Zek J. Evets challenges both Feminism and Masculism on the hate and bitterness that threaten to undermine the fight for gender equality.
♦◊♦
The Problem With The F-Word
It seems every day on this site the debate rages around what is Feminism. Is it a systemic movement for gender equality? Or is it a misandric ideology no longer relevant in modern society?
The definition of Feminism (via Feminists) states upfront: Feminism is a movement for social, cultural, political and economic equality of men and women. It is a campaign against gender inequalities and it strives for equal rights.
Feminism is, in large part, responsible for such breakthrough legislation such as the Equal Pay Act of 1963 that requires that men and women be given equal pay for equal work in the same establishment; the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 where an employee (male or female) can take up to a total of 12 weeks of unpaid leave to take care of their newborn, adopt a child or foster child, care for an ill immediate family member, or take care of a personal serious health condition (without losing your job); the passage of Title IX so girls and women could play sports in public schools and colleges funded with our tax dollars; and the passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1991 so you can’t be fired if you become pregnant (among other things). These accomplishments have become hallmarks of Feminism’s undeniable impact on the socio-cultural fabric of America.
♦◊♦
But there is a “dark side” to this movement. Like “The Force” of Star Was fame, Feminism is a powerful force that can be used for good… or for oppression. Feminists have a well-documented history of throwing racial minorities, LGBTQ communities, and the general population of men under the bus. Why? For the cause. For privileged White women. For structural Radical Feminism, such as that seen in the actions of figures as disparate as Valerie Solanas, Mary Daly, and even Sharon Osbourne. It existed in moments such as Slutwalk’s Infamous Slur Sign. It was there when Lavender Menace formed, when Sheila Jeffreys wrote that transgendering is self-mutilation, and when Janice Raymond published The Transsexual Empire as a condemnation of transsexuality. It eviscerated my composure when Jezebel author Erin Gloria Ryan asked the misandric question, “What if Penn State’s coach had victimized girls?” These types of Feminists represent the lowest common denominator of identity politics.
Subversively there exists a zeitgeist-like acceptance that if you believe in gender equality, then you must be a Feminist. There’s this sense of ownership over gender issues and equality that permeates the entire conversation. I see it when people who refuse to identify as Feminist—even when they’re women!—are subsequently held in suspicion, if not immediately ostracized. Audre Lourde knows what I’m talking about.
My girlfriend and I frequently have this debate. Because I’m pro-choice, anti-rape, and support an equal rights amendment, she believes me to be a Feminist. But what she humorously neglects to mention is that I include father’s rights into my stance on abortion, that I think rape-culture effectively silences male victims, and equal rights means equal responsibilities.
♦◊♦
Despite protestations to the contrary, there are disparate groups who feel required to qualify themselves when they say, “I’m all for gender equality, but I’m not a Feminist”. The list is myriad: Some Black women, many in the Latino communities, the Transgendered, Republicans, Muslims, and a gamut of miscellaneous Americans who often feel, whether justifiably or not, that Feminism just isn’t for them.
Why is this? Why the backlash against a movement which ostensibly sells itself as promoting gender equality? Because, like with so many religions, the message is muddied by the actions of its adherents.
But I guess my problem with the F-word was predestined. It began the moment I read Jane Austen and was bored. I tried Virginia Woolf, Andrea Dworkin, Jaclyn Friedman, Gloria Steinem, Jessica Valenti, Betty Friedan, and more. I sat down with The Bell Jar for weeks trying to understand what it was that my female friends raved about. (Suffice to say all I recognized were poetic Daddy issues.) The more I read about Feminism, the more I felt excluded from the gender conversation, and the more I realized that all these women didn’t really care to understand or work with me in creating a better society, because I was a man. It was polarizing. It was uncomfortable. It made me wonder if I had anything to contribute at all. It left me feeling guilty for my mere anatomical difference.
Meanwhile, this narrative I found within Feminist literature played out in Feminist politics. The exclusion that I read in all those books has become an exclusion I see played out in the real world, far from the Ivory Towers of Academia or Government that mainstream Feminism has increasingly removed itself to. Far from the problems of everyday men and women that constantly crop up, like cracks in an otherwise perfect picture of Rosie the Riveter.
Rape shield laws were campaigned for that allow relevant information about accusers to be withheld from evidence. NOW advocates increasing equality of women in the military, but don’t include adding women to the draft. Domestic violence shelters for male victims are unfunded and shutting down while Feminist politicians say, erroneously, that since more women are abused than men we should focus on them. Fathers are forced from their children’s lives, and the Lace Curtain hangs like an impenetrable veil separating them, splattered with message: Who Has It Worse?
♦◊♦
But it’s more than just that. It can be something as small as where to leave the toilet-seat or something as impossibly huge as the prison-industrial complex. And every time men stop to point these out, self-righteous indignation falls like the crash of a hammer. “How dare we talk about men suffering when there are so many women out there who need help!” It’s a strange thing how the prejudice we protest becomes internalized within ourselves.
Meanwhile, as I’ve searched farther afield for better answers than those contained within Ms. magazine, I stumbled upon subcultures within subcultures: Womanism, which introduced me to Alice Walker and the intersectionality of race & gender; Antifeminism, where I discovered the work of Daphne Patai and her theories on the creation of micromanaged male-female relations through pronounced hostility; and Ethecofeminism, where the philosophical nuances of Feminist morality is questioned Socratic-style.
But what I found that truly impacted me was this thing, called Masculism; the radical notion that men are people and can be oppressed based on their gender. From Warren Farrell to The Spearhead, the Men’s Rights Movement is so diverse it’s almost divisive. We’re like a herd of cats, all clawing at each other in order to escape this goddamn sack circumscribed as our masculinity. Masculism has become an alternative, a poignant story all its own, voicing more than just the problems with the F-word.
It’s our story about what it’s really like to be a man.
The Problem With The M-Word:
The “M” words: Masculism, the Men’s Rights Movement, and Men’s Rights Advocates. I am a Masculist, hear me roar. I support Men’s rights, and fervently support my brothers around the world. But lately, I’ve been asking myself: are we a new face in the fight for gender equality, or are we a loose collection of vitriolic misogynists?
The definition of Masculism (via The Web): refers to political, cultural, and economic movements aimed at establishing and defending political, economic, and social rights and participation in society for men and boys. These rights include legal issues, such as those of conscription, custody, alimony, and equal pay for equal work. Its concepts coincide with those of men’s rights, father’s rights, and men’s liberation.
Masculism is often referred to as antifeminism, and associated with advocacy of male superiority or dominance. Masculism is concerned with a variety of issues which receive little to no attention in mainstream society: female-to-male rape, male victims of domestic violence, discrimination, male suicide, criminal violence, humorous depictions of violence against males, failing scholastic achievements among men and boys, as well as numerous other issues.
We haven’t yet been able to create one definition for Masculism that everybody agrees with. The Men’s Rights movement is so diverse as to be divisive. We’ve amassed profeminists, Male Rights Advocates (MRA), Radical Faeries, Father’s 4 Justice/Equal Rights, The National Center for Men, antifeminists, Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), Pick-Up Artists (PUA), Mythopoets, and more subcultures are cropping up every day. The blogs are endless, and the followers stretch from Asia to Mexico. Even the Promise Keepers give us a nod, though we rarely acknowledge it.
