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
The SLPC never did declare the mens movement a hate group in the first place.
All they did was publish some dishonest articles and then a false accusation was circulated.
SLPC on the false accusation …
“It’s false. We wrote about the subreddit Mens Rights, but we did not list it as a hate group . . . “In almost all cases, we list hate groups at the end of each calendar year when we publish lists. I very much doubt we would ever list the Reddit [r/MensRights] in question—it’s a diverse group, which certainly does include some misogynists—but I don’t think that’s [its basic] purpose.” http://beta-balancer-1681234300.us-east-1.elb.amazonaws.com/news/reddit-mens-rights-hate-group-splc/ “
Eoghan,
Though we already had this discussion in private, for the sake of a full accounting in the comments I’ll briefly summarize my opinion.
The SLPC never did declare the mens movement a hate group in the first place. All they did was publish some dishonest articles and then a false accusation was circulated.
You’re right, they never did, as they’ve said. But their article, in addition to many of the falsehoods you mention, was ambiguous and uncertain regarding that point. I wasn’t the only one to reach the reasonable conclusion that they were labeling the MRM a hate group. Lots of people involved in gender movements were of that opinion (including people in the MRA and r/mr!) who voiced their criticisms accordingly. As such, the SPLC’s clarification was necessary and appreciated.
Zek, don’t start eating your hat yet. WHy is it that someone had to dig deep into google to find NOW’s position on this? The NOW statement was 15 years ago and if there was any time that it should have surfaced was during “shock and aw” where many guys had, in the back of their minds, the draft was around the corner. When reviewing all the “agendas”, though I may have missed it, I saw nothing in the passt 12 years that said anything about how equalizing selective service to include women anywhere. So I ask “where is the beef?” There is plenty about providing better healthcare for women in the military, there is plenty about getting more money for VAWA, plenty about sexual abuse in the military against women …. Put your har away Zek, save it for another meal
Really? Really?!?
So because NOW doesn’t have opposing gendered selective service as a cause célèbre, as one of the top issues they turn to over and over again, because they don’t publicly bang the drums loudly enough for you, that means they’re not truly concerned about it?
The Supreme Court has already ruled on selective service. NOW’s side lost. You don’t usually get a second chance before the Supreme Court. They have a position, and they fought for it when there was a fight to be fought. And there is currently no conscription. Whatever was “in the back of their minds” during our disastrous campaigns into the Middle East, conscription was floated in the House of Representatives and no one would touch it. There was no chance of the draft coming back, there was no opportunity to testify, there were no lawsuits to join. Nothing.
And there was no “deep digging” in Google. Here was my search term:
draft site:now.org
It’s the first link. Given all the other links to “draft agendas” why do you think this link is first?
I’m calling bullshit on this. Ignorance is fine. Ignorance is just not knowing. We’re all ignorant about things; there’s nothing wrong with not knowing. But this? NOW is on your fucking side about the draft, ample evidence has been marshaled to show they’re on your side, and you can’t even acknowledge that. When you have the opportunity to know, when the knowledge is handed to you wrapped up with a bow on it and you still discount it? That’s not even willful ignorance, that’s simply denial.
Please read Nick, Mostly’s reply to you. As he said, no deep digging. Came up in the first 10 hits for me. The rest of his response is everything I’d say and more.
NOW pushed back against the ban on women in the military as far back as 1990. Women have been trying to work alongside men in the military since WW2 and it’s been a slow process for that equality. Who is the one stopping them from serving equally? Women? I really don’t think so. More like Santorum and his friends. Look at the links I provided. They aren’t lies, dude, they are flat out from the news.
When we say we want to be on your side, show you how we are on your side (with facts even) and you still cast us some big bad evil? That’s just willful obtuseness to make your inner state feel better about a belief system that is (in this case) being proved wrong.
Julie,
I think there is a difference between fighting for your country being optional and it being (potentially) required.
