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.”
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.
About Zek J. Evets
Hear hear. Not sure that I agree about the SPLC’s verdict though. If they’d applied the same rigorous standard to the WRM I’d find it easier to get behind them.
Heres to a truly egalitarian gender rights movement.
I believe a “truly egalitarian gender rights movement” may well be called “Human Rights”. I dare say someone said that.
Peter,
I agree that the SPLC is overreacting in the extreme to the MRM, which is sad because I like the work they do in regards to other issues. But not every group is prejudice-free I guess.
I don’t think any group is prejudice free. Wherever theres humans there’ll always be a few crazies hanging around the edges.
Speaking of calling bullsh**, I’ll take one point in this big collectivist mess of an article:
NOW advocates increasing equality of women in the military, but don’t include adding women to the draft.
I am not a member or supporter of NOW. I am an individualist feminist, and many of my efforts and goals run counter to NOW’s efforts and goals. Nonetheless, even I can recognize how silly a statement this is.
For one thing, there is currently no draft. There is currently only selective service registration in case, one day, the government decides to implement the draft again.
For another thing, the reason NOW does not advocate including women in the draft (or selective service) is because NOW opposes the draft and selective service registration altogether FOR EVERYONE. I refer you to this resolution on the topic on NOW’s website:
“BE IT RESOLVED, that NOW opposes the reinstatement of registration and draft for both men and women. 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. “
Kirsten,
I’m confused how you say there is no draft when I, and many other men, can testify that we have registered for it as legally required by the government. You do mention selective service, which is the official title given to this process. However I’d like to think you’re not taking issue with my semantics when the reality still stands…
Furthermore, it is disingenuous to advocate women should be allowed increasingly responsibility and power in the military (as all qualified servicewomen are entitled to) yet not advocate for women to be included in the draft. It sends a very clear message to men that NOW advocates for women to have the rights and privileges without any of the responsibilities that accompanies true gender equality. Do you see the point? If not, I’m sorry, especially as the single line you took from an extremely long piece on Masculism and Feminism is part of the lived experience of millions of men, and many women.
Thanks for your comment!
I accept Kirsten’s point that we cannot reasonably expect NOW to advocate for a reduction in the rights and liberties of women simply to achieve parity of poverty with men on the issue of conscription, anymore than we can expect them to advocate for greater rates of incarceration for women. Using a standard that judges their disinterest in these tactics is probably unfair.
But, we can judge their inaction on initiatives to elevate men to parity with women. Its simply politically machiavellian for NOW to state they oppose the draft for all persons as though selective service is not a gendered idea and selective exclusion is not a long-held privilege granted women and girls. NOW has no desire to acknowledge unique burdens imposed upon men, and no intention of taking action or investing political capital and resources in advancing the interest of men. Stating they oppose conscription for all persons simply ensures them internal consistency while giving there core constituency (not men) what they want.
Random Stranger,
Thanks for the comment!
I don’t think it’s unfair. I think it’s realistic. Using the example “expect them to advocate for greater rates of incarceration for women” in order to reach parity with men is kind of a red herring I think. Nobody’s asking them to become criminals and live in poverty. I have no problem with the Joint Chiefs of Staff being composed of women. But women need to be required to sign up for the draft. Otherwise it’s clearly not gender equality.
That said, I agree that their intentions are rather selfish, but that’s okay. I have zero problem with NOW advocating solely for the interests of women, however the consequence is that people will recognize they don’t stand for equality when they advocate in such a way as to have their cake and eat it too. More importantly, if they want to be successful in their advocacy, they need to recognize that rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. I think that concept is easy to understand, and certainly NOW would say publicly that they believe as much. But their actions do not comport with their message, which is gender equality.
You’re avoiding the point made by Kristen and Random Stranger. Are you so obsessed with your pet project that you will continue to deny the valid point that it’s insane for a group that does not support the draft to subject its adherents to something that contravenes their principles all for some half baked conception of equality.
Grey,
I understand they don’t support the draft, but I’m talking about the original sentence I wrote which shows that it’s “insane” for a group that supports gender equality to avoid responsibilities when advocating for rights. Actually, my intent was to show that it’s hypocritical, because it is.
You can call it a “half baked conception of equality”, but principles are important, particularly when trying to make realistic change in the world. For the people affected by the draft, and by the conflicting misogyny/misandry of the military, these issues are important — even if you disagree and project a lot of hostility.
Principles are important – which is what not supporting the draft is, a principled stand. It doesn’t make sense to be equally part of something you don’t believe in, that’s a contravention of principle. People don’t have to live in a world where they have to choose between one principle and another, equality and draft protest aren’t mutually exclusive. If you disagree fundamentally with something, like the draft, then how does it make sense to validate it as a responsibility?
And speaking of responsibility, the only responsibility someone has if they’re part of the military is to do their duty and pull their own weight, no more and no less. It makes more logical sense to attempt to elevate the condition of all, not to prove a point or show solidarity by lowering your condition and sharing in a collective misery.
The resolution specifically states, “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. ”
Again; they oppose any registration or draft that *excludes women*; Sounds to me NOW is saying if there must be a draft both genders should be required to register.
TheUglyGirl,
Sounds to me NOW is saying if there must be a draft both genders should be required to register.
That’s curious, because before posting my article I did a fair amount of research before my post and found no mention of any advocacy taken on behalf of that statement by NOW. I don’t doubt they said what you quoted, but their actions don’t seem to support their words.
Which again brings us back to original meaning of my sentence, that NOW advocates for the rights entitled to women without the consequent responsibilities.
However (and I’m not singling you out UglyGirl, so no worries!) I’m confused by the extreme focus on the semantical issue of one sentence in my post that doesn’t really discuss the overall issue of how we deal with the problems in both Feminism and Masculism in order to sustain positive change towards gender equality.
Specifically, I’m confused when Grey states that People don’t have to live in a world where they have to choose between one principle and another … It makes more logical sense to attempt to elevate the condition of all, not to prove a point or show solidarity by lowering your condition and sharing in a collective misery.
Are some of the commenters here unclear as to how rights work? I’m asking earnestly because Grey’s comment seems to indicate that some people might not understand. The issue isn’t choosing between one principle or another, nor in sharing in any misery. This is not a zero-sum game — and I feel like I say that a lot, haha.
It’s about being realistic and acknowledging that rights come with responsibilities. With respect to the military, a group is not “pulling their own weight” by not participating in the shared responsibilities that others take, yet demanding access that they are justifiably entitled to.