♦◊♦
Put in greater social context, Masculism isn’t even recognized as a word (neither is misandry, according to Microsoft Word) and it’s relatively new to the socio-political fabric of America. Currently it has not succeeded in helping to pass any legislation or agenda it has supported specifically. With the sole exception of Dubay v. Wells, Masculism has not engaged in significant legal action on behalf of other men. Activism among the movement is in large part relegated to low-level grassroots groups, websites, blogs, and forums, with very little direct action on a large scale.
But more importantly, bleeding into our message is that we are confrontational, we are angry, we are… just like a bunch of bra-burning, armpit hair-having radfems. A commenter by the name of Transhuman put it like this,
“So, the MRM will be old-style masculine for a while; it will respond with anger (the one emotion men are socially “permitted” to display), it will have oppositional politics, some of the bitter and harmed members will want revenge. These are the early days. Already there are men contributing to the MRM that can see a better direction; that are willing to offer a sympathetic ear to men who have been told to “shut up and just deal with it” or the reprehensible “man up”. Men that are encouraging other men to feel that other emotions are right and true and that all men should feel supported in expressing themselves, without needing to seek approval from women.”
Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free
Why have we come from such a place of negativity? Is it because we’ve been circumscribed by our masculinity, or because we chose it knowing it would make sure we were heard? This is an important criticism of the MRM that needs to be addressed: as much as we talk about the misandry of Feminism, it is undeniable that the MRM is replete with misogyny, and a lot of it comes from the MRA.
Often times I’ve seen MRAs attempt to co-opt Masculism, to redefine it as something they alone birthed. In one sense they are correct—Men’s Rights have no more fervent supporters than the MRAs—but it fails to recognize the legions of men who aren’t embittered or jaded, or all that radical, and who have contributed just as much, if not more. There are men, like me, who love and respect women, even when they’ve often shamed us into silence with words thrown like “privilege” and “patriarchy”.
♦◊♦
I discovered Masculism years ago when I stumbled upon a website called, The Spearhead. At first it was amazing; a place where all the issues I knew but had never heard openly discussed were being given serious thought. When I read the comments it became somewhat disconcerting. A multitude of old, angry, embittered White men who talked constantly about their divorces, ex-wives, kids they didn’t see (or that they hated), and how hard their lives were because the world didn’t respect or care for them. I felt a deep sense of pity, having seen what a similar situation did to my father. At the same time I was averse to the deep, seething misogyny. “Fucking bitches, cunts, whores, sluts, femiskanks, they deserve to be raped, deserve to die, forget about ’em, not for me, never for me, I’m staying the hell away.” On and on and on. It was, and is, the most incredible mixture of hate and suffering that I’ve ever read.
Many of our brothers openly admit to hating, fearing, and mistrusting women. Some relish in their suffering. Some become instantly defensive, like bombs exploding over and over again, whenever a woman speaks to them. They remind me of Furies seeking retribution. And against who? Against Feminists, females, and maybe even society, forever, until the Big Crunch. But where does it come from?
For many this anger and fear comes from emotional scars they bear from ex-wives and ex-girlfriends who abused them. For others it comes from paranoia and fear of what could happen, like prison-rape or unwanted children. Still more talk about being shamed and shut-out, being labeled creeps and rapists. I see them in the comments section here, and across the blogosphere crying, frothing at the mouth, seemingly as crazy as people like Amanda Marcotte would have us believe.
♦◊♦
We need to talk about this. We need to talk about George Sodini, who killed innocent women because they wouldn’t sleep with him, but also because nobody cared that he was completely and utterly alone in this world. We need to talk about Tom Ball, self-immolator, our own modern-day Thic Quang Duc, who was also a child abuser. We need to talk about Paul Elam’s rape-apology and Roissy’s abusive dating tactics.
We need to talk about the Men’s Rights Subreddit, filled to the brim with such virulent misogyny that even David Futrelle can’t be considered misandric for calling it out. Recently, the MRM was classified as a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center. In response to this, a commenter in the Men’s Rights Subreddit, who claims MRA all the way, believes down to the salt of his bones that’s a good thing. Straight-up no chaser. DaNiceguy (ironic handle, right?) states,
“Yes, we’ve done very well to get this far. To be classified as a hate group by such a large organization is the first step to gaining wider recognition. In other words, we are starting to make an impact. As far as I’m concerned, our detractors can keep calling us a dangerous hate group until they’re blue in the face and I will applaud their stupidity every single time.”
Is there a man among us who isn’t ashamed by this? I know I am. This is not the Masculism I believe in. But there it is nonetheless, staring me in the face with a soulless grin as if to say, “What now?”
I don’t know. Unless we solve the problems with the M-word, we very well could become just another hate group relegated to media stereotypes and obscurity. Masculism won’t make it by being reactionary; it needs to be proactive. It needs to promote change instead of instigate flame-wars. I know we’ve suffered, and that we’re hurting, but our message cannot be one of fear, anger, or hate. I’ve been down that road, and it only ends in bitter regret.
So consider this my caution and my hope, let’s become better men. Let’s become the men we want to be, and watch how the world changes with us.
I suppose it is politically expedient for an MRA to tout gender equality. However, ‘equality’ between men and women does not and cannot exist. Two things that are different can’t be equal by definition. Men and women have different strengths that are complimentary and when we cooperate lead to the success of the human species. Equality also can’t be achieved on a legal, social and cultural basis. See: http://www.angryharry.com/esEqualityNotAchievable.htm I sincerely hope that Mr. Evets advocates for ‘equality’ between men and women because he believes that it is politically necessary to advance men’s rights, not because he has no grasp… Read more »
Zez
Roissy is not part of the mrm.
Plus there is no evidence that he said the serial killer was justified, he just pointed to sexual frustration and rejection as a contributing factor.
You are clutching at straws here, making exactly the same dishonest conflations that manboobz etc make.
Eoghan, In response to your comment in moderation calling me a charlatan and a liar… you sir have no shame. I called you no names and took justifiable offense at you refusing to even argue in good faith. I asked if you are trolling because you appear to not even be bothered to read my article before commenting, denying that I wrote things which I did, saying I wrote things which I did not, and continuously derailing the conversation weeks after this article was posted. You’ve asked for proof even after proof was already given in my post. Then I… Read more »
Hi Guys,
We like to keep discussions as civil as possible. Please refrain from making personal attacks. Thank you.
” I do not waste my time talking with closed minded folks.”
Or apparently anyone with a cogent argument.
Paul Elam’s rape apology? Where?
WHERE?!
Danny
So, there isn’t a portion. There are only malicious rumors that have been spread by the usual suspects, that’s all that can be found.
I’d say that this piece has a larger potential audience than the usual suspects have now, and this piece that;s using the same devices that the usual suspects use, is here in this particular section for anyone to see. Obviously I can’t say for sure that this is deliberate, but it certainly seems to me that something is not quite right.