The draft isn’t so distant as some might think. My mom was forced to divorce my dad when I was five as my dad was drafted into vietnam and came back with severe ptsd and strung out on drugs.
I completely lost contact with my dad as he was sick and not safe or positive to be around as a child.
The october before last my dad (who I found out had been homeless the last several years) died in a fire when his shanty in a nature preserve burned up.
There’s a difference between being allowed to serve and being drafted. And the draft still affects current generations of men, because the government lines up severe penalties for not enrolling in selective service.
Also, you assume that women themselves didn’t create the culture that sacrifices men (by force or shaming if necessary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Huxzr_keJT0) and keeps women safe from harm (even if restricting their choices).
Look at the white feather campaign in the UK during WWI.
To say that women also aren’t culpable for keeping women from combat is simply not true. And a choice versus a requirement is not equality, but supremacy.
“Also, you assume that women themselves didn’t create the culture that sacrifices men.”
Women and men together created and perpetuated the traditional gender norms that have men enrolling in selective service and women not enrolling in selective service. Feminism has advocated for changing that gender norm, so that if there is a draft women are included.
And, as pointed out NOW’s position was that a male only draft was inequitable. I believe that too. I think there should never be a draft again, for anyone. If they’ve gone up against the supreme court, which I believe Nick linked, and failed, what can be done? See Nick’s answer for more, but I agree with him.
I hate war. I hate compelling people to fight in wars they don’t believe in. I hate that our soldiers aren’t given adequate support when they return. I’m a pacifist.
For some reason this comment has me feeling pissy.
Who the fuck said it doesn’t affect men disproportionately?
Who said that no women are culpable?
Of course there are women who enforce rigid gender roles. Of course there are men who enforce rigid gender roles. No one is denying this. We couldn’t have these rigid gender roles if at least some women were embracing them. These roles weren’t imposed on women by men; they evolved in a culture with the support of men and women.
The charge was that NOW wasn’t concerned about this issue but the evidence is quite to the contrary. They were so concerned they tried to get women included in selective service, included in conscription, included in combat units, included on the front lines where they would be able to die with the countless young men who have been dying for us for decades.
This right here is the problem. Too many people seem to define their view of men’s rights as being in opposition to feminism instead of being for the betterment of men. And so if there is a feminist organization of course you need to be against them and of course they must anti-equality even if their words and their actions say otherwise. So you construct an argument to show that, no, we’re wrong, because when it comes to war and when it comes to the draft and when it comes to selective service, men have it worse. As if someone were denying that.
I’ve emailed our senior editors and think that a piece on NOW, the military and bills of the past might be a great article. Since we’ve easily come up with some indicators that NOW has done some work on behalf of both men and women, I’d love to see one on other things they might have done over the past 30 years that would indicate they are also concerned with men’s issues. If there are any readers out there with an interest in this topic you can email me at julie@goodmenproject.com or joanna@goodmenproject.com
Nick writes:
“Who said that no women are culpable?”
Nick, I was responding to Julie who had said:
“Women have been trying to work alongside men in the military since WW2 and it’s been a slow process for that equality.”
This statement reduces things to gender essentialism. Women wanted into the armed forces, men have opposed it.
As you seem to agree, things are not that simple.
I am glad to see that at least to some affect arm-chair pundits like myself seem to be moving things along. At least now a lot of people of all political affiliations are agreeing that A) women also helped to create the culture that lead to restriction of women’s choices (but greater safety) and B) that this system ALSO is at least as unfair to men as it is to women.
These are two points I almost never saw any feminist agree with say ten years ago. Progress is slow, but maybe someday we’ll care as much about the pain of men as we do women. We’re definitely not there yet.