Does this make sense, Grey?
As a I said above, it is disingenuous when NOW advocates that women get more equality in the military, but then put conditions on that equality which provides an inequitable burden accorded to each gender. Are only men disposable such that they can be drafted? Or will we recognize that both genders in the armed-forces must make sacrifices as the price they and we pay as part of the greater social contract?
For me personally, I am uncomfortable that I could be forced to go die, simply because I am a man, while the women in my lives do not. And this is something that many men are uncomfortable with. So while we can pick, and debate the nuances of this argument, it all comes back to the point of my post…
How do we fix the problems with Feminism and Masculism that see equality as a zero-sum game?
Grey writes:
“You’re avoiding the point made by Kristen and Random Stranger. Are you so obsessed with your pet project that you will continue to deny the valid point that it’s insane for a group that does not support the draft to subject its adherents to something that contravenes their principles all for some half baked conception of equality.”
I agree with your point, but I would throw one nitpick in there. How strenuously has NOW really fought the draft? I find NOW does very little to fight for issues that concern largely only men.
A better example of NOW fighting for equal (or better) rights for women, but not equal responsibility is their issuing of action alerts in every state in which shared parenting is debated in legislatures. NOW supports the idea of familial responsibilities for men, but seem to fight for women to have no responsibility to allow dads to see their children.
In fact, NOW seems to extensively fight for mothers to maintain the right to keep loving fit dads out of the childrens lives and that is simply the reverse of equal rights (discrimination) and creates great harm to children.
Another good example is feminist-driven DV fundamentalists who have arranged the rules so that male DV victims and researchers who show women initiate violence just as often are banned from testifying before VAWA reauthorization hearings.
In fact a CEO of a non-profit abuse org was recently charged with assault againt Daddy Justice (he was waiting with a camera outside the VAWA reauthorization hearing to ask why Phil McGraw (Dr. Phil) was giving factually incorrect information that DV was largely a female problem. This female CEO of the DV org was seen on camera physically accosting Daddy Justice.
I will accept that the vast majority of feminists are good-hearted people. However, the fact remains that the haters seem to have gravitated to the helm of the political branch of feminism.
I wish the good-hearted feminists would start waking up to what is going on and start speaking out against the haters who seem to have the reins of power.
That you would expect them to boggles the mind. They are concerned with women’s issues. It’s in their name – they’re not called the “National Organization for People.” That doesn’t mean they’re anti-men, nor does it mean we shouldn’t criticize them when a policy position they hold harms men. But they have made their position on the draft quite clear, and it’s one that I think we can all agree with.
But it’s not their fight, it’s not their mission, and it’s not fair to criticize them for not doing more about something that’s not in their charter. Do you criticize Feline Rescue for not doing more to help with abandoned dogs or suggest that because they concentrate on the needs of cats that they somehow are anti-dog?
That you would expect them to boggles the mind. They are concerned with women’s issues. It’s in their name – they’re not called the “National Organization for People.”
Which is why saying “feminism is for equality” is, at best, disingenuous, Feminism is so women can have access to equality is a more accurate statement. Even if it harms men.
To me that is the essence of why men need a social justice movement, moderate, radical and everything in between. Believing that Feminism feels any responsibility or affection for men is self-delusion. it simply is not what Feminism is about. In most cases you don’t hire your mechanic to repair your house, why would you engage Feminists concerning men’s issues?
Ideally, we’d also have a people movement, for the fair treatment of people and campaigning for their equal rights. Something inclusive doesn’t easily polarise people’s feelings and that is often needed to catch the public’s attention amidst the sea of media noise.
This is wrong for two reasons.
First, if “equality” necessarily entails harming men, then you’re suggesting it’s better to have the status quo (i.e. non-equality) than men have to give something up so women can enjoy equality. This also suggests that in the main, we are playing a zero-sum game and any gains made by women are necessarily at the expense of men. If true, the men need to suck it up and share if they are concerned about equality. If not true, then this reasoning is spurious at best.
Second, setting aside whether they’ve been successful at doing so, it’s possible to work towards a goal of equality while focussing on a limited aspect of that goal (i.e. lifting women). In an ideal world, feminists would be identifying the structural inequities that disadvantage women, and working to eliminate them. At the same time, masculists would be identifying the structural inequities that disadvantage men, and working to eliminate them. They would be two groups working together towards a common goal with different areas of focus.
But that’s not what we have, and it’s not how the commenters here view things. Instead of applauding the goals of feminism and critiquing the missteps, we have some who deny that they hold those goals and ascribe every evil event that has the appearance of being gendered to the nature of feminism. If that’s the welcoming hand being outstretched, you’ll forgive me for not grasping it in solidarity.
Feminism’s goal absolutely is “lifting women (and girls) up, not equality”, as you aptly point out. I’m not sure why they don’t stop claiming that their aim is equality and just admit that their goal is female empowerment and not equality. The rest of the world knows it anyway.
The evidence is abundant that the goal is female advantage (lifting women up); that is, superior rights, privileges, and benefits for females – and they have been wildly and increasingly successful in achieving that.
A clear and indisputable example of this is the superior Affordable Care Act benefits for women and girls that they successfully fought for and won.
http://goodmenproject.com/contraception-2/feds-to-men-buy-your-own-aspirin-and-put-it-between-your-knees/
This is wrong for two reasons.
“First, if “equality” necessarily entails harming men, then you’re suggesting it’s better to have the status quo (i.e. non-equality) than men have to give something up so women can enjoy equality.”
I did not suggest maintaining the status quo, I made an observation that Feminism is for the equality of women, even if it harms men. I did not say equality always harms men. Let me use two examples to illustrate my stance on this. There are other examples but I’ll keep these two throughout my response.
Women and the vote
Common women (I use the term to differentiate between ordinary women and nobility/moneyed women) gained the right to vote shortly after the common man (ie those majority of men who did not hold political or financial power) did. Women being able to vote does not take anything away from men voting, both women and men can place their vote and be afforded equality in the value of their vote. Each person gets a vote so there is no paucity of resources because each new adult gains a vote, vote numbers are unlimited. In short this equality can cause no harm. This is not a zero-sum proposition.
Women and assistance programmes to get them into tertiary study and help them succeed
When women were the minority at tertiary institutions this made sense, we wanted to encourage women to gain greater access to skills and improve their options and employability in the work force. There was a very real inequality so positive discrimination was warranted. This is a zero-sum game because there are a limited number of places in tertiary education each year. However, now that women are the majority of tertiary entrants and graduations (not a large majority but a growing one), where are the ‘equality feminists’ statements of ‘we have to wind back our support programmes because now men are missing out and we support equality of women, not dominance.