Can this junk be removed or at least be corrected?
Now moderators here are repeating its b/s about a serial killer as if its truth.
I’m not claiming anything about Sodini. I’m saying that anyone who commits a murder spree as such is mentally ill, not necessarily influenced by a particular political philosophy. Sodini was mentally ill and did bad things. So no, I’m not repeating BS.
Its good that you aren’t Julie but fact of the matter is that is the light that Sodini is remembered in. He has been cast, largely by feminists, as a woman hating jerk that got mad because he wasn’t getting as much pussy as he thought he deserved and went on a killing spree over it. Makes it easier to hold him up as representation of MRAs and PUAs everyone I guess.
Not unlike Solanas, huh? She was a mentally ill radical who wrote a mostly unreadable manifesto that people rejected and shot a major figure because she felt she was being fucked over. Yep, all us modern feminists just love that Solanas! I’ve read things on this very site claiming/referencing that feminists love Solanas and want to castrate men or kill male babies. I must surely be doing this feminism thing wrong since I really really dig having sexysex with men and adore my male offspring. I must hide! They’ll take my Feminazi card away! Blame the freakin’ media, pundits and… Read more »
I’m done with this exchange. I’m losing my cool. Take it easy.
I know that Sodini wasn’t an MRA! I’m not saying he was! I know Solanas was a feminist. I ‘m not denying she wasn’t.
They both were extremely mentally ill and acted in such a way that damaged people greatly. And anyone taking advantage of that for news, for media, for pots shots isn’t ok in my book, in either direction.
I know that Sodini wasn’t an MRA! I’m not saying he was! I know Solanas was a feminist. I ‘m not denying she wasn’t.
Very true and I’ve said as much.
I was backing out of this because I was starting to lose it a bit (and truthfully I think you are too, understandably so) and once that happens the conversation is doomed to go only down hill.
Sorry for getting you riled up Julie.
Back at you. No worries.
Has this Sodini character been celebrated by any mra’s? I can find quite a few radfems that celebrate Solanas, I am wondering if there is a similar effort amongst some radical mra’s?
Have no idea. No one should be celebrating someone who didn’t get the help they actually needed and wound up killing people. It’s not entirely apples to apples since Solanas wanted to be a voice in the feminist world though my understanding was that she was rejected by mainstream, and rightly so. I don’t think we should eliminate history though. I’d think it important to read her (or any radical during a period of massive social change) for the insights it brings and the directions in which NOT to go. But I’m actually fond of history, the people flawed and… Read more »
No, Jessica Valenti, Amanda Marcotte, David Futrelle and people like that like to claim that he is connected to the mens movement. The author of this piece has used the same tactic.
There is no connection, not in his writings not anywhere to the mens rights movement,
Actually there is. Google it. Roissy was particularly well-known for stating that Sodini’s actions were justified. I’m not saying the MRM as a whole support him, but he has been used as a rallying point. You can deny it, but it’s true. But it shouldn’t matter unless you think one bad person invalidates Men’s Rights. So in response to your other comment that I take it out of MY article, my answer is: No. I will not redact statements which are true. No matter how much it annoys you, or how much you believe it hurts the movement to state… Read more »
Zek Since when is Roissy part of the MRM, since manboobz said so? And going by what came up on google, roissy is not supporting him. What you are doing here is not right at all. There are is laundry list of feminist violence, that you would know about if you had done your homework, the intimidation and threatening of researcher and activists, the angry brigades terrorism, solanas, funding violent marxist terror groups in the middle east , calling for gendercide, celebrating lorena bobbit and so on. Yet you are using leaps to attach a mentally ill serial killer and… Read more »
To be certain there were a portion of MRAs that did align with Sodini’s actions. The problem is folks while like Zek here actually recognizes that the ones that did do not represent the entire movement while the likes of Marcotte and Futrelle actively thrive on the deception (not sure if Valenti did or not). And isn’t just amazing that Zek doesn’t have the massive feminist following that those other two do?
Which portion Danny?
I have not seen the tragedy and us conflated anywhere baring dishonest hit pieces by the usual suspects.
I’ll admit that “portion” I spoke of were individuals here and there, not a unified bunch.
But I’ll say againt at least Zek recognizes it would be unfair to act like MRAs as a whole ID’s with Sodini’s actions versus the feminists that did.
Again, Zek doesn’t generalize and doesn’t have a big audience.
Marcotte and Futrelle have fans that will defend their deceptions.
Thanks Danny, And it should be noted (once again) that I AM NOT a Feminist. I’m a Masculist and active in the MRM in my community. I regularly advocate for men’s rights and point out the problems of Feminism FAR far more than I do vice versa — but that doesn’t mean I never do, or never will, especially when people are using the issues I care about to further advance dangerous or ignorant agendas. The MRA’s who support Sodini do not represent me, but it’d be foolish for me to act like Feminists do and pretend they’re not part… Read more »
Was Solini himself an MRA or just some random idiot who a few radmra’s used to rally behind? (if they did?) Valerie Solanas was a published radical feminist who committed violence and I’ve seen quite a few sites and groups that seem to use her as their champion, their rally cry. It’s far more misandric, far more extreme and elaborate than ANYTHING I’ve ever seen from the MRA. The most I’ve seen from the mra in fact is a few angry dudes sick of “bitches” and quite frankly just need to meet some decent women to set them straight. The… Read more »
Well I’m not getting into the discussion about Solanas versus Solini. What I will say is that I’ve seen really hateful things from both camps (radical MRAs and radical feminists). You’ve got the radical feminists aspect covered, so I won’t go into detail with that. On the radical MRA side, I just read an article by an MRA suggesting that all women actually want to be raped. Shit gets ugly all around.
No he hasn’t Archy.
Conflating him with men’s rights is a dirty tactic that certain well known people in the debate have used.
Ah ok, thought as much.
Actually Archy, I answered your question a couple of times throughout the thread. Sodini had a lot of support from people like Roissy, Ferdinand Bardamu, Half Sigma, and many of their commenters, as well as commenters at antimisandry.com, and others. What was most telling though, and I saw this myself: was that nobody was modded, nobody really protested, and nobody even really challenged the support Sodini got in this cirlces. It was as if his ideas were truly accepted amongst these particular communities of MRA’s. Unfortunately, Eoghan had a bit of a fit after being told that Sodini and MRA’s… Read more »
Sorry been in hospital for last few days. Got any direct links? (I’m a lil doped out of my head atm from post op drugs :P).
Archy, The comments at Roissy’s and Ferdinand Bardamu’s sites aren’t up anymore since both those guys shut down amidst controversy in order to start newer websites (Chateau Heartiste and In Mala Fide respectively) but Alas A Blog! (though I somewhat hate Ampersand) has most of the comments archived here: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2009/08/06/mens-rights-activists-anti-feminists-and-other-misogynists-comment-on-george-sodini/ Also, you mentioned: Was Solini himself an MRA or just some random idiot who a few radmra’s used to rally behind? (if they did?) Valerie Solanas was a published radical feminist who committed violence and I’ve seen quite a few sites and groups that seem to use her as their… Read more »
Sodini and Solanas aren’t comparable.
