This ridiculous essay “Sex, Women and Conservatism” was floating around the Internet a few weeks ago, being deservedly mocked by some of the bright stars of blogging. When I read it, I immediately realized that it was just more of the same stuff from the “men’s rights activists”, better known as the MRAs. And it occured to me that your average feminist blogger is more than aware of the MRAs, due to the emails and comments we get from them, but most liberals may only be vaguely aware. So, since I had some time on my hands with Pandagon being down, I thought I would put together an overview of the men’s rights movement, not to be confused with any overall men’s movements, some of which are actually female-friendly.
The best way to understand the men’s rights movement for me is to view them as the secular arm of the right wing move to return America to an old-fashioned patriarchy. Many MRAs consider themselves Christian, and some even consider themselves fundamentalists. But generally, their arguments for male dominance come not from the Bible but from repeated and colorful assertion that nature has made women inferior. They are also secular in that many MRAs do not wish to return to a situation where women refrained from premarital sex, and in fact, many would argue that women’s greater power comes from our manipulation of men with sex.
The favored political strategy of the MRAs reminds me of the conservative strategy to get the media to tilt rightward, what Eric Alterman called “playing the refs”. Just as conservatives managed to get the media to tilt right by erroneously claiming that the media tilted left, MRAs claim that men are victimized by women’s greater power and hope to tilt more power to men. Thus, if you come across someone arguing that to achieve equality, we have to disempower women and empower men, you probably have an MRA on your hands.
It’s not an organized movement, but more a loose confederacy. In fact, there’s reason to believe that MRAs modeled their loose organization on the feminist movement, even though they don’t display feminist mistrust of hierarchy. Michael Flood, from a more positive group called XY, has an apt description of the general make-up of the MRA movement and their basic beliefs.
The men in men’s rights groups are typically in their forties and fifties, often divorced or separated, and nearly always heterosexual. In both general men’s rights groups and fathers’ rights groups, participants often are very angry, bitter and hurting (with good reason, they would say), and they often have gone through deeply painful marriage breakups and custody battles.
For some men’s rights men, feminism has largely achieved its goals and women have more choices, while men are still stuck in traditional masculine roles. For some, feminism was once a ‘human liberation’ movement that now only looks after women. For others, it never tried to liberate men, it has even tried to keep men in their traditional roles (eg as providers), and “feminazis” are involved in a conspiracy to discriminate against men and cover up violence against them.
Groups and figures of the MRA movement(This is by no means comprehensive, but just an beginning to raise awareness):
*Warren Farrell. Farrell wrote a book called The Myth of Male Power, a book that is part of the larger strategy of denying male dominance in order to restore it. Farrell has an odd history–he used to consider himself a feminist, but apparently he struggled with women in the movement when they rejected some of his arguments. He has since joined the “father’s rights” movement.
There’s no doubt that Dr. Farrell is a smart guy, but he is mostly a contrarian. This is a tendency that has come back to bite him, as his feminist opponents are not about to let him live down the time that he advocated for incest in a 1977 Penthouse interview.
*Glenn Sacks. Where would the right wing be without genial talk show hosts coating their arguments with charm? Sacks is here to fill that role, and to help mainstream the men’s rights movement. He focuses mostly on fathers’ rights and discrediting the anti-domestic violence movement. His charming manner, unfortunately, makes it easer to sell a philosophy that would make it even more difficult for women to leave abusive marriages, even more difficult for rape victims to file claims and would damage the well-being of children whose parents are divorced.
*Vox Day. This blogger is a good example of someone who blurs the lines between MRA and right wing Christian. He claims he’s a Christian, but his arguments about women’s inferiority spring from “nature” and not the Bible. A classic example here:
*Fathers 4 Justice The men’s rights movement has a huge presence in other English-speaking countries, and by far, F4J is the most notorious. You’ve seen them on TV–they’re the guys who dress up in superhero costumes and break into Buckingham Palace. They portray themselves as innocent men who simply love their children that have been badly used by an anti-male justice system. More often than not, the truth is that these men have lost court cases because they have histories of abuse, and they are more interested in regaining control over ex-wives or avoiding their obligations to pay child support. Anyone here raised by a parent struggling to get their child support payments is unlikely to be too sympathetic.
*Cool Tool 4 Men This popular site is run by Darren Blacksmith and is a clearinghouse site for all sorts of anti-feminist information. Unlike a lot of anti-feminist writers out there who put up a pretense of believing in equality between men and women, Blacksmith does not bother to hide his dislike of women or his belief that men are inherently superior. It’s kind of distressing and funny at once to read this site–Blacksmith can write an article advising men on how to misuse women for sex and then turn around and warn men of “predatory females”. The mail-order bride business is enthusiastically supported by the subset of the anti-feminist movement.
Mens News Daily This site is not strictly an MRA site, but the writers are mostly MRA true believers. The site is more a general “conservative” site, very anti-feminist, anti-gay, and pro-Bush. If you want evidence that modern conservatism is mostly a bunch of white men pitching an endless fit about giving up even a modicum of dominance, MND will give you all the evidence you need. MND is a total package–women lie about rape and the Shrub was telling the truth about weapons of mass destruction.
Children’s Rights Council Sort of the American version of F4J. Their main goal is to get presumptive joint custody laws passed–they argue that it’s better for children, but the reality is that it makes it easier for men to avoid child support payments and it gives men more control over their ex-wives than they have under the usual custody-with-visitation standard. The CRC presents like a children’s rights organization, but they are in fact a fathers’ rights organization. Trish Wilson covers them quite well. The problem is that CRC is getting laws passed–most recently in Tennessee. This is hugely problematic–custody laws need to be geared towards child welfare, not obtaining “fairness” between adults who have failed marriages.
Stand Your Ground This is an online forum for men’s rights activists and their allies. This is a good place to follow up on the day-to-day anti-feminist talk, and see ideas percolating that might one day find themselves into state and national politics.
And these ideas are making their way into national politics. Those of us who are familiar with the MRA movement perked our ears up when we heard the now-infamous justifications Rep. John Altman from South Carolina made when asked why the legislature wouldn’t upgrade domestic violence from a misdemeanor to a felony. His comments were grade A MRA, from the blaming of women for their own victimization and insinuating that domestic violence charges stem from female hysteria:
While at the same time expressing why men need sympathy while women don’t, since it’s harder to be a man:
It would be nice to write these guys off as right wing nuts, but we can’t afford to. Just as the Christian right is wielding undue influence, so are the secular right wingers who have the same anti-woman agenda.
