Two men from opposing sides in the debate about a men’s issues group at the University of Toronto come together to wage peace. Find out how they got on….
Last month we reported that violent opposition to a series of talks on men’s issues at the University of Toronto has become a cause célèbre for men’s rights activists around the globe. We decided to bring together two men from opposing sides of the debate to see if they could wage peace.
Iain Dowie of CAFE (Canadian Association for Equality) and Ron Couchman of Men for Equality and Non-Violence spoke with the Good Man Project’s International Men’s Movement editor Glen Poole.
Glen: Ok, to get started, why don’t you both introduce yourselves:
Iain: Hi I’m Iain Dwyer, I’m a spokesperson for CAFE, which is an educational non-profit that focuses on awareness raising for underrepresented gender issues. In particular we have been involved in a men’s issues awareness campaign on university campuses.
Ron: Hello I’m Ron Couchman, I’m completing an MA is sociology researching masculinity and violence, I have a Undergraduate degree in Gender Studies, I am co-founder of Men for Equality and Non-Violence, as well as a program coordinator of a city funded male engagement campaign. I have also been a social justice activist on university campuses for 7 years, and give peer support to men. I am passionate about men’s issues and supporting men through difficulty.
Glen: Iain, why has CAFE decided to hold meetings at the University of Toronto?
Iain: Involving ourselves at places of higher learning is a natural step in making the public aware of the issues confronting men. Our main goal on campus is to encourage future leaders to think in a broader, more comprehensive way about gender equality. In that sense we’ve been very successful; we’ve come to the attention of several national news outlets thanks in part to the radical actions of our opposition.
Glen: Ron, you’re opposed to CAFE’s presence at the University of Toronto. Why is that?
One of our advisors who works with fathers in the family court system talks a lot about ‘waging peace’ and that is at the heart of CAFE’s approach.
|
Ron: : I oppose CAFE on campus because it is REactivism, regressive, and inaccurately steals the language of progressive politics. They have some genuine concerns, many of which I also address, but the way they frame these issues is deeply concerning, highly inaccurate, and in many cases misogynistic. Many of their speakers, such as Warren Farrell are deeply misogynistic and hateful towards women. Barbara Kay as another example has an English literature degree and somehow she is positioned as an expert on gender studies after admitting “she took a course once in university”. Her writing is more reminiscent of a mild Ann Coulter then a gender studies expert.
Glen: How do you respond to Ron’s suggestion that the way you and the speakers you are bringing on to campus are framing the issue is deeply misogynistic and hateful towards women?
Iain: Our speakers have included several women – almost all published academics – including one person who is the former chair of a chapter of the National Organization for Women. Ron claims he addresses issues facing men, but the only male focused organization I could link his name to was to prevent male perpetrated violence against women. This completely ignores the fact that most domestic violence is reciprocal, and dismisses male victims by telling them they could have stopped it.
Glen: Ron, you say they’re being misogynistic and Iain says they’re not. Either way what about the issue of free speech? Are you simply trying to silence views you disagree with?
I do not feel CAFE is extreme. I believe they have good intentions but are misguided, misdirected, and angry in their framing of the issues.
|
Ron: It is not just because I disagree with their views. I am perfectly fine with people expressing differing opinions. They discuss equality without first recognizing the need for equity, and they posit men’s issues largely as the fault of women. The reason I oppose them so strongly is that I believe there are legitimate concerns for men, both social and health related, that are important to address; however, by failing to also recognize male privilege they are doing damage to the credibility of the men’s movement, and in the process creates unnecessary friction with women’s organizations. I feel they are doing a disservice to men who seek to address these concerns while also striving to be allies with feminist movements. Free speech has always been limited in Canada to exclude hate speech. Iain cannot see it as misogyny because he fails to recognize male privilege. That is how privilege works; it disallows critical thinking about our own actions.
Glen: Iain it sounds like Ron agrees about some of the men’s issues you want to raise but is concerned you are going about this wrong way. Why don’t you address issues like male privilege?