Solanas is being shown to school children in Sweden, and in libraries and feminist reading lists and there is SCUM related activities, while the other guy, despite the OPs claims and referencing a dishonest piece on Jezebelle, is not part of the mrm not is he celebrated by it.
Its apples and oranges.
Eoghan, I never said they were comparable. Unless you can point to me where I directly state that I’d appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. Actually, I’d prefer it if you just read my post finally, instead of jumping in with random accusations. That said, Sodini is used as part of the MRM, he speaks about issues common to the MRM, and too many — albeit a minority of — radical MRA’s celebrate, sympathize, and espouse his views. The Jezebel piece isn’t dishonest just because you disagree with it. Just like I’m not a liar just because you… Read more »
I was directing that at Julie.
And stop, Zek. There are no mra’s celebrating that mass murderer, there is only a piece of yellow journalism on Jezebele alleging it.
OK Julie. I would say the chances that he popped in your head as an example because of his incorporation and conflation with mra’s in this article are quite high though.
No actually, it’s because when it happened all that blather happened about it and I read it very carefully and as you pointed out, found no evidence. My point is he’s held up, wrongly, when he should have been considered mentally ill.
I’ve met many people who were extraordinarily mentally ill. Some killed people because they thought they were god. God doesn’t get the blame for that. The mental illness does.
“I read it very carefully and as you pointed out, found no evidence. My point is he’s held up, wrongly, when he should have been considered mentally ill.”
Ok fair enough. I wonder if we could get him taken out of this article. Its wrong on so many levels for people to exploit that massacre in order to try to score political points against the mrm. Its really bad form the way this articles is conflating it with members of the mens rights movement.
Even the ACLU has done some good for fathers. I remember reading on Glenn Sacks that the California branch of NOW successfully got hundreds of non-custodial dads released from jail. The reason is that they were denied a defense attorney by the court because the court process they were in was a civil court. But, California law states that if a result is prison/jail time you’re allowed an attorney in ANY type of court process. I have a lot more faith in groups like the ACLU which has championed all sides of freedom issues than in something like NOW. NOW… Read more »
That should have read “California branch of ACLU” not NOW
I’d like to correct the claim here that /r/mensrights is ” filled to the brim with such virulent misogyny”.
Anyone can visit there and see that this claim just isn’t true, as for the conflation of serial killers and the mens movement, this is just pure demagoguery.
Zek, don’t start eating your hat yet. WHy is it that someone had to dig deep into google to find NOW’s position on this? The NOW statement was 15 years ago and if there was any time that it should have surfaced was during “shock and aw” where many guys had, in the back of their minds, the draft was around the corner. When reviewing all the “agendas”, though I may have missed it, I saw nothing in the passt 12 years that said anything about how equalizing selective service to include women anywhere. So I ask “where is the… Read more »
Really? Really?!? So because NOW doesn’t have opposing gendered selective service as a cause célèbre, as one of the top issues they turn to over and over again, because they don’t publicly bang the drums loudly enough for you, that means they’re not truly concerned about it? The Supreme Court has already ruled on selective service. NOW’s side lost. You don’t usually get a second chance before the Supreme Court. They have a position, and they fought for it when there was a fight to be fought. And there is currently no conscription. Whatever was “in the back of their… Read more »
Please read Nick, Mostly’s reply to you. As he said, no deep digging. Came up in the first 10 hits for me. The rest of his response is everything I’d say and more. NOW pushed back against the ban on women in the military as far back as 1990. Women have been trying to work alongside men in the military since WW2 and it’s been a slow process for that equality. Who is the one stopping them from serving equally? Women? I really don’t think so. More like Santorum and his friends. Look at the links I provided. They aren’t… Read more »
Julie, I think there is a difference between fighting for your country being optional and it being (potentially) required. The draft isn’t so distant as some might think. My mom was forced to divorce my dad when I was five as my dad was drafted into vietnam and came back with severe ptsd and strung out on drugs. I completely lost contact with my dad as he was sick and not safe or positive to be around as a child. The october before last my dad (who I found out had been homeless the last several years) died in a… Read more »
“Also, you assume that women themselves didn’t create the culture that sacrifices men.”
Women and men together created and perpetuated the traditional gender norms that have men enrolling in selective service and women not enrolling in selective service. Feminism has advocated for changing that gender norm, so that if there is a draft women are included.
And, as pointed out NOW’s position was that a male only draft was inequitable. I believe that too. I think there should never be a draft again, for anyone. If they’ve gone up against the supreme court, which I believe Nick linked, and failed, what can be done? See Nick’s answer for more, but I agree with him.
I hate war. I hate compelling people to fight in wars they don’t believe in. I hate that our soldiers aren’t given adequate support when they return. I’m a pacifist.
For some reason this comment has me feeling pissy. Who the fuck said it doesn’t affect men disproportionately? Who said that no women are culpable? Of course there are women who enforce rigid gender roles. Of course there are men who enforce rigid gender roles. No one is denying this. We couldn’t have these rigid gender roles if at least some women were embracing them. These roles weren’t imposed on women by men; they evolved in a culture with the support of men and women. The charge was that NOW wasn’t concerned about this issue but the evidence is quite… Read more »
I’ve emailed our senior editors and think that a piece on NOW, the military and bills of the past might be a great article. Since we’ve easily come up with some indicators that NOW has done some work on behalf of both men and women, I’d love to see one on other things they might have done over the past 30 years that would indicate they are also concerned with men’s issues. If there are any readers out there with an interest in this topic you can email me at [email protected] or [email protected]
Nick writes: “Who said that no women are culpable?” Nick, I was responding to Julie who had said: “Women have been trying to work alongside men in the military since WW2 and it’s been a slow process for that equality.” This statement reduces things to gender essentialism. Women wanted into the armed forces, men have opposed it. As you seem to agree, things are not that simple. I am glad to see that at least to some affect arm-chair pundits like myself seem to be moving things along. At least now a lot of people of all political affiliations are… Read more »
Nick Mostly writes: “This right here is the problem. Too many people seem to define their view of men’s rights as being in opposition to feminism instead of being for the betterment of men(D). And so if there is a feminist organization of course you need to be against them (C)and of course they must anti-equality even if their words and their actions say otherwise. (B) So you construct an argument to show that, no, we’re wrong, because when it comes to war and when it comes to the draft and when it comes to selective service, men have it… Read more »
“NOW pushed back against the ban on women in the military as far back as 1990. ” “As far back as”? What took them so long? The army got rid of the WACs in 1975 or so and integrated womeninot the mainstream force. They started integrated basic training in 1977. so NOW finally caught up? Whooppee. If NOW were serious about full integration they would be pushing to including women in hazardous MOSs like bomb disposal where their strength disparities would not endanger other soldiers. So far no sign of that from them. But as someoone has poined out, the… Read more »
Quoting Nick, Mostly, 1) “We have people making assumptions about NOW’s position on the draft when even the most cursory Google search would reveal their position. And if you really cared to know, they actually joined with the ACLU in Rostker v Goldberg which attempted to find a gendered draft unconstitutional and, as President Carter proposed, have women included in the draft. They also filed an amicus brief in Miller v Albright supporting the petition that the requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1409(a) were unconstitutional because they disadvantaged fathers.” 2) “The Supreme Court has already ruled on selective service. NOW’s… Read more »
Oh for Pete’s sake…so first it’s “NOW didn’t advocate for equal military service,” and when that is proved false it becomes…well they haven’t advocated for it enough or recently enough. Just can’t win with you eh? NOW could throw millions of dollars at RISUG (or something) and you’d find a way to try to say it’s not enough or only a ploy or something. Let the facts shape your opinions, not the other way around.