By listing these various individuals and groups, I’m not trying to pull a Horowitz-style enemies list. Some of these people are incorrigible, but some are well-meaning people who are caught in the crosshairs of what is admittedly a series of complex issues. Glenn Sacks in particular is easy to like, and I don’t think he’s being dishonest or anything like that. But the truth is that a lot of these anti-feminist organizations do hide themselves and their true motivations in order to get the laws and culture changed back to the old order, where male dominance was unquestioned. Male dominance is not good for women, it’s not good for children, it’s not good for society, and, as I plan to address later, it’s not even good for men.
98 Responses to “Overview of the anti-feminist/men’s rights movement”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Interesting. On the one hand, most of the men you’ve noted here are idiots, with the exception of Vox Day, who is a Mega Super Idiot.
But the men’s movement isn’t entirely off-base. The number of men who are primary caregivers is lower than I think it would be if it were socially acceptable for men to do so. There is some inherent bias in the child custody arena. Men are trivialized in relation to their roles in family life.
All of that is true. But the men’s movement unfortunately doesn’t stop at the point where they might be helpful–which is at the point where they point to these problems and say, “See? Problems! We need to change our thinking on some things!” Instead, they use men’s rights to do battle with the feminist strawman they’ve created.
This, of course, is tragic on many levels. Because the men’s movement should be the flip side of feminism, the side of the coin that says, damn right it’s okay for women to work, and it’s okay for men to stay home and raise the kids–it’s okay for people to order their life however they want to.
I am sympathetic to the stated goals of the men’s movement. It’s their obvious unstated goals–which, sadly, translate to “smack them bitches down”–that keep me from becoming one of them.
Agreed. In the final part of this series, I will address the legitimate grievances of the MRA movement and why I think that liberal feminism is a better solution for the stated complaints. The underlying complaints, sadly, are just so much nastiness.
Oh, and Jeff, there’s men’s movements that work with instead of against feminism that might be of interest to you–Men Can Stop Rape is a good one in the U.S.
There is no doubt that the child custody and support laws across this country are archaic and far from in the best interest of the child. Unfortunately, it seems as though the nice, upstanding, good fathers made the mistake of procreating with a bitch who is more than willing to use the children as weapons and the good mothers who are working hard to take care of their children and not use them as a weapon procreated with an irresponsible schmuck. Worse yet, the system rarely if ever puts what’s really in thebest interests of the children first.
Get off campus much?
Nothings more boring or irrelevant than feminism. Yawn!!!
Cranky–
I guess since I think my ex-wife does is a pretty good mother, that makes me an irresponsible schmuck. Well, that’s true to a point, I suppose. I always thought of myself as a good father, though, but then she’d have to be a bitch–and that’s not the case.
Amanda–
That’s true. The one I’ll probably join in a few years (when I have time) is Dads and Daughters.
Dads and Daughters is a great organization. And I appreciate the humor–one thing MRAs distract from is that most couples who divorce don’t have these custody battles.
Oh, and derek, the thing that is really tedious is those who think that cheap, unamusing “mockery” will just make women quit caring about our rights and sneak back to the kitchen.
Hm. Both of my wives tried (with some success) to be good mothers. Looking back on the b.s. of two failed marriages it seems nuts how much the need of the state to assert its supremacy did not help relations along. The law is a blunt instrument. And no, things were not the same then as now. I think there will always be a problem trying to legislate someone into being what the state wants. People are not that forgiving about perceived injustice and strike out in whatever ways are left them because of rage. It isn’t fun.
you know, i may be the guy who’s always getting into friendly arguments/discussions with feminist friends of mine because i think that not every part of society is patriarchally dominated, and that simplifying all situations to male/female is really unhealthy, and that Valerie Solanas was a dangerous and indefensible nutcase without any valid arguments…. BUT:
jesus fucking christ! what fucking universe do these guys live in where Men as a whole are oppressed? (well, i guess it’s similar to the universe in which everyone is out to get the Christian Families…) if you’re a guy who’s tired of the limited gender roles offered to you, then blame patriarchy, not the feminists! fucking a.
Does anyone else think it’s funny that someone would follow the word “yawn” with “!!!” ? I mean, how can you be excited about yawning?
“Interesting. On the one hand, most of the men you’ve noted here are idiots, with the exception of Vox Day, who is a Mega Super Idiot”
Damn. I guess it’s that bad and we need a scale for these MRA guys. I understand being angry over rigid gender roles, but fucking hello!!! That’s what feminism wants to get rid of or at least re-mold. I’m a liberal-feminist by the way.
“…if you’re a guy who’s tired of the limited gender roles offered to you, then blame patriarchy, not the feminists! fucking a.”
No it really is about smacking us bitches down. Especially feminists who tell women to stand up for our rights as human beings and women. Feminism is an easy scapegoat because hey, fuck women’s right to be treated like equal citizens and human beings! It’s not like we deserve them, right? ::rolls eyes:: Fucking bullshit. The misogyny just keeps going on–so easy to resort to when women don’t act the way you want.
“Valerie Solanas…[…]”
She was a fucking nutcase. I’m a feminist, but I don’t defend her. I don’t even believe she was feminist. But that’s just me. You read Solanas when you want to read something sociopathic and homicidal, but not Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Hitler’s grammar was pretty damn bad anyway.
Thanks for the kind comments, y’all. Dealing with the MRAs on other discussion boards is an odd thing–despite my stated views that men are stifled by gender roles as well, and despite (or probably because of) my constructive ideas for getting rid of these roles, I get called a man-hater. I think that’s where they get bundled up. They hate the roles, but when you criticize the role, they think you hate men themselves.
Thanks for the link, Amanda. I think the men’s rights groups, especially the pro-feminist ones, have some legitimate gripes about how oppressive the traditional male role is, but - as you said - the masculinist men’s rights groups prefer to attack feminism rather than do any real work to change the nature of the masculine role. They refuse to see that feminism seeks to change the bad points of both the feminine and masculine roles.