Nick Mostly writes:
“This right here is the problem. Too many people seem to define their view of men’s rights as being in opposition to feminism instead of being for the betterment of men(D). And so if there is a feminist organization of course you need to be against them (C)and of course they must anti-equality even if their words and their actions say otherwise. (B) So you construct an argument to show that, no, we’re wrong, because when it comes to war and when it comes to the draft and when it comes to selective service, men have it worse. (A)As if someone were denying that.”
In reverse order:
A) I didn’t state anybody was denying that. If I make points they may be proactive or reactive. If I state points of interest it is not conditional upon somebody having the opposite stance. It’s a point that I think brings things to light. If you disagree that’s another issue.
My point is that there is a qualitative difference in the (potentiall enforced by prison) expectation that you MUST fight as a gender, versus having the right to or not as the personal whim of individuals of the other gender.
B) I didn’t construct an argument. That implies I’m just blowing hot air against a non-issue, or being duplicitous or something. I made an argument same as always. If you don’t like it, please tell me what you don’t like about it without the implications and sly smears.
C) No, I do not need to be against a feminist organization. However, for NOW it does seem to work the other way around. I have a personal stance against NOW because they have taken a personal stance against my gender.
Maybe you should educate yourself to the harm NOW is doing to men as you have about the (slight, old, and failed) good they attempted to do for men.
NOW’s paying legal defense for Lorrena Bobbit says an awful lot about how their stated goals do not match their rhetoric (and if you think this is a non-issue think what would happen to Fathers and Families if they paid for a legal team for a man who had sexually mutilated his wife–can you say death knell?).
They were instrumental in derailing a large chunk of the Obama stimulus from male-dominated areas to female areas simply because (per NOW president) “we are against helping burly men”.
The fact that they issue action alerts in every state that gets ready to discuss shared parenting also shows the divide between their stated goals and what they actually fight for.
Didn’t you say on page 1 NOW has no responsibility for men? Now, you act surprised that I hold them in low esteem if they have no responsibility for me and in fact have demonstrably shown to oppose my genders rights? Maybe you shouldn’t be so eager for a fight that you contradict yourself.
I do not AUTOMATICALLY oppose any organization because they are feminist and then label them anti-equality. NOW has a very rich history in opposing men’s equal rights.
You are wholly and factually incorrect when you say “even if their words and their actions say otherwise.” The factual evidence shows that NOW opposes mens (and especially fathers) equal rights all the time. The ARE anti-equality. You even said so yourself. NOW only has responsibility to lift women up (if to greater heights than men, that’s not part of their charter to address).
D) I support the betterment of men all the time. I do not blindly hate NOW as you seem to suggest in your sentence. In fact, I oppose NOW specifically because I am so well educated to how their actions do not match their stated goals. Too bad more people can’t say the same. Maybe then NOW would not have the (undeservedly) high reputation that they do.
“NOW pushed back against the ban on women in the military as far back as 1990. ”
“As far back as”? What took them so long? The army got rid of the WACs in 1975 or so and integrated womeninot the mainstream force. They started integrated basic training in 1977. so NOW finally caught up? Whooppee.
If NOW were serious about full integration they would be pushing to including women in hazardous MOSs like bomb disposal where their strength disparities would not endanger other soldiers. So far no sign of that from them.
But as someoone has poined out, the real issue is the draft and gendered susceptibility to severe disabilities for failure to register.
Quoting Nick, Mostly,
1)
“We have people making assumptions about NOW’s position on the draft when even the most cursory Google search would reveal their position.
And if you really cared to know, they actually joined with the ACLU in Rostker v Goldberg which attempted to find a gendered draft unconstitutional and, as President Carter proposed, have women included in the draft. They also filed an amicus brief in Miller v Albright supporting the petition that the requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1409(a) were unconstitutional because they disadvantaged fathers.”
2)
“The Supreme Court has already ruled on selective service. NOW’s side lost. You don’t usually get a second chance before the Supreme Court. They have a position, and they fought for it when there was a fight to be fought. And there is currently no conscription. Whatever was “in the back of their minds” during our disastrous campaigns into the Middle East, conscription was floated in the House of Representatives and no one would touch it. There was no chance of the draft coming back, there was no opportunity to testify, there were no lawsuits to join. Nothing.