Heather writes: “NOW could throw millions of dollars at RISUG (or something) and you’d find a way to try to say it’s not enough or only a ploy or something. Let the facts shape your opinions, not the other way around.” Other than stating their position that they are anti-draft, I see almost no expending of resources for male-only problems by NOW or any other large policiatlly connected feminist group. How about as a baby step, NOW send a letter to the producers of the “The Talk” and say they are upset with Sharon Osbournes mocking of a man who’s… Read more »
The SLPC never did declare the mens movement a hate group in the first place. All they did was publish some dishonest articles and then a false accusation was circulated. SLPC on the false accusation … “It’s false. We wrote about the subreddit Mens Rights, but we did not list it as a hate group . . . “In almost all cases, we list hate groups at the end of each calendar year when we publish lists. I very much doubt we would ever list the Reddit [r/MensRights] in question—it’s a diverse group, which certainly does include some misogynists—but I… Read more »
Eoghan, Though we already had this discussion in private, for the sake of a full accounting in the comments I’ll briefly summarize my opinion. The SLPC never did declare the mens movement a hate group in the first place. All they did was publish some dishonest articles and then a false accusation was circulated. You’re right, they never did, as they’ve said. But their article, in addition to many of the falsehoods you mention, was ambiguous and uncertain regarding that point. I wasn’t the only one to reach the reasonable conclusion that they were labeling the MRM a hate group.… Read more »
“What I am saying is simply this: the stated goal is gender equality. ”
That is true. The “stated goal”, not the actual goal, which is easily discerned by its actions.
As I keep referring to, fresh and indisputable evidence that feminism’s goal is superiority is that it fought for and won superior rights for females in the ACA.
That would have been a perfect opportunity to show that the movement’s goal was equality, but once again it proved that equality is not its goal or interest.
Zek, I loved your article. 🙂 And I 100% agree with your balanced stance: calling the BS on every side (because every side has it), and noticing where they’re doing real and honest positive actions. I hope more and more of this balanced attitude spreads out; it’s the only way to come closer to a real equality. But I think there’s still a flaw in your discourse: believing that it’s never a zero-sum game. Sometimes it is, especially when there are limited resources involved (like money, or time). Where this happens, true equality is much harder, because any side fights… Read more »
Valter, Thanks man! I appreciate your support, and hopefully the “balanced” approach will become more commonplace. But I think there’s still a flaw in your discourse: believing that it’s never a zero-sum game. Sometimes it is When I say zero-sum, I mean that equality for men or women does not mean less equality for men or women. For instance, domestic violence shelters for men do not, and should not, mean less DV shelters for women. Access for women to reproductive options should not necessitate that men have less. I understand your point about money and time and other finite resources,… Read more »
Eric, you summed it up very well
1) You may not have intended to imply that women and feminists are synonymous, but the way you mixed the two in your write-up would suggest such. Of course, most women are not feminists. 2) Feminists are quick to loudly and publicly denounce actions/speech/and men they consider misogynistic, saying it very plainly. If they reject misandry with equal force, why do they not just as loudly and publicly denounce professed feminists who practice or speak it? Why the difference? As long as such persons are welcomed and accepted within the movement, its reputation will remain as it is. 3) The… Read more »
Sorry, this was meant to be a response to Nick, mostly.
“I’ve now read several comments in which feminism and radical feminism (or reference to radical feminist groups) is used interchangeably.” That is because they should be. Increasingly mainstream feminism looks like radical feminism. When I say mainstream I am talking about Feministing, Jezebel, Amanda Marcotte, Shakesville etc. Radical feminism to me is Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon who wanted radical societal change. Their ideas aren’t radical anymore. They have been largely normalized. Porn is degrading to women and contributes to rape…Check. You will see that message on all the feminist sites including GMP. Its not a radical idea. Heterosexual sex… Read more »
It’s interesting to note in the comments the pains taken to not tar the MRM as a whole with the actions of the extreme elements of the movement, yet that same courtesy isn’t afforded to feminism. I’ve now read several comments in which feminism and radical feminism (or reference to radical feminist groups) is used interchangeably. I also note the claim that there are many men in the MRM who are not hate-spewing misogynists. I would only say that this is equally true of feminists – there are many who identify with feminism who find the ideas espoused by the… Read more »
To expand on my previous comment: How can you possibly be a radical when you are holding all the cards, you have all the power, you are getting everything you want and all your ideas are accepted. Radical feminism makes sense in an environment where feminism isn’t mainstream. How can it make sense when feminists have all the power?! Feminists don’t need to be radicals … they have already won. Talking about the radical feminists would be like talking about radical abolitionists or radical suffragettes. We are all radical sufragettes, we are all radical abolitionists and in today’s age many… Read more »
Nick, It’s interesting to note in the comments the pains taken to not tar the MRM as a whole with the actions of the extreme elements of the movement, yet that same courtesy isn’t afforded to feminism. Ironic isn’t it that people on both extremes are taking issue with my portrayal of Feminism and Masculism, saying in turns that I am far nicer to Feminism than Masculism, then the opposite. I guess you can’t please everybody, right? Haha, but on a seriously note I believe I was as fair as I could possibly be to both movements considering the questionable… Read more »
Ironic isn’t it that people on both extremes are taking issue with my portrayal of Feminism and Masculism, saying in turns that I am far nicer to Feminism than Masculism, then the opposite. I guess you can’t please everybody, right? Haha, but on a seriously note I believe I was as fair as I could possibly be to both movements considering the questionable actions taken by each. I was specifically referring to the comments, not the original post. I don’t think you were doing the same thing. As for the rest of the reactions to my comment, I’ll not bother… Read more »
argue with a dining room table.”
I’m not suggesting the author of this essay fits that mold, but I am suggesting that some of the commenters on this piece do. Of what use would it be to engage in such a debate?
Nick, That’s interesting, because I’ve felt that exact way when talking with Feminists, as well as you personally. I feel like I’m being talked at, or talked past, or talked down to, but never really engaging in a dialogue or conversation. I’ve felt excluded and shamed into silence with words such as “creepster” or “misogynist” that may be true, at times, but fail to really describe me as a person, or the point I bring up. Moreover, let me reiterate that Radical Feminism IS mainstream Feminism. Dworkin may not speak for all women, but she influenced those who do, such… Read more »
I don’t think I’ve called anyone any derogatory names, and surely not you. And while I may not have been clear in my first comment, I was not saying that your post displayed the type of vitriol I see in the comments. I thought your post was rather even-handed.