Vox Day also blamed social problems on women having the right to vote. That sounds like the unbrella men’s/fathers’ rights group Father’s Manifesto. F_M proposed revoking women’s right to vote about eight years ago. Lots of mainstream fathers’ rights groups had endorsed F_M.
I’m guessing that for most of these MRA types, their divorces ended the last close contact they had with any woman without paying money for it.
Amanda: “despite my stated views that men are stifled by gender roles as well, and despite (or probably because of) my constructive ideas for getting rid of these roles”
In this light, as a feminist, what do you think of when liberals and feminists accidentally reveal their belief that man’s worth and value are determined by the women that he can sexually attract?
For example, when “Molly” sneers: “I’m guessing that for most of these MRA types, their divorces ended the last close contact they had with any woman without paying money for it.”
It is obvious what “Molly” thinks of men who are unable to attract sexual attention from women. And this view is not exactly uncommon. Feminists everywhere seem to love to swing the sexual status club to strike down their ideological opponents whenever they see an opening, “Virgin Ben” being the most explicit example of this phenomenon. (Of course, a “men’s movement” is practically by design a movement for low-status men, and therefore offers lots of easy targets.)
As a supporter of sociobiology, I can’t really disagree with this view, since sexual selection is the last vestige of total darwinism and political incorrectness that the average person encounters during their life. Besides, I often swing the same sword myself. (You know against who.) But I’d like to point out that this view comes with a price: it makes feminists hypocrites when they complain that men stick rigidly to their gender roles and keep escalating the eternal zero-sum competition for hierarchy and status.
(As long as men can see with their own eyes what happens to the losers in this status competition game, I am happy to bet anything on that they will not stop playing the game. And let’s not kid ourselves to believe that it is not a “game”: this is proven every time a woman uses the appropriate word “loser” to describe a man she doesn’t like.)
If feminists ever want men to stop considering women “property” whose “ownership” and “control” determine the winners of a status competition that has important consequences in life, a very good start would be to stop behaving like property whose ownership and control determine the winners of a status competition that has important consequences in life.
The point is that it’s these men’s attitude toward women that repels women. This frequently turns into a feedback loop where he hates women, so they avoid him, so he hates them more. Stating this fact isn’t addressing the man’s worth in terms of “who he can get”, but rather correctly identifying the source/cause of his “problem” as with himself rather than with the women he blames.
Long story short, if you hate women with a passion, not a lot of women are going to demean themselves just to date you, no matter how great of a catch you think you are. That’s a fact that women hating men just need to learn to live with instead of blaming the problem on the women.
Just as conservatives managed to get the media to tilt right by erroneously claiming that the media tilted left, MRAs claim that men are victimized by women’s greater power and hope to tilt more power to men.
They really love this pattern, and sadly, when you’ve got a lot of people eager to play victim, it’s a pretty successful ruse. They are also trying it with the whole “liberal professors oppress all conservative students!” thing.
Ilkka, I think both sides are guilty of it. A common anti-fem argument is that we are ugly and can’t get men anyway.
There are some MRAs who I like, and some I don’t. What confuses me is that both sides seem to want the same thing. I also agree that it’s not feminists who want to keep male chivalry intact, but the conservative traditionalists. Check out what the anti-male and anti-female statements the IWF recently made.
http://redneckfeminist.blogspot.com/2005/04/men-against-chivalry.html
“Just as conservatives managed to get the media to tilt right by erroneously claiming that the media tilted left, MRAs claim that men are victimized by women’s greater power and hope to tilt more power to men.”
Don’t they understand how their abrasiveness turns off other men? I’ve seen plenty of men who don’t condone what men’s rights activists stand for. I know men’s rights activists see themselves of victims. It’s as if men have no power or say in anything that goes wrong in their lives, yet they don’t do anything to actually fix that. They spend most of their time complaining about how bad they think they have it and attacking feminists. While there are problems with the masculine role as it is seen today, that’s not the fault of feminists. They also don’t understand that not getting your way in court doesn’t necessarily mean that the courts are biased against men. Courts rule according to the best interests of the child. If these guys want sole or “equal” custody, they should start doing the nuts and bolts childrearing from the beginning, like most moms do, not years later in court due to a “divorce-bed conversion.”
I am a Men’s Rights Activist. I post on Stand Your Ground, as well as listen to Glenn Sacks. My husband reads Men’s News Daily.
I am 34, female, married with two sons. I consider myself moderate to conservative, yet do not endorse Bush as gospel. I stay at home, homeschool, and run a dog training business. I am not what you claim is a typical MRA.
I do think the media is liberal. Here is my reasoning. When the media only labels people as a race if they are non-white, that shows an inherant bias that most of the media is white. It is a given that the person is white unless otherwise noted.
In the media, you do not hear about liberal senators, or left wing nuts, or any other label. Either the politition or expert is conservative-or they are normal. This leads me to believe there is an inherant bias in the system, that most of the media is liberal. If you look at conservative media outlets, they label both liberal and conservative.
Most MRAs, and my husband and I have been around this crowd for 3-4 years so we know many of them, are equalists. This means they have no interest in domination, patriachy, or any other form of dominion. They simply want equality. They see feminism as pro-female rights, indifferent to men’s issues. I have to agree with them.
There are a few nut jobs who want to see women subjugated, but they do not speak for the rest of us. We openly separate ourselves from them.
Most of us expect equality such as gender nuetral VAWA, perhaps the Violence Agianst People Act, 50/50 presumed custody in non-abusive cases, and proof entered to a jury of peers for allegations of said abuse, for both men and women.
Laws and punishments must be metted out equally for men and women, based on the crime, not on the sex of the perpetrator. If a man murders a woman for cheating, he should get the same punishment as a woman who murders her husband for cheating, not more as is current.
I could go on, but I think you get the point. Just as moderate feminists do not like being labeled as radical, it is not fair to label the MRAs based on a few. We stand up and disagree with the radicals on our own side as much as the radicals on the other side.
If you have any questions, please ask. I am willing to do my best to answer any quastions honestly and with respect.
Jen
“The nuclear family must be destroyed… Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.” — Linda Gordon
“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” — Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.