Iain: We recognize the different ways society views men and women, but we don’t like simplistic terminology like ‘privilege’ since it sweeps away a lot of the nuance of real life. For example, men are ‘privileged’ in that they are viewed as stronger and more capable than women. However, this also has the negative effect that if a man needs help, such as in a domestic violence situation, he is often not taken seriously. The recent suicide by Earl Silverman, who ran the only shelter for men suffering abuse in Canada, shows how much apathy there is towards the violence men can face. As for his claim that we blame women, that is completely false.
Glen: Okay and what about being more co-operative? Isn’t it hard to make friends when you keep slinging mud?
Iain: We do our best to keep above any kind of mud-slinging or personal attacks. We welcome dissenting opinions, but many of the methods used by our opposition crossed the line from simple protest or freedom of speech into illegal or unethical conduct. For example, barricading fire escapes, pulling alarms, threatening a ‘militant’ response, attempting to drown out our speakers with bullhorns, and spreading false allegations about us. It’s disappointing that our opponents resort to these tactics. I think it really undermines their credibility that more of our critics haven’t spoken out against the actions of those who would rather shut down our conversation than engage us in real debate.
Glen: What CAFE seem to be saying Ron, suggests there’s not much opportunity to make allies in the face of such extreme opposition. Would you agree?
Frankly I would love to sit one on one with and have an honest, open, and compassionate discussion about many of these issues.
|
Ron: First of all, they do not attempt to avoid slinging mud, in fact they do the exact opposite. They just couch it in political correctness. I do not define anything done by the protestors at the event as extreme. I believe very strongly in direct democracy. If we believe something is unjust or harmful we have a duty as citizens to resist it in whatever ways we have available to us. This is what the students opposing the CAFE event were doing. I stand in strict solidarity with the protestors of the event at U of T, and I do not judge the actions of individual protestors. I support a diversity of tactics. I do not feel CAFE is extreme either. I believe they have good intentions but are misguided, misdirected, and angry in their framing of the issues and their tactics.
Glen: Is the real issue underneath all this that you’re opposed to non-feminists having a space to develop their thinking about men and gender issues?
Ron: Not at all. It is not just a feminist and non-feminist binary, if it were we wouldn’t be having this conversation. CAFE are anti-feminist, that isn’t the same thing as not being a feminist. Frankly I would love to sit one on one with many of them in a personal setting and have an honest, open, and compassionate discussion about many of these issues in a space neither party would feel defensive.
Glen: So Iain, Ron says he would love to have one to one discussion with you. Would you be up for that?
The main challenge we’ve had is that those who disagree with us prefer to do so through a megaphone or by pulling a fire alarm, making a dialogue impossible.
|
Iain: Absolutely, although I do want to point out that it is difficult to have an open and compassionate discussion when someone openly supports those who commit crimes against us. One of our advisors who works with fathers in the family court system talks a lot about ‘waging peace’ and that is at the heart of CAFE’s approach. A big part of our mandate is having conversations with people, especially those who disagree with us. The main challenge we’ve had around that is that those who disagree with us prefer to do so through a megaphone or by pulling a fire alarm, making a dialogue impossible.
Glen: Ok, well hopefully we’ve moved a small step closer to meaningful dialogue today. Do you have a final message for Ron and a final message for our readers?
Iain: Ron, I think your heart is in the right place, but your support for criminals will make it difficult for us to find common ground. To GMP readers: If you’re interested in what we’re doing, for or against, I would encourage you to get in touch with us either at one of our events or through our online presence. We’re always open to suggestions for future events, even if they involve people who oppose us (but hopefully are interested in talking rather than shouting).
Glen: Ron, what is your final message for Iain and our readers?
Ron: I am happy to see so many men politically engaged and interested in changing the conditions of men’s lives. As men, we need to address these needs together, but in a way that supports and is consistent with the needs of women, and people who fall outside the male/female binary. Pro-feminist men, myself included, are addressing the same issues but in a way that is complimentary to feminism, and not using men’s legitimate issues as a form of feminist backlash. Men’s Rights Activists also need to talk about men and men’s issues without women being your reference point or source of blame.