And there was no “deep digging” in Google. Here was my search term:
draft site:now.org”
Oh for Pete’s sake…so first it’s “NOW didn’t advocate for equal military service,” and when that is proved false it becomes…well they haven’t advocated for it enough or recently enough. Just can’t win with you eh? NOW could throw millions of dollars at RISUG (or something) and you’d find a way to try to say it’s not enough or only a ploy or something. Let the facts shape your opinions, not the other way around.
Heather writes:
“NOW could throw millions of dollars at RISUG (or something) and you’d find a way to try to say it’s not enough or only a ploy or something. Let the facts shape your opinions, not the other way around.”
Other than stating their position that they are anti-draft, I see almost no expending of resources for male-only problems by NOW or any other large policiatlly connected feminist group.
How about as a baby step, NOW send a letter to the producers of the “The Talk” and say they are upset with Sharon Osbournes mocking of a man who’s wife maliciously cutoff his penis and threw it down the garbage disposal? Sharon Osbourne said she thought the idea was “fabulous” and mimicked it going in circles in the disposal.
This would go a long way to restoring NOW’s credibility when they were instrumental in redirecting 42% of Obama’s $800 billion stimulus away from construction and manufacturing (male heavy jobs) to medicine and education (female heavy jobs) at a time when men had twice the unemployment of women. This would go a long way to restoring their credibility after 10 years of enacting action alerts in every state that decides to debate shared parenting.
You say that Tom B wouldn’t even be happy if NOW spent millions on male birth control. Firstly, I think that’s a bit of a hyperbolic smear, second for NOW to do 1/100th of that goal they would be LIGHT YEARS ahead of the position where they are now. I have not seen NOW do one solitary thing for men’s issues (other than publicly stating they were against the draft).
You seem to challenge Tom B, that he won’t be happy no matter how pro-male NOW is. I challenge you to find ANYTHING NOW has done that is pro-male.
I’d like to correct the claim here that /r/mensrights is ” filled to the brim with such virulent misogyny”.
Anyone can visit there and see that this claim just isn’t true, as for the conflation of serial killers and the mens movement, this is just pure demagoguery.
Even the ACLU has done some good for fathers.
I remember reading on Glenn Sacks that the California branch of NOW successfully got hundreds of non-custodial dads released from jail. The reason is that they were denied a defense attorney by the court because the court process they were in was a civil court. But, California law states that if a result is prison/jail time you’re allowed an attorney in ANY type of court process.
I have a lot more faith in groups like the ACLU which has championed all sides of freedom issues than in something like NOW. NOW is only concerned about lifting women up. If women are lifted to greater heights (i.e. supremacy) they have made that clear that this is not their concern.
NOW seems to have no inclination to measure or address male victimhood or oppression. Without measuring how men are doing, then how can they be certain they are not pushing for supremacy rather than equality?
Answer: they can’t. Men are 80% of suidices, 80% the targets of violence, if the cdc report is to be believed men raped by women are 40% of all rape victims, men are 38% of college grads, 95% of on-the-job deaths, 90% of the incarcerated, 90% of the destitute homeless, 99% of those on death row, and fathers win primary custody 6% to mothers 80%, men suffer from gender-neutral cancers 2 to 1 over women.
And yet billions more in aid to women for education, medicine, homelessness, at risk intervention, mental health, and employment/training gets spent every year.
Our culture is saturated with violence against men (even rape) as comedy.
Apparently, it’s hip to not give a sh*t about men (or hate them).
In my opinion misandry is much more abundant in our culture than misogyny. Even if they are equal, there stands a very strong outcry against misogyny, whereas many of the pundits who claim they are sensitive to such issues actually practice misandry themselves.