“I haven’t the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero- sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary- vested-interest-power. But then, I have great difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do about all this. In addition to doing the shitwork that women have been doing for generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don’t mean that. Yes, I really do.” — Robin Morgan
“We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.” — Robin Morgan
“I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire.”
— Robin Morgan
To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.”
— Valerie Solanas, Authoress of the SCUM Manifesto
“Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex.”
— Valerie Solana, SCUM founder (Society for Cutting Up Men.)
“The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness…can be trained to do most things.”
— Jilly Cooper, SCUM (Society For Cutting Up Men, started by Valerie Solanas)
“Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.” — Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW
“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” — Andrea Dworkin
“Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice.” — Andrea Dworkin
“Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women’s bodies.” — Andrea Dworkin
“In my own life, I don’t have intercourse. That is my choice.” — Andrea Dworkin
Under patriarchy, every woman’s son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.” — Andrea Dworkin
“To be rapeable, a position that is social, not biological, defines what a woman is.” — Andrea Dworkin
“Q: People think you are very hostile to men.
A: I am.” — Andrea Dworkin
“Men use the night to erase us.” — Andrea Dworkin
“The annihilation of a woman’s personality, individuality, will, character, is prerequisite to male sexuality.” — Andrea Dworkin
“Men love death. In everything they make, they hollow out a central place for death, let its rancid smell contaminate every dimension of whatever still survives. Men especially love murder. In art they celebrate it, and in life they commit it. They embrace murder as if life without it would be devoid of passion, meaning, and action, as if murder were solace, stilling their sobs as they mourn the emptiness and alienation of their lives.”
— Andrea Dworkin
“Men are rapists, batterers, plunderers, killers; these same men are religious prophets, poets, heroes, figures of romance, adventure, accomplishment, figures ennobled by tragedy and defeat. Men have claimed the earth, called it ‘Her’. Men ruin Her. Men have airplanes, guns, bombs, poisonous gases, weapons so perverse and deadly that they defy any authentically human imagination.”
— Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women
“On the Left, on the Right, in the Middle; Authors, statesmen, thieves; so-called humanists and self-declared fascists; the adventurous and the contemplative, in every realm of male expression and action, violence is experienced and articulated as love and freedom.”
— Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women.
“The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist” — Ti-Grace Atkinson
“Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice.” — Ti-Grace Atkinson
“When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression.” — Sheila Jeffrys
“Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated.” — Catherine MacKinnon
“All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.” — Catherine MacKinnon
“You grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs.”
— Catherine MacKinnon (Prominent legal feminist scholar; University of Michigan, & Yale.)
“In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.”
— Catharine MacKinnon, quoted in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women’s Studies.
“The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men.” — Sharon Stone; Actress
“Ninety-five percent of women’s experiences are about being a victim. Or about being an underdog, or having to survive… women didn’t go to Vietnam and blow things up. They are not Rambo.”
— Jodie Foster; Actress - as quoted in The New York Times Magazine.
“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” — Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future - If There Is One - Is Female.
“And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual (male), it may be mainly a quantitative difference.”
— Susan Griffin, Rape: The All-American Crime.
“If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males.” –Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001.
“If anyone is prosecuted for filing a false report, then victims of real attacks will be less likely to report them.” - David Angier
“Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.” - Catherine Comins
“As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women…he can sexually molest his daughters… THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE.”
— Marilyn French (her emphasis)
“All men are rapists and that’s all they are”
— Marilyn French, Authoress; (later, advisoress to Al Gore’s Presidential Campaign.)
“Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release.”
— Germaine Greer.
“All men are good for is f**king, and running over with a truck”.
Statement made by A University of Maine Feminist Administrator, quoted by Richard Dinsmore, who brought a successful civil suit against the University in the amount of $600,000. Richard had protested the quote; was dismissed thereafter on the grounds of harassment; and responded by bringing suit against the University. 1995 settlement.
“Women have their faults / men have only two: / everything they say / everything they do.”
— Popular Feminist Graffiti
“We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men.” — Elizabeth Cady Stanton
Notwithstanding the claims here to the contrary, I’ve found that women tend to hook up with men who share their opinions on appropriate sex roles. Plenty of women out there support a “traditional” patriarchal viewpoint. You can call them deluded, brainwashed, misguided, or weak. But the end result is that, with the exception of those who truly hate women, your average cro magnon male has few problems getting dates.
Terrific summary, Amanda. Of course, we must always note that the MRM represents only a small percentage of men in the broader men’s movement. But lordy, are they loud.
It is obvious what “Molly” thinks of men who are unable to attract sexual attention from women.
Really? This is fascinating–exactly what do I think of “men who are unable to attract sexual attention from women”?
Besides, I often swing the same sword myself. (You know against who.)
Gee, more mind-reading fun. But actually, no, I don’t. Or care, either, since there doesn’t seem to be much point to reading more drivel from some kid (how old are you, anyway?) who believes that getting laid depends wholly on some undefined “status,” while said status depends on getting laid. (Go ask your mom what a tautology is.)
I have no idea what your love life is like, of course, but I wouldn’t expect much for a guy who can’t even figure out that whether or not the woman actually likes the guy is the major factor.
Jen:
I am with you on gender-neutral laws and presumed 50/50 custody. I think that, in general, there is a bias in the courts against men. However, I think it has a lot to do with gender stereotypes. A society that thinks only women should raise children is going to have courts that automatically give custody to the mother. Do you agree with that statement?
thanks,
drumgurl
It’s funny, when men stand up to demand their rights under law, and as human beings of equal worth, we are labelled as misogynists, abusers, patriarchal enablers et al. Yet the same behaviour by feminists is considered ‘empowerment’.
To the extent that feminist groups like FAL at UNH can hold hate rallies, and sing songs and poetry about castrating men in general because men use their penises to rape, and talk about how man hating is fun, it is certainly not ‘empowerment’, rather misandry.
I also take issue with your enemies list. There is too much Ms. Information there for me to address in this one post, suffice it to say that other than Vox Day (and other radical elements), the mainstream men’s movement is not against equal opportunity and rights, but neither is it feminist. The core philosophical disagreement between these mainstream men’s movement individuals (MMMI’s) and feminists is that the MMMI’s embrace a humanistic view of rights and responsibilities, while feminists really care only about advancing _women’s_ rights - and damn the consequences if that happens to be at the expense of men, and even in some cases children. Every feminist cause celebre is about advancing women but it is based on a model of situational advantage and not one of the professed equality (situation advantage = equality of outcome not opportunity).