The Equality Feminists do not, because equality, or dominance by women, is acceptable to them. Dominance in a human endeavour is only unacceptable to Equality Feminists if the dominance is by men.
“This also suggests that in the main, we are playing a zero-sum game and any gains made by women are necessarily at the expense of men. If true, the men need to suck it up and share if they are concerned about equality. If not true, then this reasoning is spurious at best.”
In some cases we are participating in a zero-sum game. In the case of women voting no, there is no loss balanced by gain. In the case of the limited spaces in tertiary education then yes it is a social zero-sum game as there are not an infinite number of tertiary studies places. Each case requires its own analysis, not a blanket approach. One size very rarely fits all.
“Second, setting aside whether they’ve been successful at doing so, it’s possible to work towards a goal of equality while focussing on a limited aspect of that goal (i.e. lifting women). In an ideal world, feminists would be identifying the structural inequities that disadvantage women, and working to eliminate them. At the same time, masculists would be identifying the structural inequities that disadvantage men, and working to eliminate them. They would be two groups working together towards a common goal with different areas of focus.”
Agreed Ideally your point above would occur with rational human beings, but humans have to be motivated to be rational. There is money in Feminism, NOW doesn’t do its advocating for free, the Women’s Officer on University Campuses in Australia gets a tidy retainer. Even though now there aught to be a Man’s Officer to help boost the enrolment and successful completion of studies by men, since they are falling behind. Financially, there are incentives to maintain the advocacy for equality in areas that don’t actually need it any more.
“But that’s not what we have, and it’s not how the commenters here view things. Instead of applauding the goals of feminism and critiquing the missteps, we have some who deny that they hold those goals and ascribe every evil event that has the appearance of being gendered to the nature of feminism. If that’s the welcoming hand being outstretched, you’ll forgive me for not grasping it in solidarity.”
When Feminists deny the missteps, when they use examples that are no longer relevant, when they evidence hypocrisy, then yes they should be called on it. The same is true of the Masculinists. Truth, not propaganda, will make us equal.
Nick,
I think you’re trying to argue a point you’ve already proven yourself wrong on. Feminism is about women, not men. Nobody has a problem with that, because nobody thinks people can’t group together and advocate for their own benefits. But when a movement makes itself out to be about equality for everyone when it clearly isn’t, well…
Your counter to this would be appropriate however if it wasn’t the case that most Feminists do not like Masculism, or think it’s necessary. And they work very hard to destroy such efforts quite often. As such, your “ideal world” where these two movements work in harmony for the greater benefit of all is impossible until Masculism isn’t attacked merely for existing.
That said, with regards to NOW. They have frequently stated to be about gender equality, even as they advocate for women specifically, which is obviously not true. They are about greater power for women, and that’s fine. Just don’t say you’re about equality when you aren’t. Until then, they will be held accountable for their hypocrisy. Especially with regards to the draft and women in the military, which are subjects they are infamously inconsistent on, as discussed above.
Feminism is absolutely about women, no question about it.
What I am saying is simply this: the stated goal is gender equality. To achieve this aim feminism is about finding places where women are not equal and lifting them up to be equal. The goal is not supremacy, the goal is not domination.
It is not hypocritical to both be for equality and to focus your efforts primarily on helping women.
It’s hard to keep a good man down, keep fighting the good fight. I agree with everything you’ve said, I’ve just been busy for the last week or so.
It’s frustrating to have to argue over rational thinking instead of a political issue. This discussion has exposed a lot of fear and failure at basic reading comprehension in a lot of the people replying. You’ve done a great job against the odds.
Nick Mostly writes:
(in comparison to feminists fighting for men)
“Do you criticize Feline Rescue for not doing more to help with abandoned dogs or suggest that because they concentrate on the needs of cats that they somehow are anti-dog?”
This is the crux of the problem. Political branches of feminism have been labeling themselves for the last 40 years as the unimpeachable agents of *EQUAL* rights for BOTH women ***AND MEN***
They have been saying things like they care about all victims of violence etc…
ad nasuem.
If feline rescue were saying that “We care about the safety and shelter of ALL PETS” then yes I would expect them to do something for dogs too.
You can’t fight for expanding rights and privileges for one gender (let’s just table the fact that feminist orgs also obstruct equal rights for men) and be about equal rights.
If an org has no drive to quantify or care about the status of “the others” than they will have no idea if what they are fighting for (within the “approved” group) is truly equality or (as is mostly the case today) privilege or supremacy.
Then there is the many dozens of examples of the political branch of feminists who wilfully obstruct and marginalize men’s rights and male victims.
@Zek.
In this opinion piece you have attempted to call the bulls##t on the gender rights movement. I would also like to call on the bulls##t on the holier than thou attitude of this OP. This OP only superficially analyzes both feminism and men’s rights movement. You have not examined deeply the issues that are central to either movement and have passed negative judgment. What are the intentions of the supporters of either movement and their relations with each other. You talk about negativity in the movements, this negativity comes from bad experiences in life.
Rapses,
his OP only superficially analyzes both feminism and men’s rights movement.
I am the OP, so who are talking about? If you’re talking about me, you can just say so =P
That said, I’m curious where you feel I’m being superficial. Is it the part where I deeply analyze the emotions contained with Masculists and problems Feminism has with bigotry? Is it the part where I note the positive and negative contained within both movements? Also, what holier than thou attitude do you feel I’m conveying, especially since I don’t state anywhere that I feel holier than anyone?
Also, do I detect that you’re defending Feminism? Because I always figured you as an ardent opponent, and it’d be nice to know I was wrong in my assumptions!
You’re kind of a literal person aren’t you?
Zek,
The acronym “OP” in my comment refers to “opinion piece” and not “other person.” This opinion piece of yours does not treat the two movements evenhandedly. The critique of feminism starts with a list of so-called achievements of feminism and then goes on to highlight some of the problems created by it. The achievements had been put forward really straight while the problems it has created has been discussed more on a theoretical planes rather than discussing the problems it created in everyday life of men and women. I personally do not mind giving feminism its due credit that it created some pressure for social reform towards getting opportunity for women which was only possible due to technological advancement. The problem in any movement starts when transforms from mission of idealists to profession of opportunists.