Many in the DV industry seem to be heavily invested in misandry. Men are now where women were in the 1970′s. We face systemic and legally enforced barriers to legal equal rights in many areas.
That should have read “California branch of ACLU” not NOW
Can this junk be removed or at least be corrected?
Now moderators here are repeating its b/s about a serial killer as if its truth.
I’m not claiming anything about Sodini. I’m saying that anyone who commits a murder spree as such is mentally ill, not necessarily influenced by a particular political philosophy. Sodini was mentally ill and did bad things. So no, I’m not repeating BS.
Its good that you aren’t Julie but fact of the matter is that is the light that Sodini is remembered in. He has been cast, largely by feminists, as a woman hating jerk that got mad because he wasn’t getting as much pussy as he thought he deserved and went on a killing spree over it. Makes it easier to hold him up as representation of MRAs and PUAs everyone I guess.
Not unlike Solanas, huh? She was a mentally ill radical who wrote a mostly unreadable manifesto that people rejected and shot a major figure because she felt she was being fucked over. Yep, all us modern feminists just love that Solanas! I’ve read things on this very site claiming/referencing that feminists love Solanas and want to castrate men or kill male babies.
I must surely be doing this feminism thing wrong since I really really dig having sexysex with men and adore my male offspring. I must hide! They’ll take my Feminazi card away!
Blame the freakin’ media, pundits and the modern day journalism that values headlines and provocative positions, rather than actual fact. I suppose that’s feminisms fault too, instead of corporate fat cats like Murdoch and CO wanting $$ pouring in, rather than actual news.
Done. So done.
I’m done with this exchange. I’m losing my cool. Take it easy.
I know that Sodini wasn’t an MRA! I’m not saying he was! I know Solanas was a feminist. I ‘m not denying she wasn’t.
They both were extremely mentally ill and acted in such a way that damaged people greatly. And anyone taking advantage of that for news, for media, for pots shots isn’t ok in my book, in either direction.
I know that Sodini wasn’t an MRA! I’m not saying he was! I know Solanas was a feminist. I ‘m not denying she wasn’t.
Very true and I’ve said as much.
I was backing out of this because I was starting to lose it a bit (and truthfully I think you are too, understandably so) and once that happens the conversation is doomed to go only down hill.
Sorry for getting you riled up Julie.
Back at you. No worries.
Has this Sodini character been celebrated by any mra’s? I can find quite a few radfems that celebrate Solanas, I am wondering if there is a similar effort amongst some radical mra’s?
Have no idea. No one should be celebrating someone who didn’t get the help they actually needed and wound up killing people.
It’s not entirely apples to apples since Solanas wanted to be a voice in the feminist world though my understanding was that she was rejected by mainstream, and rightly so. I don’t think we should eliminate history though. I’d think it important to read her (or any radical during a period of massive social change) for the insights it brings and the directions in which NOT to go.
But I’m actually fond of history, the people flawed and all who created it.
No, Jessica Valenti, Amanda Marcotte, David Futrelle and people like that like to claim that he is connected to the mens movement. The author of this piece has used the same tactic.
There is no connection, not in his writings not anywhere to the mens rights movement,
Actually there is. Google it. Roissy was particularly well-known for stating that Sodini’s actions were justified.
I’m not saying the MRM as a whole support him, but he has been used as a rallying point. You can deny it, but it’s true. But it shouldn’t matter unless you think one bad person invalidates Men’s Rights.
So in response to your other comment that I take it out of MY article, my answer is:
No. I will not redact statements which are true. No matter how much it annoys you, or how much you believe it hurts the movement to state them. I am a Masculist and I refuse to be complicit in giving a pass to problems that occur in the MRM. Just like I refuse to be complicit in giving a pass to the problems with Feminism.
P.S. It’s really bad form to request for me to censor myself just because you’re keeping a political score tallybook.