Whereas, the men’s movement’s causes in many cases are not simply about advantage for men, rather they are about fair and equitable treatment under law.
For some of the men’s issues please see: http://www.mensactivism.org/activism_files/what_are_mens_issues.pdf
It’s funny, when men stand up to demand their rights under law, and as human beings of equal worth, we are labelled as misogynists, abusers, patriarchal enablers et al. Yet the same behaviour by feminists is considered ‘empowerment’.
To the extent that feminist groups like FAL at UNH can hold hate rallies, and sing songs and poetry about castrating men in general because men use their penises to rape, and talk about how man hating is fun, it is certainly not ‘empowerment’, rather misandry.
I also take issue with your enemies list. There is too much Ms. Information there for me to address in this one post, suffice it to say that other than Vox Day (and other radical elements), the mainstream men’s movement is not against equal opportunity and rights, but neither is it feminist. The core philosophical disagreement between these mainstream men’s movement individuals (MMMI’s) and feminists is that the MMMI’s embrace a humanistic view of rights and responsibilities, while feminists really care only about advancing _women’s_ rights - and damn the consequences if that happens to be at the expense of men, and even in some cases children. Every feminist cause celebre is about advancing women but it is based on a model of situational advantage and not one of the professed equality (situation advantage = equality of outcome not opportunity).
Whereas, the men’s movement’s causes in many cases are not simply about advantage for men, rather they are about fair and equitable treatment under law.
For some of the men’s issues please see: http://www.mensactivism.org/activism_files/what_are_mens_issues.pdf
“…despite my stated views that men are stifled by gender roles as well, and despite (or probably because of) my constructive ideas for getting rid of these roles, I get called a man-hater.”
Well, what do you expect, honestly? If a man were to prescribe a gender role for women (especially one women disagreed with), he would be denounced as anti-woman and anti-feminist. I don’t begrudge you the right to criticize male gender roles, but I would urge you to absorb the backlash with the same enthusiasm you’d feel putting the smackdown on a male telling women what they should or should not be.
Molly: “exactly what do I think of “men who are unable to attract sexual attention from women”?”
You tell me. I got the impression that you consider such inability to be a bad thing and thus an effective slur, when you wrote “I’m guessing that for most of these MRA types, their divorces ended the last close contact they had with any woman without paying money for it.”
I have seen enough sneers and slurs of the form “look at those worthless men, they can’t even get any dates” to immediately recognize them as what they are, even if the speaker herself is sometimes unaware of this fact. (In the quoted paragraph, replace the term “MRA types” with “unemployed men” or “men who have lost their homes” or any other feminist-approved victim group and reread it, if can’t see why it was a clear sneer towards low-status men who we know largely populate the “men’s movement”, as opposed to, say, a loving expression of constructive criticism.)
Molly: “Gee, more mind-reading fun.”
I was addressing Amanda there, not you.
Molly: “since there doesn’t seem to be much point to reading more drivel from some kid (how old are you, anyway?)”
As for myself, I am happily married for the tenth year. Calling someone a kid or boy, by the way, is another well-known tactic to imply that some man is sexually inexperienced and therefore worthless.
(Women can’t seem to help their insticts to use these effective putdowns, but I take no personal insult in this. I like to point them out, though. It’s always fun to point out the selective nature of the equalist ideology.)
Molly: “while said status depends on getting laid”
But this is the very impression that I get from the modern feminist movement and the way its ideological spokeswomen try to put down their male opponents in random fits of honesty. If feminists don’t really believe this, then simply stop using sexual rejection as a slur towards men and I believe you. Until then, actions speak louder than words.
For example, any person who ever uses the term “wanker” to put down some man (and the target of this particular slur is always some man, never a woman, for reasons that are obvious to anyone even cursorily familiar with sociobiology) clearly believes that there is a negative connection between sexual rejection and man’s worth.
After all, I have never seen a feminist try to insult his male opponent by saying that he must be really popular with ladies, except of course in ironic sense.
Jessy, funny you should bring up the FAL, as I recently posted on that on Hugo’s blog, in response to an MRA who claimed that feminists would not respond to concrete examples. I provided a link to the student newspaper that revealed that particular incident as an obvious satire on common feminist stereotypes.
So far, nothing but the peaceful sound of crickets chirping over there, even though the MRAs who were previously all over that post have found time to post on other topics on the same blog.
That url does not work. Also, that was claimed to be satire after the fact, as freshman David Huffman who attended the event can attest to. He clearly stated that it was not meant to be satire when the actual event was taking place. He was asked to leave the even because he was male, and a conservative. Clear discrimination, especially since the venue was supported in part by student fees. The FAL also dressed up with scissors around their neck, and sang songs about castrating men, not rapists as was also erroneously put forth by feminists after the fact.
Also, your link does not work.
Here, try mine, which say the opposite of what yours allegedly says:
Link
Link 2
“I am with you on gender-neutral laws and presumed 50/50 custody. I think that, in general, there is a bias in the courts against men. However, I think it has a lot to do with gender stereotypes. A society that thinks only women should raise children is going to have courts that automatically give custody to the mother. Do you agree with that statement?”
But society does not think that only women should raise children. Society feels that women should have the privilage of raising up the children, and men should pay for them. Women should have the choice to have or not have children, and men should pay for them. Women should be able to stay home with children if they choose and men should pay for them.
See a pattern here?
Men raise the children with their wallets, according to society. The problem is, that money does not a parent make. Yet relegating one parent to every other weekend visitors and a child support check is exactly what is happening. This is not most father’s choice, it is the mothers and the courts choice in many cases. And notice that falling behind on CS is punishable by jail, yet there is no consequence to blocking visitation by the mother. We see what part of the father is important to society.
If society thought that raising children was soley a woman’s responsibility, then women would soley bear the financial cost as well. They do not.
The courts automatically give custody to the mothers because being a mother has been made sacred. Fathers parent differently, but that is not valued because masculinity is not valued in real life.