You can visit the CAFE (Canadian Association for Equality) website to find out more and see our feature on opposition to men’s groups on campus for background to this story.
—Photo credit: danielfsnink/Flickr
“I do not define anything done by the protestors at the event as extreme. I believe very strongly in direct democracy [aka anarchy]. If we believe something is unjust or harmful we have a duty as citizens to resist it in whatever ways we have available to us.” – Ron Couchman 1) I do consider them extreme. These are the same tactics used by Lenin’s Cheka, Hitler’s SA and McCarthy’s Senate Committee; shut up the dissenting voices and you win. 2) By the logic in Couchman’s third sentence in the quote above, Couchman unknowingly but explicitly voices support for murderers… Read more »
When I have time I will try to write and submit an article addressing all of the questions. I am about to go to the office now so I cant address many points here. All of them are worth engaging with even if i dont have time now, so I will, I just cant immediately. I did want to address this one. “But presumably RON it remains ok for Pro – Feminist Men to continue to blame patriarchy and male privilege for female oppression, and to break the laws of civil society to do so. Like no feminist ever blamed… Read more »
It is not the “patriarchy” (read: men) that has made men feel they need to be bread winners, it has been society as a whole. The men in gatherer-hunter societies did not force the women to gather and raise the kids while they risked their lives to go off and hunt. It was what worked for the group as a whole. Society evolves just as individuals do. I can’t speak for everyone else, but I for one never label a woman’s voice as “feminist” unless she herself identifies as one (and feminists may consider doing that for MHRA’s as well).… Read more »
Feminist doesn’t blame men. Just because the random odd person claims to hate men and claims to be feminist does not mean feminism is about that at all. In bell hooks’ “feminism is for everybody”, she argues that men are not and were never the enemy, but rather, a socialized patriarchy. patriarchy =/= men. A distinction without a difference. Feminists argue that patriarchy is some encompassing, institutional, systemic, structural ideology, etc. which socializes and inculcates all persons and establishes men as its class beneficiaries. All men are “structural” beneficiaries of patriarchy and all men supposedly have “structural” privilege over women,… Read more »
“Feminist doesn’t blame men. Just because the random odd person claims to hate men and claims to be feminist does not mean feminism is about that at all. In bell hooks’ “feminism is for everybody”, she argues that men are not and were never the enemy, but rather, a socialized patriarchy. patriarchy =/= men. women can also support patriarchy and its equally toxic” Ron, The problem I have here, and with ideologies in general, is less an issue of whether their proponents allow me agree or disagree with their conclusions. It’s more of an issue of the very validity of… Read more »
Feminist doesn’t blame men. Just because the random odd person claims to hate men and claims to be feminist does not mean feminism is about that at all. In bell hooks’ “feminism is for everybody”, she argues that men are not and were never the enemy, but rather, a socialized patriarchy. patriarchy =/= men. women can also support patriarchy and its equally toxic. @Ron: What nonsense. What does LEADING feminist organization NOW has to say very recently, in its Fall 2012 Newslatter http://www.nowfoundation.org/issues/family/FamilyLawNewsletter-Fall2012.pdf On Page 1, Intro: This Special Report of the NOW Family Law Ad Hoc Advisory Committee focuses… Read more »
I do not define anything done by the protestors at the event as extreme. The phrase often used to describe speech that is too dangerous to be permitted is “shouting fire in a crowded theater.” Personally, I think the phrase is cliched and has been overused beyond coherence. But it is useful for consideration of this incident. Ron Couchman would have us believe that speech is pernicious and unacceptable “hate speech” when it refuses to accept and concede to feminist ideological stipulations before addressing men’s issues. Yet when a militant feminist protester actually pulls a fire alarm in a crowded… Read more »
“Ron Couchman would have us believe that speech is pernicious and unacceptable “hate speech” when it refuses to accept and concede to feminist ideological stipulations before addressing men’s issues.”