Zek
Since when is Roissy part of the MRM, since manboobz said so? And going by what came up on google, roissy is not supporting him.
What you are doing here is not right at all.
There are is laundry list of feminist violence, that you would know about if you had done your homework, the intimidation and threatening of researcher and activists, the angry brigades terrorism, solanas, funding violent marxist terror groups in the middle east , calling for gendercide, celebrating lorena bobbit and so on.
Yet you are using leaps to attach a mentally ill serial killer and a terrible tradegy to Paul Elam and the mrm.
To be certain there were a portion of MRAs that did align with Sodini’s actions. The problem is folks while like Zek here actually recognizes that the ones that did do not represent the entire movement while the likes of Marcotte and Futrelle actively thrive on the deception (not sure if Valenti did or not). And isn’t just amazing that Zek doesn’t have the massive feminist following that those other two do?
Which portion Danny?
I have not seen the tragedy and us conflated anywhere baring dishonest hit pieces by the usual suspects.
I’ll admit that “portion” I spoke of were individuals here and there, not a unified bunch.
But I’ll say againt at least Zek recognizes it would be unfair to act like MRAs as a whole ID’s with Sodini’s actions versus the feminists that did.
Again, Zek doesn’t generalize and doesn’t have a big audience.
Marcotte and Futrelle have fans that will defend their deceptions.
Thanks Danny,
And it should be noted (once again) that I AM NOT a Feminist. I’m a Masculist and active in the MRM in my community. I regularly advocate for men’s rights and point out the problems of Feminism FAR far more than I do vice versa — but that doesn’t mean I never do, or never will, especially when people are using the issues I care about to further advance dangerous or ignorant agendas.
The MRA’s who support Sodini do not represent me, but it’d be foolish for me to act like Feminists do and pretend they’re not part of the movement when they’re being bigoted. I’m not a convenient liar like that. Just can’t do it.
Eoghan,
There are is laundry list of feminist violence, that you would know about if you had done your homework, the intimidation and threatening of researcher and activists, the angry brigades terrorism, solanas, funding violent marxist terror groups in the middle east , calling for gendercide, celebrating lorena bobbit and so on. </i.
Oh my god. Sir, did you even read my article at all? Or are you just trolling? Seriously. I literally spent half of the article talking about the problems with Feminism. I even wrote an entire other article that talked about the problems with Feminism too. I ranged from mainstream to radical, from the major figureheads to my own personal experiences. However I will not concern myself with conspiracy theories about "funding marxist terrorist groups" in the Middle East like some McCarthyite, nor The Angry Brigade, which had very little besides their logo to do with gender — nothing to do with Feminism — and more to do class revolution. I've already mentioned Solanas and Bobbitt in both of my posts so those are out too. As for gendercide and the threatening of researches, I can only state that I have only so much room to write — these are posts not novels.
Regardless, you need to inform yourself before making patently false claims about me and my homework. Apparently you haven't even done yours at all.
Point of fact: Roissy IS an MRA and part of the MRM. I don't like it and wish he weren't, but so it goes. Not everyone movement is filled with awesome people. So please, do not be like a Feminist and try to cut people out just as soon as they make us look bad. They do not invalidate men's rights.
Unfortunately, Roissy's post about Sodini that I read is no longer up because he had to switch to Chateau Heartiste, or some such, but you can find archived quotes through proper googling. For instance, "When men kill women, the underlying reason is almost always an unfulfilled psychosexual need. This goes for spree shooters, rapists, and serial killers. I'm not surprised Sodini hasn't had sex in nearly 20 years. As I've written before, to men celibacy is walking death, and anything is justified in avoiding that miserable fate.” [emphasis added]
Notably, Roissy’s commenters were even more supportive: “Finally a mass murderer writes a relatively coherent manifesto. Could be better, but at least it is implied that feminism is to blame and he is taking a last stand. I had been waiting for this (almost thinking I had to do it myself) and I am impressed. Kudos.”