And to head off the arguement that feminism stands for deconstructing gender roles, this is a half truth. Feminism has erroded female gender roles and firmly entrenches men to their traditional industrial age roles. If feminism was about gender equality, then men would be given the right to paper abortions, and 50/50 custody-the same post birth rights women enjoy. But both of these issues are fought tooth and nail by mainstream feminism.
Okay, I should have said “nurturing” a child rather than “raising” a child.
I, as a feminist and a decent human being, am absolutely against society’s idea that a father’s role is simply a paycheck. I have stated this on Stand Your Ground and on my own blog, among other places. I’m very vocal and consistent on that issue.
Doesn’t a narrowly prescribed role for one gender necessarily lead to a narrowly prescribed role for the other?
The idea that woman=child nurturer and man=financial provider is both misogynist and misandrist. I’m against both.
Some people here have some pretty fucked up ideas of what feminism is. Every feminist event I’ve ever been to has focused on NOT defining what one gender should or should not do, but instead on insisting that each individual has the right to choose what their role in life will be on their own. (Hint: this means that if a man wants to stay home and raise the children it’s A-OK because that’s his choice as well as meaning that women get to choose to be a stay at home parent if that is what they choose to do.) Crazy idea that feminism, eh? People reguardless of gender living the lives they choose rather than simply filing a standardized gender role?
Yeah, I hear stories about extremist feminists demeaning everyone who chooses to be a stay at home parent, etc. But as far as I can tell it’s just not the “feminist position”, but rather a couple of crazy people calling themselves feminists. (Yes, Valarie Solanis et al are crazy people and not the basis of “feminist thinking”)
The idea of a singular “feminist ideology” is really wierd to me as I’ve encountered at least a dozen different positions being called “feminist”. I like the definition of feminism that calls it “the radical idea that women are people”.
Feminists hate men = Christians are evil to me. They are both over-generalizations based on a fringe group not the mainstream.
I beg to differ with “The courts automatically give custody to the mothers…” I know, the plural of anecdote isn’t data, but two of my male friends got custody after the divorce, and the only reason two of my sisters got sole custody was their ex-husbands explictly granted it to them in the settlement. (Neither wanted to be involved in day to day child-rearing operations, and neither pay child support.)
And, while I acknowledge the power of societal expectations, they can also be fought against — my family is pretty much the canonical “mom works and dad stays home”, and my husband gets kudos, not put-downs, from the adults around us.
Modus Potus said:
“Notwithstanding the claims here to the contrary, I’ve found that women tend to hook up with men who share their opinions on appropriate sex roles. Plenty of women out there support a “traditional” patriarchal viewpoint. You can call them deluded, brainwashed, misguided, or weak. But the end result is that, with the exception of those who truly hate women, your average cro magnon male has few problems getting dates.”
Well, of course! The idea of being taken care of is very attractive to some people.
I personally couldn’t give up my independence like that, but if others want to do it in a mutually voluntary agreement, that’s their right.
Jessy, I followed your links. Just because the person in the first link doesn’t understand satire, does not mean that it was not indeed satire. I think the average college student witnessing a person on stage who cheerily says that her name is “Mary Man-Hating-Is-Fun” and wearing scissors around her neck would consider that to be an over-the-top take-off on feminist stereotypes. Have you seen the remake of “Reefer Madness” yet? Most people would “get” the satire of that, even if they had not seen the original. Just because some folks might not get it, and think that the intent of the film was to encourage pot-smoking, Satanic worship, orgies and murder, does not make it so.
As for the second, I agree that it was wrong to bar the right-wing male reporter from the event. If it’s public, it’s public….as long as he wasn’t making a nuisance of himself. As a disinterested observer though, I’m kind of under the impression that he was barred for personal reasons, not for being male or a reporter.
“The best way to understand the men’s rights movement for me is to view them as the secular arm of the right wing move to return America to an old-fashioned patriarchy.”
For one who may view themselves as a ‘bright star of blogging’, you leap to errant conclusions rather quickly. Many MRA’s are liberals or libertarians. I am a member of two forums with over 2,500 members and religion comes up infrequently as a thread topic.
“Many MRAs consider themselves Christian, and some even consider themselves fundamentalists. But generally, their arguments for male dominance come not from the Bible but from repeated and colorful assertion that nature has made women inferior.”
Your entire premise of the above sentence is flawed. Many MRA’s hold the opinion that there is no patriarchy, and we do not argue for male dominance but for equality, not the thinly disguised female supremacy that Feminism has morphed into.
“Just as conservatives managed to get the media to tilt right by erroneously claiming that the media tilted left…”
I lived in Washington, DC for 20 years and I have first hand evidence that the mainstream media tilts left. No intelligent, objective observer of the mainstream newspapers and network news shows can deny this obvious fact. Now that there are programs that balance the delivery of news, many liberals complain loudly, just as many conservatives complained for years. The delivery of news is much more balanced today than it was in 1985 when we had to accept the view of the world handed to us by the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, CBS, NBC and ABC.
“MRAs claim that men are victimized by women’s greater power and hope to tilt more power to men. Thus, if you come across someone arguing that to achieve equality, we have to disempower women and empower men, you probably have an MRA on your hands.”
I know of few MRA’s who want to ‘disempower women’. What many MRA’s do want is equality and fairness. When laws favor one class of individuals over another, no one among is free.
“And we have a lot of men who are abused by women, but they are too ashamed to admit it.”
“It would be nice to write these guys off as right wing nuts, but we can’t afford to. Just as the Christian right is wielding undue influence, so are the secular right wingers who have the same anti-woman agenda.”
Resorting to ad hominem attacks rather than addressing the issue raised is a dead giveaway that you have no argument at all. With regards to abuse of men by women, 36% of acts of partner violence are committed against men by women they are involved with.
Do men commit more such acts? Yes. Are the injuries that women receive more severe than those men receive? Often. Is this justification to always view men as perpetrators and women as victims? Absolutely not. If there were funding that supported men’s only shelters and hotlines, perhaps 25% of the $4bln funding for VAWA (which should be renamed to the Violence Against Domestic Partners Act), then I would be satisfied that this issue was being fairly funded and addressed.
“The men in men’s rights groups are typically in their forties and fifties, often divorced or separated, and nearly always heterosexual.”
What relevancy to the presentation of a valid argument does the above observation have? Heterosexuals comprise 98-99% of the population, and as such are representative of the society at large.