The feminism as we see today is profession of some elites and causing problems at micro level (misandric laws) that would cause social upheaval on macro levels (single mothers, frauds etc.)
The approach of this opinion piece to MRA is negative from the very beginning. MRA is put on par with misogyny at the very start. You cite the anger and hate of men who comment on various MRA sites, have you considered that they might have some valid reason to be angry. By mentioning George Sodini and Thomas ball, what are you really trying to prove???. Do you consider them to be the torchbearers of men’s activism???? You point out Paul Elam’s rape apology and Roissy’s abusive dating tactics, but never mention false rape accusations and double standards in dating dynamics. The mention of SPLC classifying them as hate groups is the last straw that broke the camel’s back and assured me that you are up to no good.
Rapses,
Except doesn’t OP mean “original poster”? Nevermind.
I’m sorry you feel that I didn’t treat these two movements evenhandedly. But notice that I agree with you about the state of Feminism today, and I said as much in my post about how mainstream Feminism has retreated from the issues affecting ordinary women. Moreover, contrary to your comment, I actually did discuss some of the everyday problems it creates, such as domestic violence shelters for men being shut down, and the withholding of evidence in rape cases.
That said, with regards to my section on Masculism, I do portray the MRA as somewhat negative. Though I do not do so for the entire MRM, of which the MRA is but a small — albeit vocal — part. Noticeably, I come to the MRA portion with a lot of self-identification and sympathy, particularly when I mention my Father. Sodini and Ball are shown as icons in the movement who became rallying points for male issues, yet they took actions we should not condone (violence, etc.) I also mention false accusations and double standards and directly tie it to the men in the MRA, again contrary to your portrayal of my post. Never do I mention that I find their reasons to be angry as invalid, but rather take issue with misogyny as being part of the movement instead of positive change. In addition, I never state that I agree with the SPLC’s classification of us as a “hate group” — in fact I vehemently oppose that characterization — but my focus was on how many men in the MRM are content to be so labeled, and how uncomfortable that makes me personally.
You say I’m “up to no good” but your comments reveal a less than careful reading of my post, particularly as your main complaint seems to be that I did not go into further depth on the issues you specified. Admittedly, I only have so much space with which to discuss these issues as this is an article, not a book! ; ) But seriously, I did include those issues briefly, and tied them directly to the very people they concern.
Nonetheless, you’re free to doubt my intentions, even though I’ve given no cause to. If I truly were up to no good, wouldn’t I be far less sympathetic? Now, it hasn’t escaped my notice that on posts you tend towards very strong reactions, very black & white, which do not leave room for the nuances and shades of grey I discuss when rejecting both misogyny and misandry, as well as classism, racism, transphobia, and homophobia.
Perhaps then it’s not that I should be held in suspicion, but that I should be accepted for having a different informed opinion.
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 understand that we stand to benefit from helping one another. Feminists need to demand more privileges but accept the responsibilities that come with them; MRAs need to take more political action to compliment their discussions, i.e encourage funding of shelters for male victims of domestic violence.
This approach to the gender discourse is refreshing, and it is needed. People need to get out of their activism bubbles and engage in it, no matter how uncomfortable it may get.
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 question they by their views being cabsolutely ring absolutely and compleyely shunned by everyone.
Dany,
Thanks! I’m all about encouraging positive change and holding ourselves to account for what we do that isn’t helping.
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
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 finding more men speaking out on it.
At the moment I’m tempted to say to people to make a new movement, egalitarianism, free from the past history and everyone can be catered to…
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, equally worthy, and thus work to collaborate to create an equal society rather than play the Oppression Olympics and continue throwing “shut up you fuckers it’s worse for us!” mudballs at each other.
Aaah, the inner English major inside cringes at that runon sentence, but whatev.
“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).” Agreed! I’ve said it before, but the myth that being male is some sort of immunity idol to being sexually assaulted or victimized by other men and women is just heartbreaking in its consequences. It angers and frustrates me to see reports relying on statistics gathered from personal reporting that women are the vast majority of victims of these crimes without 1) stating that sexual assault and DV are severely underreported crimes and b) qualifying the data with “statistically more/less likely to be abused” etc. If that doesn’t make sense let me know and I’ll try to explain my reasoning. But at any rate, a lot of the men I’ve tried to talk to about my desire to focus on and help male survivors have reacted as though I am crazy to care about such people (I care about female survivors too, but god knows there is already a lot of help out there for female survivors, which is good, but very one sided). One guy went so far as to ask me why I was interested in helping male rape victim-survivors when “it barely ever happens,” and point blank refuted my assertion that a woman could ever pose a threat to a man. And he worked in a men’s prison! Astounding and disheartening. :\
So my wondering for the night would be how to combat the myth that men cannot and will not be sexually victimized or physically abused (especially by a woman) when men as much as women seem socially interested in perpetuating the currently gendered nature of the issue. :\
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. There are many though who have the identity through feminism, that past history which raises their voice n position on such matters who still treat it as highly gendered and that does harm. When you see the anti-rape campaigns and news articles discussing the new cdc stats, where they couldn’t help themselves showing rape as gendered because of a terrible definition where the same stats actually prove in the last year rape was nearly equal between genders and 40% of rapists were female….Those organizations have a duty of informing the public but they failed miserably to do so, after I saw this I lost a huge amount of trust for ALL of the anti-sexual abuse/rape campaigns when people in comment threads on the GMP n such could easily find the data yet experts in the field remain 100% tight-lipped over it? Something smells very very fishy and sadly it appears as if they want it to remain as “Butdawomensgetthemostrapes!!!1!1!1″.
And people wonder why men are quiet on sexual abuse, well….why would we open up when the campaigns themselves, the people involved remain silent on our abuse? How comfortable do I feel discussing such matters with people that try to tell me rape against men is quite rare whilst the stats they use to show the severity of female victimization also proves the victimization of men is far higher than they let on.
Men are being raised to believe it doesn’t happen much, and those involved with anti-rape campaigns have a lot to answer for, they have a lot of responsibility I believe in perpetuating the myth recently if they haven’t adapted to new studies and data. To me hearing the last 12 months category, the first thing that popped into my mind was how massive a news story that was, how important it was for people to know but absolute silence fell on the newsworld, I don’t recall rainn talking about it, pretty much every feminist blog I saw failed to spot it and I’ve had to point out the pages the data is on to them when discussing it. Quite a few feminists, women, men, anti-rape campaigners are holding on tight to old notions of most rape is against women and it’s simply keeping the barrier strong against male advocacy.