I don’t know what you mean when you say radical feminism is mainstream feminism. How are you defining those terms, particularly “mainstream” feminism? Are you saying more people are radical feminists than liberal feminists? That there is a distinction without a difference between the two?
I’d like to know that too. I consider myself a mainstream feminist. Raised in the 70’s focused on equal pay, no sexual harassment in the workplace, access to BC and sex ed, and pushing on gender roles. I occasionally have read Pandagon (as much for her take on the war and economy as anything), and find the other blogs to be very young and hyperbolic. I’d say blogs like I Blame The Patriarchy, RadFem Hub and I don’t know about Feministing, are outrageous in their perspective on men. So…..I’m also a progressive liberal, focused on civil rights. What does it… Read more »
Nick, I believe it was in the comments of a different post, but there weren’t any derogatory names called or outright hostility. I remember it being very tense though, let me see if I can dig up the conversation somewhere… I don’t know what you mean when you say radical feminism is mainstream feminism. Did you happen to see Assman’s comment earlier regarding that? I believe I reiterated his point twice by now, one time directly. But the way he phrases it is pretty spot-on. Mainstream Feminism IS Radical Feminism because the latter was so successful during the 2nd wave… Read more »
“This is the problem I have with a lot of the MRA commenters on this site. I want to take your ideas seriously, I want to hear your stories, but when your arguments are founded in dishonesty or willful ignorance.” I think you make some assumptions regarding some MRA’s. Many of them come from the place of “this is what Feminists say but this is what Feminism organisations like NOW do, this is what my wife/lover/Family Law Court/Police did to me and it was unjust.” Part of the MRM that is the hardest for me is reading the stories of… Read more »
I think you make some assumptions regarding some MRA’s. Many of them come from the place of “this is what Feminists say but this is what Feminism organisations like NOW do, this is what my wife/lover/Family Law Court/Police did to me and it was unjust.” If we can’t get beyond the attribution error that underlies this thinking then what hope have we? We have people making assumptions about NOW’s position on the draft when even the most cursory Google search would reveal their position. And if you really cared to know, they actually joined with the ACLU in Rostker v… Read more »
“NOW’s primary focus on this issue is on opposition to registration and draft. However, if we cannot stop the return to registration and draft, we also cannot choose between sisters and brothers. We oppose any registration or draft that excludes women as an unconstitutional denial of rights to both young men and women. And we continue to oppose all sex discrimination by the volunteer armed services. ” They oppose registration and the draft …. can’t fight a losing battle. All I’ve been able to find from the NOW site are blogs … no real statements from now. If you know… Read more »
Their official position on the draft (quoted above) is located at: http://www.now.org/issues/military/policies/draft2.html To find positions that NOW holds you need to look at the conference resolutions. http://www.now.org/organization/conference/resolutions/index.html Unfortunately the links for 1998 and earlier are broken (1994 and earlier aren’t even linked) so you’ll have to use Google for specific issues. That’s what they say; I also look to see what they do. One of the things men (myself included) are passionate about is the blatant discrimination concerning raising children. Consider what NOW and the ACLU wrote in their amicus brief re Miller v Albright: This case involves the very… Read more »
Thank you for that research, Nick.
I second that. Thank you for that research. I’m going to have to eat my hat now =P However I still feel conflicted about the overall push towards greater equality of women in the military without the taking on of equal responsibilities. I notice women are still not allowed in most combat units, unfortunately, and Rostker v. Goldberg was over 25 years ago. I’m curious to see what NOW has been up to since then, since I didn’t find anything. Also, you mentioned that you look at what they do. This is important and, again, I cannot find any action… Read more »
There isn’t any recent action concerning the draft because there is no push to reinstate the draft. To be clear, there are two components to the draft: 1) selective service 2) forced conscription The Supreme Court has already ruled on Selective Service and it’s unlikely they’ll revisit that issue anytime soon. NOW opposed that ruling, and lacking any evidence to the contrary should be though to continue to oppose that ruling. Unless and until conscription is re-instituted, there’s no real avenue to argue against it. It’s not a pressing issue for men or women because it doesn’t exist. In general,… Read more »
Yeah, I thought that there were women actively trying to gain combat roles??? Santorum doesn’t think they should be, this guy lists the reasons he’s heard for them not being able to be in combat (he’s a soldier I think). This article is against women in combat. Here’s a 2005 article from NOW on a ban on women…”For the more than 40,000 women who have served honorably in recent Middle East conflicts, their abilities, dedication and patriotism have been both questioned and compromised by the House conservatives’ drive to segregate the military. If the U.S. is to have a military… Read more »
So NOW’s been working on this since at least 1990. I wouldn’t say that’s misandry at all.
Interesting WIKI on the Waacs and Waves during WWII. They weren’t allowed into combat and made to leave the military after the war. “With the passage of the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act (Public Law 625) on June 12, 1948, women gained permanent status in the armed services. To reflect this, the V9 and V10 Volunteer Reserve programs were discontinued and renamed the W9 Women’s Officer Training and W10 Women’s Enlisted Training programs. Although the WAVES officially ceased to exist, the acronym was in common use well into the 1970s.” Also interesting, “Women’s Armed Services Integration Act, a United States… Read more »
Sorry to keep commenting, but I wonder about all those women who wanted to serve and perhaps to fight. And they’ve been pushing for that equity for a long time now, since WWII. How is that misandrist? It would appear to me, and I could be wrong that the push back against it comes from a more misogynist perspective? Women as too weak? Or…too distracting? Or…we need them here spending money and working while men fight? Or …they have babies and are too valuable to be killed? All connected to older gender norms that I assume the women in the… Read more »
I think the issue is weird altogether because you have women saying, “We want to fight.” We also have some women saying, “no, we don’t.” You’ve got Zek saying, NOW is possibly misandrist why aren’t women being made to fight. You’ve got NOW saying since 1990 yep, let women fight. Then you have Santorum saying it’s not good for the men (and frankly given the amount of sexual assault in the military anyone could be victimized by it, male or female, so we’ll see more rapes. I wonder how much male on male assault there is), and then you have… Read more »
“I notice women are still not allowed in most combat units, unfortunately, and Rostker v. Goldberg was over 25 years ago.” Yeah, mate, I’ll point to what Julie here said because she’s providing actual links to sources. The jist of it is this, though: feminist groups want women to be completely equal in the military. There was just recently a thing where a bunch of positions were opened up to women in the military…and who do you suppose was fighting for that…feminists. The fight is against traditional gender norms, not against feminists. As a bit of a side note, I’d… Read more »
Julie, Heather, Nick,
Thanks for the info! I’ll be sure to change my views accordingly. I’m glad to know I was wrong, for once =)
Nonetheless, I will be EXTREMELY VIGILANT for other issues in the same vein. Keep up the great comments everyone.
We should always be vigilant about the truth. There are lots of lies to go round, or more accurately, stories people here. When google exists, we should always investigate.