Yes, exactly! That’s the nail right on the head. Oh, Canada.
Wow, these 2 guys are at complete opposites. How could anyone, other than George Mitchell (Northern Ireland peace negotiator) sort out the complete polarisation of views? As a member of the MRM, I obviously am biased for CAFE. That said, Ron comes accross as very intelligent person. It seems that he has totally taken in the feminist idealogy. I am also aware that I am subjective in my views which would closely align with Iain’s. The real problem is to get the 2 sides talking and finding ANY common ground and building on that. Perhaps inviting both to go along… Read more »
The feminst movement completely ignores the whole idea of male disposability, has sat by for the last 30 years while the male suicide rates have continued to climb and vocally opposed the canadian equal parenting bill (C-422).There is no “common ground” when you see half of the population as inherently evil.
“…by failing to also recognize male privilege they are doing damage to the credibility of the men’s movement, and in the process creates unnecessary friction with women’s organizations.” One could easily flip the genders and say this about the self-identified feminists who oppose the MHRM. “…by failing to recognize female privilege, women do damage to the credibility of the women’s movement, and in the process create unnecessary friction with men’s organizations.” To deny that women, particularly white upper-class women, also have privilege is misguided at best, and dishonest at its worst. “…cannot see it as misogyny because he fails to… Read more »
Look, either feminists “have men’s issues covered” or they don’t. They don’t get to say “not our problem” one day and then through a fit when men go “you’re right, we’ll take care of this.”
You can’t go “ugh whatabouttehmenz?” one day, then declare “Feminism helps men too!” the next.
it seems to me that feminism wants it both ways, they want to not do anything for men, but they want to retain the monopoly on the conversation, and then *claim* they “help men too.”
That’s not going to fly anymore.
Free speech has always been limited in Canada to exclude hate speech. Iain cannot see it as misogyny because he fails to recognize male privilege. That is how privilege works; it disallows critical thinking about our own actions. How exactly is pointing out that a large portion of domestic violence being reciprical hatred against women? Also in regards to critical thinking about one’s owns actions do feminists and those that align with them allow for such thinking as well? When we see people pulling fire alarms and creating new rules and policies for the express purpose of blocking the creation… Read more »
Welcome to the world of Canadian academia- – A place where, yes, failing to recognize a concept that feminism posits, or to disagree with it, makes it misogynistic. And misogyny is hate speech. Therefore, to question feminist ideological interpretations is not just bigoted and immoral; it’s against the spirit of Canadian law, Canadian values, and shouldn’t even be considered part of free speech. To question that would be to defend hate speech itself. That’s the rhetorical architecture they have built and reinforced; feminism, unlike other ideologies, is no longer to be put through the same (or for that matter, ANY)… Read more »
I believe in a socialism that would control corporations and their lock on the state. At the same time, I’d like to see us move away from our attempts to control culture so much. This means I don’t want the personal to be as political as some do. As a member of the New Left in the 60s-70s, I think the best thing was the idiosyncratic creativity by women by women and men then. So I’m a cultural libertarian at the individual level. I don’t buy all that much the essentialist feminist vision of men. Yes, some men are tendentially… Read more »
Look at this Anti-MHRA guy. “First of all, they do not attempt to avoid slinging mud, in fact they do the exact opposite. They just couch it in political correctness. ” Since when has any men’s issues group *ever* come as politically correct? And how in the world do they come as politically correct when they state or imply that *institutionalized* feminist gender equality programs for DECADES have, at best, repeatedly ignored an important facet of gender equality? “I do not define anything done by the protestors at the event as extreme.” Since when is pulling a fire alarm not… Read more »
“Men’s Rights Activists also need to talk about men and men’s issues without women being your reference point or source of blame.” But presumably RON it remains ok for Pro – Feminist Men to continue to blame patriarchy and male privilege for female oppression, and to break the laws of civil society to do so. Like no feminist ever blamed men and masculinity for their issues? How about some equality here – feminism IS to blame for some problems men currently face and we have the same right to name and shame those responsible. Get used to it the non… Read more »