I want to be proven wrong, I truly do, until then I won’t have much trust for these anti-rape campaigns when they don’t look past the header notes of a major study on sexual abuse!
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 with you! So vital. Unfortunately, like you say, people don’t want to hear or listen to the reality that there are men who have been sexually victimized. It’s the zero-sum game thing again I think, where people have decided that what is good for women is bad for men and vice versa, so a lot of feminists believe that male rape victims coming forward with these heart-breaking testimonies are either trying to derail discussion of female rape victims or overshadow female rape victims, a fear that from what I can tell arises from how hard women have fought within the last 60 years to have these abuses taken seriously and to have female victims’ voices heard. What gets me is that they want to deny male victims this same voice! Saddening! Frustrating! Maddening! :\
What also needs to change is the definition of rape as being penetration to being unwanted sexual intercourse, either penetration with a body part or object, or envelopment of one’s body part by another’s body part. Obviously more in legalese, haha, but the gist is that so long as society preserves the idea of “real rape-rape” as a penetrative act perpetrated against women by men, there is never going to be any justice for male rape victims, and male and female victims of female rapists.
That level of emotional pain is something I can only aspire to empathize with. I know shit about statistical interpretation (my gift is not math but words, haha), but to see facts twisted to suit theories instead of theories created to suit facts is just infuriating.
For whatever reason the passion to help has been placed into my heart, I want to be a female ally to male rape victims – not because I am not also compassionate and incensed about female rape victims’ treatment and saddened by their experiences, but because, as you pointed out, there is a great deal of support for them. Which is good. What is not good is the insistent gendering of the crime to exclude and silence so many people who are then forced to suffer erasure on top of their abuse.
Archy, do you have any suggestions on steps I can take to put my passion into action? I seriously care and want to do something with that care-energy. Donating to causes is worthy, and I try, but I am like a poor person and budget every dollar that comes in my check. Is there anything that you do to try to raise awareness about this? I am a recent addition to the social justice bandwagon and want to actually be of service to truly creating an egalitarian society. Be the change you wanna see and all that.
I was heartened to see my local paper running a story for April being the sexual assault awareness month and reaching out in the article to include men as victim-survivors. It occurs to me that I seriously need to find out how to volunteer with organization that ran that story so I can put some of my physical time and energy where so much of my theoretical time and energy are.
As an aside musing of brain spew, one of the things I feel advocates for male survivors need to do is to assert and drive home the idea that we are not in any way trying to overshadow or overpower the voices of female victims. We need to be clear that we DO believe that women are raped, and be clear that we find that reprehensible, but add that men also are raped, and that is equally reprehensible. What’s even more reprehensible is that these male victims are often ridiculed and silenced when they try to speak of their experiences, especially if the rapist was female. It’s like melody and harmony: both are necessary for creating beautiful complex music. Giving voice to both male and female experience is necessary for creating an accurate picture of sexual abuse. Emphasize and raise awareness that the female-victim/male-victimizer dichotomy harms everyone involved.
I am just so academic usually that finding ways to enact my beliefs is a struggle. :\ Thoughts, anyone? I recently joined my campus’s gender equality club, which seems to promote both male and female issues and seems to be egalitarian more than radfem, but I’d love to be able to have pamphlets or something on hand to hand out when the club meets to discuss agendas and what to do to enact gender equality in our town. Can anyone refer me to some good resources?
And if anyone actually read all that brain spew, a kudos to you! : )
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 adds up to approximately 40% of rapists being female in the last 12 months with the extended definition if my quick maths works out correct. Not sure who has a nice letter formatted to use, maybe typhon_blue could help?
http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/NISVS/index.html is the link to the stats used, click Full Report which is a pdf.
Other ways would be to letter write politicians, government agencies that support anti-abuse campaigns and let them know of these statistics as well. Maybe news desks as well, your campus group would also be a good place to discuss them. If you see people saying the “99% of rapists are men” line I personally update them on the stats to try get them to understand that new stats have changed the view of rape.
The derailing accusations get thrown quite a bit in some places, I saw a man get blasted down on the slutwalk facebook wall and the behaviour shown was quite pityful by some of the women there, there is definitely a lot of hate and vitriol in some of those people. What I see are men who simply want someone to acknowledge they exist, acknowledge their pain and support them as they have done for women but too often it’s portrayed as “mostly” “majority” against women. Hell it was only recently that a gender neutral campaign poster was created that I could see, one based in new york with no gender assigned to the characters. It’s extremely annoying to ONLY see rape victims as mostly women, sometimes men, but ALWAYS a male rapist especially when recent stats totally change the view of rape.
I guess one of the best ways to raise awareness is simply talk about it with friends and family, hopefully they will pass the info along and it can spread. Thank-you for helping out though, it’s very much appreciated!
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 the Men Can Stop Rape posters have a good idea – most rapes and assaults are at the hands of people that the victim knew, from what I can tell reading statistics etc.- they fail to fully depict the realities that rape is more than male-on-female or male-on-male.
Personally I’m tired of the binary because it so relentlessly paints women as helpless victims and men as cruel brutes. I don’t identify as a helpless victim, and most of the men I know are gentle, compassionate souls who’d never hurt anyone.
At any rate, I’ll shut up and thank you for the resources and start incorporating this into my own facebook activism. I post tons of stuff about gender and endorse the hell out of female-specific issues (makes sense since I am one, lol), but at the same time have felt the need to endorse the hell out of male issues too so that egalitarian identify I spout on about can actually be validated with actions.
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.
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 the person that said this is embracing the “if people start hating you then you must be doing something right.” mentality. The idea that for people to go so far as to say that MRM is a hate group is a sign that the MRM is doing something right and are being labeled as such in an effort to silence them.
But I have to agree with what someone said above in that you seem to have started off speaking of MRAs in a negative sense whereas with feminists you at least spoke up on positive and negative. Even for all the hatred that comes from them I think there is one good thing about them. Simply put they talk about stuff that other folks either won’t touch or won’t touch unless they can surgically remove the male perspective from it.
In that SPLC article about pointing out hate sites one that was mentioned was mensactivism.org. The complaint was that they used a terrible headline about a Pakistani woman that killed her husband because he expressed lust for their daughter. What the writer from SPLC didn’t mention is that mensacticism.org literally copied/pasted that headline from the source it cited on the story, The Examiner. So does that mean The Examiner needs to be looked into for being a possible hate site?