Here’s my deal on this Zek. It’s very comforting to believe something. When we get evidence of that belief being faulty we experience cognitive dissonance and the choice is either to reject the new information and cling to the belief by whatever means necessary or struggle through the difficult and often painful feeling that we were wrong about something. In this case, you took new information, weighed it against your valued belief and and decided to hold those two views and adapt your understanding. I’ve had to do this as a feminist learning about MRA. If there is a link,… Read more »
Julie,
I can’t speak for others, but I am always ready to let go of my previous ideas and beliefs when I’m proven to be wrong based on accurate, reliable information. (I was also mostly joking about the “extremely vigilant” comment.)
You know I’m not about sides, or zero-sum, so I’m always willing to compromise, work together, and adapt my views to be as close to reality (not only my own reality, but others’ as well) as possible.
Thanks again.
I’m not sure why my comment was thought to relate to the draft, since I believe there currently isn’t one. NOW was reported as being instrumental in diverting $300 million of government money (your taxes) from a programme to assist men who had lost jobs in the construction industry (due to the GFC) to women working in offices. Women who, in the period the funds were aimed at addressing, had shown and increase in employment numbers. NOW also supports VAWA, from my reading that is legislation that is harmful to men. Closer to home (for me) local feminists support The… Read more »
“there are disparate groups who feel required to qualify themselves when they say, “I’m all for gender equality, but I’m not a Feminist”.” No need to qualify. It seems self evident to me. Dubay v wells didn’t actual seem like a win for men’s tights, but the father’s rights movement spearhead by men and opposed by the feminist lobby in Illinois did get the interference with child visitation law passed. Unfortunately due to feminist lobby pressure penalties for violation are similar to receiving a traffic ticket. There is also that paternity registry thing where guys to indicate that they may… Read more »
This ‘DaNiceGuy’ could very well be a terrible person; I don’t really know. What I do know is that someone very celebrated made a very similar statement a long time ago, and it’s been quoted to no end by every social justice movement formed since:
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” – Gandhi
Tell me, was Gandhi an idiot?
“A witty saying proves nothing”. Voltaire.
Moreover, I’m pretty sure DaNicGuy would lose in Gandhi’s quote, since he’s the one laughing at the SPLC’s label.
Dear Zek,
Thanks for an amazingly wide ranging and thoughtful article. Man, just go start a college course, would you? I really appreciate how you have laid out the wide range of “interested parties” here. I’m also amazed at how quickly some commenters seek to push you into specific allegiances and alignments. You clearly are moving in the spaces between all these hard line positions. And it is in these spaces where our answers lie. Now, I have to go tweet out your article. Again. THANKS.
Mark,
Wow, thank you for that extremely supportive comment! I’m glad you understand what I’m trying to do with my article, and how I feel that the Us vs. Them mentality. Tweet away, sir!
The one thing I regret most about online culture is how we often seek the point of contention as the place to begin our reply to an article. A sad way to create a world, always seeking the point of conflict as our starting point.
interesting thread …. no mention that NOW did nothing to change VAWA to include men. Contrary to their smoke and mirrors that they hide behind when it comes to the draft (anti draft) they take no position on something that is clearly put together to help women only.
Tom B,
no mention that NOW did nothing to change VAWA to include men
Unfortunately, I only have so much space with which to write in, haha! But that’s a good point. Perhaps you should write an article on it?
Not sure if my writing skills are good enough.
NOW is also against joint custody because women will lose out which is funny because it directly contradicts their stance that men should take on more child care responsibilities.
Can you back up that assertion?
Googling NOW Joint Custody, the first hit is:
http://www.now.org/nnt/03-97/father.html
where NOW criticizes Father Rights groups arguing for joint custody. NOW has also opposed any changes to arrangement that in any way favor fathers. As they did in New York:
http://disenfranchisedfather.blogspot.ca/2006/03/now-and-joint-custody-in-ny.html
The MRM is indeed diverse, as was and still is Feminism. There are influential groups within Feminism, often ones that secure funding from private or government sources, but the majority of Feminists are as chaotic as Masculinists. The primary difference, at the moment, is Feminism has some women-specific legislation in countries such as the USA and Australia while Masculinism does not yet have this. I believe this is only a matter of time, the pendulum of equality has swung passed equilibrium and favours women at the moment. As is the case with social change it will swing back and Masculinism… Read more »
Danny, I agree with your take on the SPLC, especially in regards to mensactivism.org. I think the SPLC overreacted and failed to do ANY research before making their decision besides the case of THomas Ball. Clearly Ball was a troubled individual who represents the issues we talk about, but is also clearly not the entirety of the movement. That said though, embracing a label given to you by others, especially one so negative is extremely foolish — and I think the maxim you mentioned isn’t quite pertinent when talking about misogyny in the MRA. Leading me to my next point!… Read more »
I cannot in good conscience ignore the bad just because everyone else refuses to recognize the good in it. I wouldn’t want you to ignore the bad. It just seems like people who identify with a group will in breath say its not fair to paint up the negativity of their group as representation of the whole and then in the next will do exactly that to others. However, I did start my Masculism section off with the positive, it was only around the MRA that I began pointing out the negative. And that’s an important thing to highlight: the… Read more »
“it was only around the MRA that I began pointing out the negative. And that’s an important thing to highlight: the MRA is an incredibly small part of the whole MRM” I noticed that alright and I have to ask: What distinguishes an MRA from the MRM or from a masculist? Men’s Right’s Movement: Surely this refers to any group who acknowledges men’s rights as important. Men’s Rights Advocate/Activist: Does this term refer to anything more specific than someone who advocates or acts on behalf of men’s rights issues? Masculist: An idealogical counterpart to feminism. That’s alot more specific, but… Read more »
MRAasshole and WRAsshole 😛
Peter,
As I understand it: Masculism refers to the ideology, MRM refers to the entire movement, and MRA is a sect within the MRM. True, people erroneously use MRA and MTM interchangeably, which is problematic at times. All Masculists are within the MRM. All MRA’s are Masculists and MRM’s. Not all Masculists or MRM’s are MRAs. Does that make sense?
I get that you make the distinction, I just don’t understand what definition of MRA you use to do so.
Peter,
The definition of MRA I use is essentially Men’s Rights Advocate. They are concerned with all the issues of Masculism and the MRM, but are far more extreme . Typical examples of MRAs would be The Spearhead, Paul Elam, and the False Rape Society. That’s how I define it.
So how do you describe someone who advocates men’s rights but is more moderate?
Or to put it another way: Wouldn’t it be better to come up with a word that describes their extremism, rather than their advocacy, so that anyone advocating men’s rights can’t be easily dismissed as a hater?
I’m interested to hear what you define as extreme. Spearhead is in my ‘angry men’ basket to many stories of the evil that some women do. Paul and FRS are moderate (in my estimation), especially when you compare them with the positions of extreme Feminists (consider RadFemHub’s discussion of an anti-man eugenics programme). Now some of the people leaving comments might not be moderate but I think it is important for men to have places where they can discuss their pain and feelings honestly.