So since you’ve shown yourself incapable to even argue in good faith, nor come to the conversation with an informed opinion, I’m going to ask you to STOP dictating to me what I should or should not write when you can’t even figure out what is or isn’t true.
Was Solini himself an MRA or just some random idiot who a few radmra’s used to rally behind? (if they did?) Valerie Solanas was a published radical feminist who committed violence and I’ve seen quite a few sites and groups that seem to use her as their champion, their rally cry. It’s far more misandric, far more extreme and elaborate than ANYTHING I’ve ever seen from the MRA. The most I’ve seen from the mra in fact is a few angry dudes sick of “bitches” and quite frankly just need to meet some decent women to set them straight. The radfems I see though have a huge amount of anger n bitterness, and a heap of radical material to help them marinade in that anti-male bitterness. I haven’t seen anything similar for the radmra’s, it may or may not exist but atm trying to compare the two for me feels a bit imbalanced.
Well I’m not getting into the discussion about Solanas versus Solini. What I will say is that I’ve seen really hateful things from both camps (radical MRAs and radical feminists). You’ve got the radical feminists aspect covered, so I won’t go into detail with that. On the radical MRA side, I just read an article by an MRA suggesting that all women actually want to be raped. Shit gets ugly all around.
No he hasn’t Archy.
Conflating him with men’s rights is a dirty tactic that certain well known people in the debate have used.
Ah ok, thought as much.
Actually Archy, I answered your question a couple of times throughout the thread. Sodini had a lot of support from people like Roissy, Ferdinand Bardamu, Half Sigma, and many of their commenters, as well as commenters at antimisandry.com, and others.
What was most telling though, and I saw this myself: was that nobody was modded, nobody really protested, and nobody even really challenged the support Sodini got in this cirlces. It was as if his ideas were truly accepted amongst these particular communities of MRA’s.
Unfortunately, Eoghan had a bit of a fit after being told that Sodini and MRA’s isn’t a conspiracy theory.
Sorry been in hospital for last few days. Got any direct links? (I’m a lil doped out of my head atm from post op drugs
).
Archy,
The comments at Roissy’s and Ferdinand Bardamu’s sites aren’t up anymore since both those guys shut down amidst controversy in order to start newer websites (Chateau Heartiste and In Mala Fide respectively) but Alas A Blog! (though I somewhat hate Ampersand) has most of the comments archived here: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2009/08/06/mens-rights-activists-anti-feminists-and-other-misogynists-comment-on-george-sodini/
Also, you mentioned: Was Solini himself an MRA or just some random idiot who a few radmra’s used to rally behind? (if they did?) Valerie Solanas was a published radical feminist who committed violence and I’ve seen quite a few sites and groups that seem to use her as their champion, their rally cry. It’s far more misandric, far more extreme and elaborate than ANYTHING I’ve ever seen from the MRA. The most I’ve seen from the mra in fact is a few angry dudes sick of “bitches” and quite frankly just need to meet some decent women to set them straight. The radfems I see though have a huge amount of anger n bitterness, and a heap of radical material to help them marinade in that anti-male bitterness. I haven’t seen anything similar for the radmra’s, it may or may not exist but atm trying to compare the two for me feels a bit imbalanced.
I’ve personally witnessed radicals on BOTH sides advocate for violence, rape, and mutilation of the other. I think Solanas *personally* had more of an impact on Feminism than Sodini did on Masculism (due to the time differential) there’s nonetheless equal parts violent extremism to be had whether you look at radfems or rad MRAs.
the Men’s Rghts subreddit is a sad testament to radical MRAs, but there’s also another outstanding example in Thomas James Ball.
Anyhoo, hope you’re feeling better!
Sodini and Solanas aren’t comparable.
Solanas is being shown to school children in Sweden, and in libraries and feminist reading lists and there is SCUM related activities, while the other guy, despite the OPs claims and referencing a dishonest piece on Jezebelle, is not part of the mrm not is he celebrated by it.