I’m all for calling bull on the different gender rights movements but let’s make sure what we are calling is actually bull not just bull by association (Which I think is SPLC did to mensactivism.org, well it ran a story about a woman that committed a horrible crime so it must be anti-woman right?)
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 is the source they cited from The Examiner.
And notice that they say they are trying to undermine the “myth that women are less violent than men”. No the myth is that women/girls are never violent unless some man makes them do it.
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! I don’t deny that I talked negatively about the MRA, but I also talked positively about them. I cannot in good conscience ignore the bad just because everyone else refuses to recognize the good in it. 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 MRA is an incredibly small part of the whole MRM. So again, I feel I gave equal measure to both, although I actually think I was harsher on Feminism for being racist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, misandric, and more besides.
Anyhoo, thanks for your comment!
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 MRA is an incredibly small part of the whole MRM.
I do appreciate the distinction you make about MRAs being only a part of MRM. Problem is not very many people do that and seem to paint up the worse MRAs as the entire MRM. Even to the point where people who were once trashed as MRAs are suddenly of questionable MRAs status when talking about their acts of merit.
So again, I feel I gave equal measure to both, although I actually think I was harsher on Feminism for being racist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, misandric, and more besides.
I don’t think you were too harsh on feminism if for no other reason you spent a good deal of space speaking about the good that has come from that movement.
“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 I don’t see why a masculist wouldn’t fall under the umbrella of the previous two terms.
Maybe we need a new term, like a male equivalent of radfem, to distance ourselves from the crazies. “MRA” doesn’t seem very useful for this purpose.
“Radman” maybe?
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 the ugly things contained within them in order to grow as a person. It’s only problematic when such talk spills over from “feelings” to “actions” which can be based far more in vengeance and oppression than true equality.
Peter,
I describe a moderate as an MRM, strictly speaking, however profeminist is a term I sometimes endorse, depending on the person/group’s level of awareness. For myself, I prefer Masculist, even though that doesn’t quite define my moderateness.
I guess that shows you’re right: we need better terminology to define ourselves with. I doubt any of it would get picked up by the MRM at large, but it’d be nice. Perhaps you should come up with some for us! Haha.
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 is the driving force of the swing.
If you want to set yourself on a path to being better humans, then ascribing to Feminism is not the way. At this present time, Masculinism is the new force of change, it is young, energetic and it still believes in honesty and integrity. Obviously not all Masculinists, after all they are people and men and women have a track record with dishonesty. However, MRA’s (activists within the MRM who actually make change happen rather than just talk about it) who are rising to prominence are striving to hold to ethical practices. They have to, they are opposing lies and the best tool for that is the truth. I hope that their commitment to integrity doesn’t change but I am mindful that Masculinists are only human and should they gain the upper hand they may well be as brutal overlords as the Feminists have shown to be.
There is still a need for men in Feminism (this is from a Masculinist’s point of view) because the way Feminists treat Feminist-Men is an object lesson for other men who may be considering their position. Consider, you may exist only to provide a cautionary lesson to others. I believe there is another need for men exemplars in the Feminist camp, that is to provide a body of people who stand the slightest chance of negotiating and understanding the ‘other side’, the Masculinists. Feminist-women only understand what they project onto men, they are by definition not men and thus cannot know what it is like to live as one. The presence of Feminist-Men, I believe, will be important when the pendulum starts to swing too far in favour of men. it is my hope Feminist-Men will be able to build bridges with the Masculinist-Men and moderate the consequences of the shift in society.
Regrettably, humans are adversarial. The ideal is Feminism and Masculinism find a middle ground, of Humanity, and work out a compromise. The reality of the human condition is neither side will concede territory to each other in the popular consciousness because money, and perceived power is at stake. Feminism, despite its chaotic masses, is powerful. Power corrupts. It might not even be that influential Feminists are deliberately malign when it comes to men, I believe many of them truly believe their point of view. Genuine belief however, doesn’t help the men they harm with their legislation and their police procedures and their Family Courts.
I believe the conflict will be painful, many men and some women are going to be alienated and hurt socially, financially and emotionally. I believe men must be prepared to help men who will be the ‘casualties’ of the struggle, lose their house, their job their family, access to their children, their freedom due to false allegations. If we do not help these men, the conflict between Masculinism and Feminism will only be more acrimonious and the pendulum will swing in the favour of men all the harder. That will be a poor outcome if you are humanist.
Nothing happens in a vacuum, men are voters, lawmakers, judges and Police officers too. Their apathy or their assumed acceptance of the current social structure is far from guaranteed.
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
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.
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.
“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 have fathered a child and in theory retain their parental rights if the mother were to place the child for adoption without the father’s knowledge, but if I remember correctly most courts are ruling that “the best interests of the child” need to be taken into consideration, which is usually interpreted to mean that the father still loses custody.
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 radical feminists to be repugnant. I didn’t see it in this post, but I’ve read countless comments by other self-identified MRAs who deny the existence of such feminists and write as if the whole of feminism and those who adopt the label have no problem with the ideas of a Dworkin or a MacKinnon.
Interestingly enough, initially the radfems were motivated to radically recreate an egalitarian society rather than working within the existing social order. I’m not sure I could pinpoint when the shift happened, but I believe it was in the late seventies/early eighties.
I’d also point out that one of the reasons it seems women want to have their cake and eat it too is because they don’t speak with one voice. Some women are not only complicit in the gender policing they ascribe to men, they are the primary enforcers of such. On the other hand, you have some feminists who policed in the opposite direction, denying women choices that were considered bad for the movement.
All of which is to say that, just as with the distinctions made of the MRM, feminism isn’t any one thing. One thing that sets it apart, however, is that it’s older and therefore has had several defining periods. What you’re seeing now in feminism is the struggles between the second and third wave complicated by the (very) vocal minority of the radical feminists. Meanwhile the everyday people – feminists and masculists alike – who truly are interested in equality are largely silent and ultimately alienated by the vitriol in the debates.
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 of us including most of the feminists who comment here are already radical feminists. You can’t have radicals if the most radical ideas are already mainstream.
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 actions taken by each.
Moreover, I think it’s important to note (as assman mention) that radical Feminism IS mainstream Feminism, so it’s really quite pointless to call it “radical” anymore. Radical Feminism is currently relegated to groups like RadFemHub which contemplate male eugenics programs, and other obvious forms of extremism. Meanwhile, radical MRAs are still a minority of the MRM and so it *would be* dishonest to pretend otherwise for the sake “fairness”, in my opinion.
