.
But the argument I usually see isn’t that “hey not everyone talking about men’s issues is bad.” The argument I see is usually “Hey the MRM isn’t all bad.” The MRM…so that’s what I asked my question about…the MRM.
But the argument I usually see isn’t that “hey not everyone talking about men’s issues is bad.” The argument I see is usually “Hey the MRM isn’t all bad.” The MRM…so that’s what I asked my question about…the MRM.
But wouldn’t those individuals MRAs that are trying to talk things out with feminists proof that the MRM isn’t all bad? Or are you looking for a single mass gathering of MRMs that are trying to talk things out with feminists?
The second one, yeah. Doesn’t even have to be massive. I’m looking for an MRM space where the collective isnt anti-feminist and misogynistic. I’ve bren thinking…Mark compared men an women to Catholics an Protestants in Iteland. I think it’s more like the MRM and feminism are like the Republicans and Democrats. Both sides got crazies an both sides got stubborn ideologs who won’t see reason. BUT the difference is that the Republicans keep getting more radical and are anti-Democrat even to their own detriment. (I’m castin the feminists as the Dems, by the way). Republicans aren’t inherently horrible people and… Read more »
Republicans aren’t inherently horrible people and there are some absolutely lovely Republicans out there…
I’ll take that for now. As long as you aren’t running around just trashing anything that remotely resembles Republican.
Is there any feminist area where they are NOT hardened anti-MRA? The hypocrisy I so often see on some feminist websites is that they complain of MRA’s hating feminism and treating them like a monolith with generalizations, yet in the same breath they do the EXACT same thing back to the MRA’s showing their bigotry of the MRM. I’m not sure either group has a major site that is free from anti-mra or anti-feminist talk. But by antifeminist do you mean critical of SOME parts of feminism, or critical of ALL of it? I am anti-someparts but I love<3 other… Read more »
Pellebilling.com
The first, is in interpreting the data about things that are happening now. – so MRM concepts like the “success object,” misandry, male disposability, etc. For starters, they tend to be reactionary to feminism, which we kind of talked about in these comments. The reason that would happen is because we are talking about concepts that feminim has either not accounted for or have not been included very much since someone brought them up in the past. Its not like the fact that something is reactionary means its wrong. But more, they’re just wrong…and that sounds judgemental but just give… Read more »
But you can’t focus on a piece of the pie without recognising how it fits into the rest of the pie, or whatever. There’s a reason such a thing as a feminist critique of capitalism exists. Gender is everywhere…it seeps into parts of our culture when we don’t even realise. So if you want to look at men’s issues with any hope of really addressing them, you gotta put them in context.
What I’m saying is that there are thing that even feminism has a problem with as far as focusing on a piece of the pie without taking the entire pie into account. Yes gender is everywhere and we can’t just acknowledge it when it suits us. I think MRAs saw that feminism was doing that and responded by doing the same.
That’s part of how feminism’s grown. It went from “hey women can’t vote; women should be able to vote,” to documenting and analysing the various ways in which women are screwed over…to then challenging the very notion of gender itself.
But that doesn’t change the fact that ignoring the larger social construct hinders a movement.
Yes and the MRM will have to grow in its own way. I think that some of the points that come up actually are taking larger contructs into account.
But you can’t focus on a piece of the pie without recognising how it fits into the rest of the pie, or whatever. It depends on what you are looking for. If you want to know what is in the pie or how big it is, a piece of pie gets that job done. If you want to know how to make a pie, then you will need to look for broader answers. There’s a reason such a thing as a feminist critique of capitalism exists. Yet that is just an examination from a feminist perspective on how it affects… Read more »
I’ve been told by MRAs that the MRM actually DOES have an ideological basis – to draw attention to, and gather support for, men’s issues that often go ignored or unreported.
The MRM doesn’t have a set of canonical texts, formally, as feminism does, but I think a lot of MRAs would be upset to learn that their only ideological framework is their anti-feminism.