Its apples and oranges.
Eoghan,
I never said they were comparable. Unless you can point to me where I directly state that I’d appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. Actually, I’d prefer it if you just read my post finally, instead of jumping in with random accusations.
That said, Sodini is used as part of the MRM, he speaks about issues common to the MRM, and too many — albeit a minority of — radical MRA’s celebrate, sympathize, and espouse his views. The Jezebel piece isn’t dishonest just because you disagree with it. Just like I’m not a liar just because you disagree with me.
I was directing that at Julie.
And stop, Zek. There are no mra’s celebrating that mass murderer, there is only a piece of yellow journalism on Jezebele alleging it.
OK Julie. I would say the chances that he popped in your head as an example because of his incorporation and conflation with mra’s in this article are quite high though.
No actually, it’s because when it happened all that blather happened about it and I read it very carefully and as you pointed out, found no evidence. My point is he’s held up, wrongly, when he should have been considered mentally ill.
I’ve met many people who were extraordinarily mentally ill. Some killed people because they thought they were god. God doesn’t get the blame for that. The mental illness does.
“I read it very carefully and as you pointed out, found no evidence. My point is he’s held up, wrongly, when he should have been considered mentally ill.”
Ok fair enough. I wonder if we could get him taken out of this article. Its wrong on so many levels for people to exploit that massacre in order to try to score political points against the mrm. Its really bad form the way this articles is conflating it with members of the mens rights movement.
Danny
So, there isn’t a portion. There are only malicious rumors that have been spread by the usual suspects, that’s all that can be found.
I’d say that this piece has a larger potential audience than the usual suspects have now, and this piece that;s using the same devices that the usual suspects use, is here in this particular section for anyone to see. Obviously I can’t say for sure that this is deliberate, but it certainly seems to me that something is not quite right.
Zez
Roissy is not part of the mrm.
Plus there is no evidence that he said the serial killer was justified, he just pointed to sexual frustration and rejection as a contributing factor.
You are clutching at straws here, making exactly the same dishonest conflations that manboobz etc make.
Eoghan,
In response to your comment in moderation calling me a charlatan and a liar… you sir have no shame. I called you no names and took justifiable offense at you refusing to even argue in good faith. I asked if you are trolling because you appear to not even be bothered to read my article before commenting, denying that I wrote things which I did, saying I wrote things which I did not, and continuously derailing the conversation weeks after this article was posted.
You’ve asked for proof even after proof was already given in my post. Then I gave you more proof. I provided quotes. I carefully explained my reasoning and you responded with the same arguments such that this conversation has become circular — I show you something, you say you can’t see it, so I show you again and then you still say you can’t see it. Over and over again.
You’re certainly not at liberty to accept the veracity of my statements, despite being backed-up by substantial evidence such that very few people actually disagree on them, as they are facts. But that’s YOUR problem, Eoghan, not mine. I am not responsible for convincing you that blue is blue or that up is not down. Certainly I refuse to be bullied into censoring myself or lying to make you feel better because you’re unwilling to accept an ugly truth about our movement. I will not hold your hand and pretend that there are not problems in the MRM in order to satisfy your inability to accept the truth that Sodini (who is not a serial killer; he’s a mss-murderer — slight difference) is a rallying point for a troubling and vocal minority of MRA’s in the MRM. But regardless of if you can even accept this fact, you WILL NOT dictate to me what I should or should not write. I’ve asked you repeatedly already. So stop doing it.
Now, at this point, our conversations are over. I do not waste my time talking with closed minded folks.
Hi Guys,
We like to keep discussions as civil as possible. Please refrain from making personal attacks. Thank you.
” I do not waste my time talking with closed minded folks.”
Or apparently anyone with a cogent argument.
Paul Elam’s rape apology? Where?
WHERE?!