Meanwhile the everyday people – feminists and masculists alike – who truly are interested in equality are largely silent and ultimately alienated by the vitriol in the debates.
This is very true. And that’s why I am passionately opposed to any notion of this as a zero-sum game. (I feel like I have to say that a lot, haha!) However in order to engage everyday people, we have to accept the spectrum of their beliefs, which will include things we are personally horrified by, or which don’t help the movement. This delicate balance is the difficulty I myself am currently trying to negotiate.
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 with engaging people who are arguing from an extreme position. To suggest that feminists have all the power or that there is no difference between mainstream feminism and radical feminism is either to be willfully ignorant or shockingly dishonest. If you’ve read Dworkin or MacKinnon (and I have their books on my shelf right now) there is no way you can say their views are espoused by mainstream feminism. I should also note one more thing: if your understanding of “mainstream” feminism is from websites like RadFem Hub, or even Feministing, you’ve got a serious case of sampling error.
But the same Internet where you gather your understanding of feminism is where you can learn the differences between radical, liberal, and socialist feminism. One of the principle distinctions between radical and liberal feminism is around sex, sex work, pornography, and female subjugation. If you don’t know this, it’s because you haven’t wanted to know.
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 get the distinct impression you’re not arguing in good faith. When you reject any evidence that doesn’t fit the narrative of “feminism is only a force for evil in the world” then it suggests to me that, as Barney Frank once said, “trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to
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 as Jaclyn Friedman and Jessica Valenti. And this also highlights a crucial problem with Feminism: as soon as some Feminist starts saying questionable things that outrage people, they will attempt to deny her influence, participation, and cred with Feminism. However, this only lasts as long as the outrage, and the next day she’ll be sitting at the table again talking about cutting up men. Such behavior is notorious, common-place, and frustrating for those of us — who notably are not even mostly men within the MRM — point it out and are subsequently attacked for doing so.
That said, I can understand, and completely agree that the MRM has its own problems. Not the least of which is that the sheer anger contained within certain sections of the movement is virulently misogynistic and misanthropic. However, as I wrote in my piece, such anger is based in part on bad experiences which have left deep scars. I’m not saying this excuses it, but it does make it understandable. That’s my personal bias, by the way, I am more comfortable with men saying questionable things about women than vice versa, because I can personally understand and empathize where they are coming from.
But again, it all comes back to my original point that in order to create effective change, a dialogue is necessary. Even if it pisses everyone off.
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 all mean, NICK????
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 that it became the dominant form.
And I would argue that we see examples of this today, such as in the Lace Curtain, educational achievement focus in public schools, and stark differences in prison sentencing as well as criminal charges which reflect radical (now mainstream) Feminist ideology, at least from what I’ve read and studied. I think very specifically of Mary Daly, who was deeply influential in radicalizing Feminist thought even while engaging in blatant misandry, racism, and transphobia. I also think of Gloria Steinem, who describes herself as a radical Feminist (ironically she is deeply opposed to the academics of Mary Daly despite sharing virtually the same political positions) and holds transsexuals in suspicion as well as comparing pornography to rape and slavery.
That said, there are Radical Feminists who aren’t so prejudiced, such as Judith Butler, despite her severely challenged ability to write to anyone who doesn’t have a Ph.D., and Eve Sedgwick, who I kind of enjoy sometimes. Also, I doubt most Feminists would call themselves radical, yet the mainstream part of the movement is clearly radical. Now that’s fine, because a movement that is not radical rarely accomplishes much; but it also means they frequently push beyond equality, which is something many men here can testify to as being oppressive in their lives. (Hence the impossible-to-overcome anger, pain, and sadness.)
“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 men and what happened to them; the are often angry, they often want vengeance and sometimes it is very hard not to empathise with their desire for savage justice. I’m not from a terrible broken home, broken marriage or a history of abuse as a child, so what do I offer these wounded men that people dismiss as ‘crazy MRA’s” ? I have not walked in their shoes, so this is what I do. I make an effort to provide the ear of a man who understands the anger generated by injustice, who is at heart vengeful, but moderates his behaviour with mercy. I try to be the listener who can let their anger buffet me because I know I’m strong enough emotionally and mentally to take it, I do not feel threatened by them, and I can offer an understanding sounding board without being dismissive. Many of the damaged men have lost their capacity for mercy and someone needs to help them find it. Or they will not heal.
I believe this is a reason why the MRM is crucial; the majority of women cannot do this, they are unused to coping with the anger of men without turning the situation’s spotlight upon themselves again. I believe it takes another man to be able to endure the rollercoaster ride and emerge on the other side still intact.
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 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.
But no, some MRAs are too busy erecting caricatures of feminist positions to be bothered to actually learn what the real positions are. As I wrote before, there are valid critiques to be made; there have been missteps and unintended consequences. It’s fair to point those out and address them. But in this time of near universal access to information, ignorance is no excuse for tarring an organization for a position they don’t actually hold.
I’ve never said that there shouldn’t be a place for the MRM. I actually think it’s vital to have men engaged in the movement for gender equality, because women don’t have the necessary lived experience to advocate for men anymore than men have the lived experience to advocate for women. Men and women each have stories of of suffering, of abuse, of mistreatment by the law. We should be hearing each other and helping each other heal and we can’t do that when we’re spitting venom at the other.
I have my own stories of abuse and unfair application of the law, but I don’t use that narrative as a bludgeon against others; I expect no less of anyone else, including my fellow men.
“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 of some true NOW positions, please share them.
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 kind of gender discrimination VMI was designed to eradicate: treating men and women differently based on overbroad, outdated stereotypes—here, the stereotype that women, but not men, have a natural connection to their children. Using that stereotype Congress passed a law automatically granting citizenship to illegitimate children of U.S. citizen mothers, but denying it to children of U.S. citizen fathers, unless the father first proves he is indeed the father and documents his commitment to care for the child. Such a statute should have been held to be a violation of equal protection under VMI given that the government has not and could not advance an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for it.
That’s not just some token nod to men, that’s an attempt by NOW to have the Supreme Court invalidate a law that disadvantages men concerning parenting. I don’t agree with every position NOW takes, but I think it is only fair to give credit where credit is due.
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 NOW has taken to eliminate the misandry of the draft. So what gives??
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, you can’t bring a legal challenge to a law until the law takes effect and in this case there is no law to even challenge, just the (very valid) belief that if conscription is re-instituted it will only affect men.