Transhuman, I would include the Spearhead with extremism in the MRM (particularly because that site is composed primarily/entirely of MRAs. FRS is somewhat moderate, but I sometimes feel that outside of their specific topic they can slide into rather extreme statements. I think specifically about things they’ve said in the comments-section, which is admittedly less formal. RadFemHub is definitely far more extreme than anything I’ve seen in the MRA however. Their eugenics program is shockingly blatant in its misandry. Overall I agree though that men need places where they can discuss their pain and feelings honestly, and really express even… Read more »
“Yes, we’ve done very well to get this far. To be classified as a hate group by such a large organization is the first step to gaining wider recognition. In other words, we are starting to make an impact. As far as I’m concerned, our detractors can keep calling us a dangerous hate group until they’re blue in the face and I will applaud their stupidity every single time.” Is there a man among us who isn’t ashamed by this? I know I am. This is not the Masculism I believe in. But there it is nonetheless, staring me in… Read more »
Quite frankly if that is true then SPLC itself is a hate site, promoting hatred n disgust of sites without adequately researching the topic n just slandering?
Furthermore they should have classified feminism itself as a hate movement based on the writings on radfemhub….
It’s fine to call out blatant hatred n misogyny, but to call the entire movement a hate movement isn’t right and I disagree with them on that bigtime. It’s the same stuff many feminists get annoyed at mra’s for, generalizing against a group, yet it’s ok if you generalize negatively against the MRA’s right???
This is what the article said about Mensactivism.org (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/misogyny-the-sites): MensActivism This website tracks news and information about men’s issues from around the world, with a focus on activism — and outrage. Par for the course are lurid headlines like this one: “Pakistani wife kills, cooks husband for lusting over daughter.” The site also runs stories like the one it headlined “Australia: Girl, 13, charged after taxi knife attack” that involve no abuse accusations, but are merely meant to undermine what the site claims is “the myth that women are less violent than men.” Here is the article in question. Here… Read more »
Well masculism has become even less legitimate with describing it as a hate-movement, although the same could be said for feminism if we’re to judge the many by the few. How does masculism grow when it’s seen as anti-female now in a time where equality is celebrated if it’s under the wing of feminism? There needs to be more awareness and organization, most men I know don’t realize they’re at high risk of domestic violence, sexual abuse, violence in general at significant levels (women are too, of course). There is this attitude of silence around male issues, but recently I’m… Read more »
Lets go for it! Got a name?
Equalism, egalitarianism, the fed-up folks, take your pick:P
I’d join the egalitarian movement in a heartbeat. My only worry, though, and perhaps this comes from my studies as a history minor, is being “free from the past history,” as you wrote. I think what egalitarians should try to do is acknowledge the good, bad, and downright ugly ways both feminists and masculists have behaved in the past, the effects these positions and actions have had on macro and micro levels, and how we as a new group can learn from their successes and mistakes in order to encourage menfolk and womenfolk to view each other as equally human,… Read more »
Start from birth, teach men that they don’t need to be seen as invulnerable to be “men” and that risk, vulnerability are normal. I think it’s extremely important for women and especially feminists to give acceptance to the fact men are raped, at very high levels similar to females even, as they pretty much own all rights and privileges regardign advocacy of sexual abuse. When we start to see women move from saying “99% of rapists are men” (which is still quite common in random convos I have) and spread the awareness the men might feel more comfortable opening up.… Read more »
I like your idea about socializing both sexes to understand and accept that being vulnerable is part of being human. “I think it’s extremely important for women and especially feminists to give acceptance to the fact men are raped, at very high levels similar to females even, as they pretty much own all rights and privileges regardign advocacy of sexual abuse. When we start to see women move from saying “99% of rapists are men” (which is still quite common in random convos I have) and spread the awareness the men might feel more comfortable opening up.” I so agree… Read more »
I myself stick to basic facebook status’s and commenting or writing on the GMP, but as my own life is getting better I will be on the lookout for other methods to help. Some ideas are to contact the anti-rape organisations and let them know of the cdc report, pages 18-24 have very important data especially tables 2.1 and 2.2, last 12 months category for rape and forced to penetrate being pretty much equal. Page 24 has important info about the gender of sexual abusers, of note 79.2% male victims of “being made to penetrate” report a female abuser, which… Read more »
Archy, Thanks for the links, and statistical analysis. It’s so sad to see that hate and vitriol so often trump love and compassion and empathy. :\ I just wish there was some way I could personally reach out to these people and listen and hear them, give them the chance to tell their stories – but not letting my inner White Knight complex to “save” people take over. Bad habit, that. If I had any talent in designing posters I’d love to take a crack at designing one that’s gender neutral. “Humans Can Stop Rape” would be nice, because although… Read more »
Glad to have helped. We can all make a difference because each of us can reach out to so many, especially via facebook/etc. Just like the Kony stuff information can be spread very quickly as our facebook friends may repost it and their friends n so on n so forth. It’s information that has been buried and rarely talked about so most will probably be oblivious to it, I only found out via a comment on the GMP about it.
So I actually liked this article…but I’ve got a single criticism…and actually it’s really very nitpicky:
I don’t know that I’d classify Radical Faeries as being part of masculism…especially not the current version of it. My understanding is that they’re sort of neither masculists nor feminists, but more queer spiritualists.
HeatherN,
Thanks, I’m glad you liked my post!
I can see not including Radical Faeries as part of Masculism, especially as they deal with issues in the LGBTQ community. I liked the phrase “queer spiritualists”, especially.
However I included them because a lot of their concerns overlap with those our gay/trans/bi/queer brothers in Masculism who advocate for men’s issues, and in fact some Radical Faeries are part of the MRM. At least, based on what I’ve learned, but you may have more accurate information than I do.
Yeah I can see that…and I wasn’t trying to be argumentative. I was just surprised to see it listed in that category is all. So yeah I guess I could see it as overlapping masculism but not necessarily being part of masculism, if you get what I’m saying.
And as much as I’d like to take credit for “queer spiritualists,” I’m pretty sure I’ve heard it used elsewhere. But thanks 🙂
Dany,
Thanks! I’m all about encouraging positive change and holding ourselves to account for what we do that isn’t helping.
I find this article to be particularly enlightening for me because you eloquently put into words what I have been trying to explain to my peers. contrary to what the other opinions are stating, I think that you gave a rather blunt call to both parties to re-examine their agenda. People often feel uncomfortable whenever a social movement is being criticized, as if criticism of the movement automatically means you are absolutely against. Au contraire, what I got from this article was a request for collaboration, a necessary paradigm shift from the usual fights and polarization of both parties, to… Read more »
AU CONTRAIRE
Agreed.
Agreed. That and the practice of (as is especially true of feminism) tolerating, defending, and excusing statements and positions of animosity toward the opposite sex. There can’t be s true striving for equality if people who express such views, even only at times, are not forcefully expelled from the movement, which is entirely possible. (I have not personally seen this on the MRA side but it could exist just as well.) If that kind of thinking is as repulsive as they claim it is, there would be an immediate, spontaneous, and united move to make sure such people know without… Read more »