Jacob, I think she’s genuinely looking for sites that are MRM-based that are pro-woman. Do they exist?
The MRM doesn’t have a set of canonical texts, formally, as feminism does, but I think a lot of MRAs would be upset to learn that their only ideological framework is their anti-feminism.
Well if their basis was anti-feminism in the first place then probably so.
On the other hand if their basis was on things that both the system and feminism have either not addressed or have addressed in an insufficient manner then I don’t think they’d be too disappointed because a specific anti-feminism angle wasn’t their basis.
Why would a Mens Rights Advocate site need to be PRO WOMAN.
Wouldn’t that be like asking a civil rights site to be PRO WHITE.
Okay, but there are feminist spaces that would fit your definition of not anti-male or misanderous. There are feminist spaces which focus very specifically on men’s issues, after all. Not a lot. There is a need for more. And there are feminists out there who would just as soon ignore them because they don’t think men’s issues are important. Yes. BUT those spaces do exist.
I’m not asking so that I can look them up, and then jump down your throat because I think they’re anti-woman, or something. I’m looking out of a genuine desire to see them.
There are feminist spaces which focus very specifically on men’s issues, after all. Not a lot. There is a need for more.
By chance where are they?
Heather, Pelle Billing’s blog is quite neutral. So are RADAR and Menactivism. However, you may think different because, as I wrote, we may have a different view of what counts as sexist. When you ask for a men’s rights group that does not direct its anger towards feminists or women, you set up an unfair standard. People tend to direct their anger at those they critique, and they usually critique those who hurt them the most. Your question is akin to me asking you to show me a feminist group whose anger is not directed at men. You cannot because… Read more »
Two things: first, feminist groups aren’t angry at men…they don’t actually direct their anger at men. Well, I mean of course some do…RadFemHub comes to mind, some of the crap articles at Jezebel come to mind…but, in general, feminism isn’t about being angry at men. It’s about being angry at a system which values “masculinity” over “femininity” and has a pretty screwed up idea about what constitutes “masculinity” and “femininity.” And whether you agree or disagree with feminist ideas about masculinity and femininity, it doesn’t change the fact that feminism isn’t anti-man…it’s anti-status quo. Second, people do tend to direct… Read more »
econd, people do tend to direct their anger and critique toward those who have hurt them most…in the case of feminists and men’s rights groups, they actually SHARE a common enemy (so to speak). The system that’s hurt men most isn’t feminism…it’s the same status quo that’s hurt women. I think the reason some MRA types get that mixed up is because they see a system that is harming them and they see a movement of people that simultaneously says they are the ones that are helping men (and that men need them and only them to get things straightened… Read more »
Okay, except that feminism hasn’t been willing to use the system to harm men when it suits them. As I’ve argued before, feminism has certainly sometimes had a blind spot when it comes to identifying and acknowledging when the system harms men. And some branches have got a track record of placing the harm of women as a higher priority than the harm of men…yes. (But let’s be honest, any organization has got to create priorities. An environmental agency is placing their concerns as a higher priority than getting clean water to kids in developing countries…but that doesn’t always mean… Read more »
As I’ve argued before, feminism has certainly sometimes had a blind spot when it comes to identifying and acknowledging when the system harms men. And some branches have got a track record of placing the harm of women as a higher priority than the harm of men…yes. (But let’s be honest, any organization has got to create priorities. An environmental agency is placing their concerns as a higher priority than getting clean water to kids in developing countries…but that doesn’t always mean the individuals in that organization don’t care about kids in developing countries without clean water, or whatever). There’s… Read more »
They wouldn’t have reacted the way they did when the disagreements started? They wouldn’t have reacted to you the way that they did? They had their chance? – Danny, you’re still very much treating this like an “us” and “them” situation. The reason you get so many feminists arguing that men’s rights needs to be addressed through feminism…and the very reason you had me talking about how problematic I find it that the MRM is reinventing the wheel….is because we DON’T view this as an “us” and “them” situation. (Well, okay, again, yes, RadFemHub…certain idiots on Jezebel…standard exceptions). I don’t… Read more »