MRA: Women are more likely to be raped, beaten, killed by men then the reverse, but we want shelters for the 1% of men that are abused.
But we won’t actually open any men’s shelters by ourselves. We’ll just bitch at the feminists and sue underfunded women’s shelters for excluding men.
Bereginy, that reminds me of ginmar.
Thanks for the link, Annejumps. Her writing looks interesting.
Out of all these criticisms, my favorites are those that say, “But a feminist made a joke about being violent towards men!” Problem is that when a woman says that, men don’t actually have reason to be afraid. Reverse the sexes and you have an entire industry of home alarms, pepper spray, etc.
Crazy like a Fawkes
Amanda at Pandagon made me aware of Cool Tools 4 Men, a site run by Darren Blacksmith. Sadly, there isn’t anything on the site about tools, cool or otherwise (though I did detect a hint of tool on the main page). There are, however, a number of nutty…
“MRA: Women are more likely to be raped, beaten, killed by men then the reverse, but we want shelters for the 1% of men that are abused.
But we won’t actually open any men’s shelters by ourselves. We’ll just bitch at the feminists and sue underfunded women’s shelters for excluding men.”
Actually, according to VAWA http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ipv01.pdf
15% of reported domestic violence is against men. Even knowing this number to be staggeringly low due to the nature of the problem and bias in the system, I will work with 15%.
There are no domestic violence shelters for men only in the US. There should be a rate of 15% men’s shelters based on VAWAs figures. I think that most men would be thrilled to get 15%.
Women did not build women’s shelters. Women ‘complained’, made known a need, and men built the structures, men and women both allocated the funds, and men and women both paid for them through our taxes. So the only thing that women really did on their own is voice a need.
Men are voicing a need for shelters. Instead of lending a hand where other humans need help, you mock them, tell them they are imagining things, or belittling the crimes.
So equitable of you.
The funny thing is, I know a man who tried to open a men’s shelter. He was denied a loan when the bank found out the purpose, he was denied the building permits, he had other troubles which only started when he stated what he was doing. Perhaps women faced this too, I do not know. But at this point, there is NO excuse for this happening now. We live in an age where we are supposed to have the resources to help those in need, there are thousands of programs to help every groups from transgendered high schoolers to disabled pacific islanders, yet 15% of abuse happens to a group which has no where to turn.
We would not care if feminism as a whole turned their back on this issue. If they just allowed MRAs to discuss this issue, build a network, and support other men, MRAs would be content to do their work. Yet they openly stand against it. They continue to deny the existance of male abuse, they continue to belittle the suffering of those men and their children. They refuse to allow public funds go to help male taxpayers. They refuse to allow the government to study this problem.
I do not understand what is so threatening to admit that men, too, are in need of help and that women, too, are capable of abuse. Helping men does NOT mean disparaging women. It simply means helping men. One is not mutually exclusive to the other.
“Out of all these criticisms, my favorites are those that say, “But a feminist made a joke about being violent towards men!” Problem is that when a woman says that, men don’t actually have reason to be afraid. Reverse the sexes and you have an entire industry of home alarms, pepper spray, etc.”
Home alarms and pepper spray are not for intimate partner violence.
Men are not often at risk by women for stranger violence, women are much more likely to be violent towards those she knows.
Men are, according to DOJ
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_v.htm
Men are 77% of all murder victims and twice as likely to be car jacked.
Men do not panic and respond to the news magazines like women do. If you read Spin Sisters, it gives you an inside view of the culture of fear women are born into. Most women are much safer than they are made to feel by listening to the news magaizines.
The fact is that it IS a joke when men get hurt. Watch any romantic comedy, any disney cartoon, and television comedy. The funny part is when the man gets hurt, it is really funny when it is a woman doing the harm, and roll on the floor if he gets it in the nuts. You cannot deny the hit in the nuts gag. Yet it is NOT funny when a woman gets hurt, and it really is not funny if a man does it, and it is sexual assault if she gets it in the privates. Not funny at all. Do you think this does not shape the way men are seen in society, the way they view themselves?
‘Helping men does NOT mean disparaging women. It simply means helping men. One is not mutually exclusive to the other.’
Ha, ha. It hurts. You’re are so charming aren’t you. With your nice little statistics. But your people are going after underfunded shelters for those 85% you care little or nothing about. You say you care, but I don’t believe you. Your group’s actions speak for themselves.
And your whiny little, ‘But if those feminist women didn’t stand in our way we wouldn’t be so mean to them…’ shit is so tired.
I’m not standing in your way. Those feminists your talking about are more concerned with other shit, like being able to get birthcontrol and being able to have bodily integrity. So build away. I don’t care.
This is me belittling you.
‘The fact is that it IS a joke when men get hurt. Watch any romantic comedy, any disney cartoon, and television comedy.’
Gee, I wonder who owns most movie studios. I wonder who produces, directs, and films these movies. Hmmm, could it be men? Men must hate themselves, then. This is really sad. We need to bolster the fragile male ego, not crush it.
Go figure–I didn’t know feminists cracking jokes about hurting rapists had jack-all to do with bad sitcom humor or intimate violence. Don’t burn out yet–the post on domestic violence and rape is coming up Monday morning.
JenK, I hope you aren’t saying that feminists always belittle or don’t believe abused men. I find that idea insulting.
Ginmar writes about problems facing men who’ve commented on her blog about having been abused: http://www.livejournal.com/users/ginmar/424082.html
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ginmar/424285.html
“Gee, I wonder who owns most movie studios. I wonder who produces, directs, and films these movies. Hmmm, could it be men? Men must hate themselves, then. This is really sad. We need to bolster the fragile male ego, not crush it.”
Actually, the people who decide what movies are made are the veiwers. If the veiwers won’t watch it, it will lose money, and the studio will lose money. Since women make up the majority of consumer dollars spent, and there are slightly more women to begin with, also knowing that the movies which are most likely to show men in a poor light tend to be romantic comedies (chick flicks) women really decide what is being made. Men when alone go see Master in Commander, Gladiator, XXX, Bond, all movies which men are not seen as idiots, but as strong, well fleshed out characters.