If I recall correctly, in the last decade I believe legal representatives from NOW testified before congress arguing that women should be allowed in combat roles. I’ll try to find links to that testimony.
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 service, we must have the best people supporting that effort, regardless of sex.” and “”NOW and other women’s rights organizations have worked diligently for years to advance equal treatment for women in the military, and have made important gains,” Johnson noted. “We do not want to see servicewomen pushed back and military readiness jeopardized – and neither do Army leaders.”"
Huffpo had an article last year on NOW’s involvement and pushing for women in combat “The National Organization for Women first passed a resolution supporting women acting in combat roles in 1990. “Women in the military are exposed to the same kind of dangers that combat service exposes a soldier to, but the difference is that the women are not getting combat pay, and they’re not getting combat-related opportunities for promotion,” NOW President Terry O’Neill said in an interview with The Huffington Post. “So it’s only fair to recognize that women belong, as much as men do, in combat units.”
So, I think we’ve got that for us. Women have been asking, I see politicians like Santorum pushing back.
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 law enacted on June 12, 1948, enabled women to serve as permanent, regular members of the armed forces in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and the recently formed Air Force. Prior to this act, women, with the exception of nurses, served in the military only in times of war. The act limited service of women by excluding them from Air Force and Navy vessels and aircraft that might engage in combat.[1]
The act was a major step forward for military women. However, in October 1949 a new Army regulation decreed that mothers with dependent children were ineligible to serve in the military, and female servicewomen with children under the age of 18 were discharged. This regulation was overturned in the 1970s when Congress passed a bill that the President signed into law which allowed women with dependent children to serve.
In 1998, a ceremony commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Women’s Armed Sevices Act was held at the Women in Military Service for America (WIMSA) Memorial in Arlington National Cemetery. Then-Deputy Secretary of Defense John J. Hamre delivered the keynote address.”
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 armed services are pushing back against.
I see multiple levels of dynamics here actually, from sexism to socioeconomic issues, to a focus on misandry TOWARDS the men in the military as disposable, too weak to resist women’s vulnerabilities in combat, blah blah men can’t handle it. That’s not cool. All this even as women are trying to join them.
Of course, all of it is confusing to me since I wish we had need for less of a military than more, but that’s beside the point.
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 men like this guy who are totally against women being in the military.
Hot mess. But good news! Women want to be allowed to fight alongside men. How do we make that happen is a good question.
“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 just like to say that I’ve noticed a lot of the “feminists screwed guys over in such-a-such-a-way” speech would actually be better directed as “traditional gender norms screwed guys over in these ways.” There are times in which feminism failed to break out of those gender norms *cough*domestic violence issues*cough*, but they didn’t create them.
Like, okay, with the whole issue of Dad’s trying to be seen as actual caregivers (which they are)…feminists didn’t create the mother=caregiver dynamic. That’s a very traditional view of the division of a household along gender lines. Now maybe feminists haven’t done enough to change it, and maybe they’ve even done some things to reinforce it….but it’s not accurate to say that if feminism hadn’t ever existed, that dynamic wouldn’t exist.
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, and I read the info and determine that it’s accurate info (even if it flies in the face of my “feelings” about my beliefs) I have to adapt.
I’m glad you’ve been willing to read and listen. I don’t think MRA or masculinism is some end all be all of evil. I think they may have more things wrong about feminism then they realize. I also believe that feminists may have no idea what things they need to look at in their own ranks too.
It’s about facts and dealing with them not just the “truthiness” of how something feels. That said, it’s ok to feel your feelings about feminism. It’s just I don’t think we are the end all be all of evil either, you know? Those women in the military have been trying to be there for like…60 years. It’s not women keeping them out, it’s systems made up of men and women, liberals and conservatives both. It’s far more complex than, Feminists want to make men suffer in the army while we eat bonbons.
Just like it’s more complex than, MRAs don’t want women to have custody and BC access. It’s a system and as such, deserves both careful scrutiny and vigilance as well.
I think that MRA and Feminists are poles being bandied about by a bigger layer of politics as it is, but no one here really digs that idea.
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 Plan, an approach to DV that assumes it is gendered and makes proposals for gendered laws. It also attribute ‘ownership’ of children only to their mother; fathers have no relationship to their children it seems.
According to the latest figures on the Australian Bureau of Statistics, DV in Australia is not gendered; women are as violent in relationships as men. Their figures even show women, because they frequently use weapons, injure men at comparable rates and with comparable severity.
The issue of whether feminism can and sometimes does harm men is not a one-issue debate.
“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 is suspect…..HUGE CHECK. The whole rape culture concept is basically a fundamental critique of normal heterosexual sex which equates much of what normally happens between men and women with rape. Every single idea practically that Mackinnon and Dworkin had has become normalized. The funny thing is how blind everyone is to all of this. All of this has happened slowly so it appears people don’t think its radical.
And MacKinnon looks tame in comparison to feminists who want to outlaw street harassment. I don’t even think she would have considered something like that. Outlawing street harassment basically means women have a huge veto over all men. It makes men into second class citizens. How is it possible for feminists to even be radical in an environment like this?
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 other significant factor is the promotion and support of policies and programs that discriminate against men and boys. The latest example is the Affordable Care Act. A nice expose appears here.
http://goodmenproject.com/contraception-2/feds-to-men-buy-your-own-aspirin-and-put-it-between-your-knees/
I’m linking to it because, for some reason, it is not showing up anywhere on the main page.
Sorry, this was meant to be a response to Nick, mostly.
Eric, you summed it up very well
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 hard to have more. Because, you know, for humans “enough is never enough”.
Another flaw is believing that “you can stop suffering”: on some instances, nobody can.
Just think about harassment: to totally stop it, it would mean declaring unlawful any spontaneous expression of attraction. It’s not only unfeasible, it would be inhuman and horrible.
Women and men (and people in general) are different, so their likes and dislikes will always crash, one way or another; we can put a boundary to the worst offences, but we cannot ever stop all of them, and the consequent suffering.
And believing the contrary will cause much more suffering: like considering any adult male a possible pedophile! (sometimes a remedy can be worse than the illness)
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, but ultimately looking at it through that lens is too restrictive a perspective to be effective for me, and hopefully for others as well.
Another flaw is believing that “you can stop suffering”: on some instances, nobody can.
Agreed. I’m not so naive to think there won’t ever be no injustice. But I believe we can take appropriate action to prevent it, and even more appropriate action to resolve it when it happens.
Anyways, thanks again for your comment!
“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.