I don’t think men’s issues need to be placed under the umbrella of feminism. I think they need to be addressed by building off a feminist theoretical framework. I think the second sentence belies the first. Whether you use an umbrella metaphor or a building (or a tree, or meal, or whatever…), you’re still asserting that the proper framework for men’s rights is feminism. Based not just on this comment, but on the totality of what “feminist theory” means according to abundant articles and comments by you and other feminists, I interpret that to mean that the the theoretical framework… Read more »
“Under the umbrella,” implies wanting men’s issues groups to conform to feminist theory and wanting them to take on the label of “feminist.” What I mean by building off a feminist framework…is to engage critically with a feminist framework…not necessarily conform to it or even take on the label. But, the key there is engaging critically…not being reactionary. So right now, as I said in the comments that became this article, what we’ve got are a lot of MRA types saying “This is what I think feminists think, and so I think the opposite.” – But that’s not engaging critically… Read more »
They wouldn’t have reacted the way they did when the disagreements started? They wouldn’t have reacted to you the way that they did? They had their chance? – Danny, you’re still very much treating this like an “us” and “them” situation. I would love for it to not be “us vs them” Heather but after repeated attempts at trying to get along that’s how I was treated. That there is an us and them that are locked in battle and cannot work together. I’m all for making this about “us” on a united front. I’ll say it like this. There… Read more »
Heather, I would agree that feminists do not think they direct their anger towards men. However, even when feminists think they are railing against “the system” they direct that fury at men. Look at the articles posted here in the last two weeks. All of the discussions about “rape culture” eventually boil down to feminists saying that boys and men, not the system, need to change. It is akin to the Christian “hate the sin, not the sinner” trope. It is a great catchphrase, yet in reality all the hate gets directed at the sinner. Obviously feminists would not view… Read more »
No, all the conversations about rape culture (that I’ve seen anyway…haven’t read absolutely every comment), boil down to feminists saying the system needs to change the way we socialize boys and men. It’s really not “hate the sin, not the sinner.” It’s more like, “hate the system that created the idea that the sin is normal and excusable.” – And really, the whole “sin,” “sinner” comparison doesn’t work anyway….a “sin” is something that is arbitrarily determined to be bad. In the case of rape culture, we’re talking about an act (rape) that actually harms people. Oh also, thanks for giving… Read more »
Heather, you mentioned that no feminist organization uses their cultural economic, or political system to harm men. Several weeks ago, Indian feminist groups used their political power to remove gender neutrality from the new proposed rape statute. As a result, the proposal now states that only men can be charged with rape and sexual assault and that only women can be victims of rape. Feminist groups did this specifically to prevent men from filing rape charges against women. As for feminists agreeing with you about the value of feminist theoretical framework, of course they would agree with you. They value… Read more »
“Heather, you mentioned that no feminist organization uses their cultural economic, or political system to harm men. Several weeks ago, Indian feminist groups used their political power to remove gender neutrality from the new proposed rape statute. As a result, the proposal now states that only men can be charged with rape and sexual assault and that only women can be victims of rape. Feminist groups did this specifically to prevent men from filing rape charges against women. ” But feminism would never hurt men…Duluth model in domestic violence support is also pretty fucking terrible towards men too, and the… Read more »
What the?
Beware!
The Paradox Police are coming and are going to shut this whole thing down hard! I’m running for the exits now. Can’t you guys hear the sirens!!!!
RUNN!!!
Thumbs up, I like it…
Dear Mark Greene, HeatherN, Erik, Danny, etc.: OMG! THANK YOU SO MUCH for this discussion!
I’ve been longing and searching for an intelligent, civil, open-minded gender discourse for quite some time now, and you have delivered. Keep it coming! I’d join in but it’s obvious that I’m not so well-read or articulate as all of you seem to be ;o)
PS. I love the Good Men Project