Should read:- ” People are more likely to retain long term the opinions they first hear”
Attacking groups with such venom, because you disagree with the way they approach a matter of social concern, at first sight seems puzzling. Expecting an acceptance of ‘male privilege’ before your words enter the world of socially acceptable discourse, perhaps the most puzzling of all. This type of rhetoric is merely an attempt to frame the debate. Even high school debating teams knows ‘he who frames the debate wins the debate’. Categorizing Warren Farrell as “deeply misogynistic and hateful towards women” really doesn’t say a lot about Ron Couchman imo. He is either astonishing ill informed or indulging in good… Read more »
There is currently a debate within the feminist community discussion feminism’s “branding” issue. I think that’s an appropriate way to phrase it as feminism as practiced by many seems to be an attempt to enslave the mind, but I digress. Anyway this is a response to a Huffington Post poll that found that 80% of people believed in gender equality, but onlt 20% identified as feminists. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_3094917.html Feminists assume it’s a PR or “branding” issue because they think people believe that people believe that feminism supports gender equality. Problem is many times feminists don’t support gender equality. I brought up… Read more »
So Ron believes in the patriarchy theory: that all women are oppressed by society and all men unjustly privileged and powerful. I disagree with that view, but I can respect it. However, he also thinks that refuting this patriarchy theory is hate speech and therefore justifies slander, blocking entrances, false alarms and other illegal actions. I can not respect that. To Ron, any speech he strongly disagrees with is hate speech. I see no reason to try work with such intolerance. I very much respect how CAFE supporters conducted themselves against the hateful protesters. I also admire how CAFE is… Read more »
I think I support Iain. A problem with the Left (which in a couple of weeks of soul searching, I’ve decided I’m still “in”) is that we’re still trying usually to find the correct line. I don’t think that there is one. But too many of us try to find the absolutely correct analysis for the right teleology (e.g. the liberation of women.) I love Herbert Marcuse, but his tract “Critique of Pure Tolerance” (which I think Ron implicitly agrees with) is very close to fascist. It allows for the shouting down and muzzling of opponents. I also don’t agree… Read more »
One huge problem with the kind of ethics used by Ron and by significant chunks of feminism is that it’s extremely unrobust. Even accepting the assumption that such actions are justified against someone who’s wrong about a fact that can potentially hurt too many people acting on means accepting that you are always one factual error away from being a monster.
I’m very left wing, and I associate with the MHRM. One of the tactics I find of the opposition is to paint the MHRM as right-winged, since that immediately conjures thoughts of them being anti-women, pro-capitalist, pro-life, etc. It allows them to paint the MHRM in a nice tidy pre-conceived box, rather than acknowledging that there are many within the MHRM who come from a huge array of intersectional diversities.
The same can be said of feminism. For example, I have seen pro-LGBT feminists, while I have also seen feminists opposed to homosexuality (such as this self-identified christian feminist http://jmuwomensstudentcaucus.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/my-view-as-a-christian-feminist/)
I have two thoughts. The first is that I’m not sure there is any way to move past this when one of the sides seems to be automatically assuming the other is operating in bad faith. I don’t know what to do about that. There is no way to rebut the “You’re being disingenuous!” argument, because it’s not an argument; it’s an ad hominem attack. If one of the sides thinks it passes for “argument” I’m not sure that discourse is productive at this time. The second thought may be off-topic, so I apologize in advance. Majoring in economics, I… Read more »
Hi Mike,
The indoctrination point has crossed my mind, but I didn’t want it to be the focus of the article . In an early draft of my replies I wrote about the student unions who organized the opposition to us. They’ve been widely criticised for being insular and opposed to new voices. I ended up cutting that part since it didn’t flow with the points being made and student politics are not very interesting.
Thanks Iain,
I completely understand, and I’m sorry for bringing up something out-of-scope. It’s just something that occurred to me “in the moment” so to speak.
Really, you should be commended for trying to open up a dialogue at all. I don’t know what it will accomplish, but there’s no question in my mind that we have to try.
Mike, in regard to the second thought of your OP, I think I get where you’re coming from – please see my reply to Danny’s May 5 post.
My girlfriend likes to routinely tell me of the “friends” she loses due to speaking about men’s issues. These are usually people she volunteers with in some social service sector or other. There are those of us in the social services who agree with the MHRM, or at least see the value in it, but those who are vocal about it are few and far between. I was “indoctrinated” in a feminist lens, but most of my professors who I spoke with agreed with my perspectives of men’s issues and the feminist lens. Some of the students I went to… Read more »
A very interesting and spirited discourse sirs. I have also done some research on mens issues namely in Masculinity and Schooling. I also wrote an article for one of local newspaper for International Mens Day 2012. See may read it. Time to give men attention! Published: Saturday | November 17, 2012 10 Comments Wayne Campbell, Contributor Monday, November 19 will be celebrated globally as International Men’s Day. For far too long, this very important day has not found the buzz it deserves. The theme for this year, ‘Helping men and boys live longer, happier, healthier lives’, is appropriate, given the… Read more »
In 2004 it was more like 18million men, and around 4million women that died from violence.
http://www.who.int/entity/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/DALY6 2004.xls
Hi Archy
Thanks for being a stickler or good statistics and I think you’re getting too things mixed up from the same report on this occasion
Wayne’s referring to deaths and is correct
You are referring to the DALY estimate – which is an estimate of how many healthy years of life are lost – not how many people die
Using either measure men and boys are the overwhelming victims of violence accounting for more than 80% of deaths worldwide and more 80% of healthy years lost through violence, war and conflict
Thanks for your contribution as always
Glen
Oops!, didn’t realize that. Thank-you.
The DALY estimate is a slight of hand trick to increase the numbers for women to make it look worse than it is. By using ‘health years of life’, it completely fails to take into account that men die sooner because of things like lower investment in their health care , etc.
PS: Thanks for that contribution from Jamaica Wayne
Great work Glen Poole! Here is a discussion I had with the “specialist” on Mens Issues at Montana State University and, while it failed to discover any common ground, I suppose we need to be thankful the conversations are even occurring…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tk1SCh5TQMs
Yeah, I’m still with CAFE on this one more than any other side. Poor show.
“Free speech has always been limited in Canada to exclude hate speech. Iain cannot see it as misogyny because he fails to recognize male privilege.” Fails to recognize a concept he disagrees with, and that makes it misogynist? Denying privilege as a concept is not hate-speech, does Ron deny female privilege? Female privilege is easily proven (selective service, conscription, right to opt out of parenthood, less likely to die by violence, etc). “That is how privilege works; it disallows critical thinking about our own actions.”” If I said feminists are privileged, does that mean they cannot be critical of their… Read more »
Hi Archy,
I’m on my phone right now so I can’t link directly, but my numbers come from Statistics Canada, and the number is 44% reciprocal if memory serves, so it would have been more accurate for me to say that reciprocal violence is the most common.
Iain,
I dont know if this is what you refer to, but there is this anyway:
“Among men, 6.0% or about 585,000, encountered spousal violence during this period, compared with 6.4% or 601,000 women.
About 57% of women who had experienced an incident of spousal violence in the five years prior to the survey reported that it had occurred on more than one occasion, as did 40% of men..”
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/110127/dq110127a-eng.htm
@Iain, thank-you.
@Ed, having roughly equal numbers of abuse victims doesn’t prove reciprocal actions though.
From Wiki, so take it with a grain of salt if you must: “In May, 2007, researchers with the Centers for Disease Control reported on rates of self-reported violence among intimate partners using data from a 2001 study. In the study, almost one-quarter of participants reported some violence in their relationships. Half of these involved one-sided (“non-reciprocal”) attacks and half involved both assaults and counter assaults (“reciprocal violence”). Women reported committing one-sided attacks more than twice as often as men (70% versus 29%). In all cases of intimate partner violence, women were more likely to be injured than men, but… Read more »