The ever omnipresent “well men make the laws, men make the movies, men own this and that,” is misleading. Men hold these positions yet their hands are tied and they follow the lash of popular culture, popular vote, etc. And women, particularly feminists, tend to dominate these. You are finally seeing a political backlash to 8 years of liberal heavy handedness with the red states having enough and winning the votes. Not that I like Bush, but I was glad to see the pendulum start changing direction. Popular culture has not changed a whit however, and I am sure after this brief change of direction we will be right back to liberal in 3 more years.
“Ginmar writes about problems facing men who’ve commented on her blog about having been abused:”
“I’m guessing that for most of these MRA types, their divorces ended the last close contact they had with any woman without paying money for it.”
Ginmar is one of those who refuses to even address the problem. I was on a blog with her.
“Yawn, another troll’s protests. We’re bigotted because we won’t endorse their bigotry.”
This is the type of response I recieved. I can’t get the exact response because although I was polite, to the point, and refused to overgeneralize or name call I was banned for disagreeing. The posts were removed, so I cannot even defend what I wrote.
*I do not normally even go to such places, because the only people normally allowed to post are those who either agree with the status quo, or those who don’t argue well enough to make the status quo look bad. I know I will not change minds because their minds are made up, they do not want discourse, they want a pep rally.*
*this is as close to personal as I usually get, and I didn’t even get this close on her friend’s blog
The style of my writing was as I wrote on this page. Yet I was banned.
“JenK, I hope you aren’t saying that feminists always belittle or don’t believe abused men. I find that idea insulting.”
Maybe *all* feminists do not. But they claim to be for equality, yet they only fight for half the population. If they indeed were for equality they would be fighting for everyone. By nature of the denials I usually get when bringing this up, yes I believe that feminists do not even SEE the problem with men. By not being willing to even look at it, you are in fact endorsing it.
“MRA: Women are more likely to be raped, beaten, killed by men then the reverse, but we want shelters for the 1% of men that are abused.”
I would call this belittling. The most conservative estimates say 15% of all DV is perptrated on men.(source above) This is not 1%, this is not an insignificant problem. They were not talking about women, women have help, women have places to go, people to turn to, and public sympathy. Whenever the issue of male abuse is brought up, this is the reply we get from feminists. I would not exactly call it helpful or respectful.
MRAs are perfectly willing to see that women’s shelters are needed, and support them. In fact several MRAs I know actually used to be feminists, and actually did help build and fund shelters for women. So why are feminists refusing to do the same, to see a need and at least not fight against it? It all comes down to money. 15% of all public DV funding should go towards men, and no one wants to share.
And since I do not read your blogs unless a link is made to my board, I did not even see where you listed any venue for opening a shelter. If you would e-mail it to me or provide a link I would be happy to look at it.
Jen: “There are no domestic violence shelters for men only in the US.”
This is a lie. See, for example, Gay Men’s Domestic Violence Project of Massachussetts and Battered Men’s Helpline.
Jen: “Women did not build women’s shelters. Women ‘complained’, made known a need, and men built the structures, men and women both allocated the funds, and men and women both paid for them through our taxes. So the only thing that women really did on their own is voice a need. ”
This is also a lie. See, for example, this discussion of the early history of battered women’s shelters, this timeline, and the chapter on the battered women’s movement in Susan Brownmiller’s In Our Time. The modern network of battered women’s shelters was built by grassroots women’s groups, mostly in the period 1971-1979 following the public emergence of Chiswick Women’s Aid in London. (There were some earlier shelters that focused on women married to violent alcoholics, created by women’s Al-Anon groups in the mid-1960s.) Primary funding came from local women’s groups, private donors, and some national nonprofit groups like the Ms. Foundation for Women. Government aid was mostly nonexistent until the 1980s (by 1979 there were already 250 operating shelters in the US) and was not committed in any systematic and coordinated way until the passage of VAWA in 1994. The vast bulk of funding for shelters still comes from private donors, not from tax-funded grants. Shelters were not the kindly gift of enlightened men or progressive legislatures. Women built them themselves. If MRAs want to be taken seriously then they had better be willing to do the work on the ground that feminists did with less money, less lucrative social networks, and far less media and political influence. They might have more time and money to do this if they stopped wasting so much time on futile lawsuits that attempt to force existing women’s shelters to admit men.
Then I have a question for you - if a college is mainly privately funded, should it be bound by Title IX by virtue of the limited public funding it recieves? And if so, where’s the cutoff line?
But they claim to be for equality, yet they only fight for half the population. If they indeed were for equality they would be fighting for everyone. By nature of the denials I usually get when bringing this up, yes I believe that feminists do not even SEE the problem with men.
Don’t speak for us, okay? Thanks.
Actually, at the links I posted, Ginmar demonstrated that she does in fact see the problem with men being abused, and she points out that the “men’s rights” people do not help abused men.
It’s as simple as this: equality is a goal that is impossible to attain. In order, however, for women to get as close to equivalence as possible, a government intervention will be necessary, and that intervention is going to treat men unfairly for a situation they had little role in creating. Being treated unfairly is going to ruffle some feathers and spawn movements like the Mens’ Rights Movement, and from time to time, we will have to revisit whether the burden on men is too unfair and do some fine tuning. Even if 98% of MRA complaints are invalid, then at least those 2% of complaints that aren’t should be addressed. We’re just going to have to accept that people have a right and obligation to complain when they feel they’re being treated unfairly, just as we have to accept that the tradeoff of unfairness for justice in necessary and will be for a time to come.
I will say, though, that I think there should be some means for determining when the intervention should end; there has to be a tangible goal that can be reached.
JenK, you’re being disingenuous about being barred from Trish Wilson’s blog. You posted crap from the MRA side and got nailed for it.
People who lie or use outdated data don’t do their cause any good at all. Don’t be coy.
Jen:
I see what you’re saying, really I do. What I don’t get is why on earth you think conservatives would be on your side. The conservatives want a return to 100% male chivalry, and they don’t even support the development of male birth control options, which would give men more reproductive rights.
Let me quote the IWF, a conservative group who argues that only men should fight and die in the military:
“A society that expects women to go out face a vicious enemy has lost something vital: the idea that men are supposed to protect women.”
and…
“Why is it a sad story when two women lose their arms in combat but merely unfortunate that many male soldiers have lost limbs as well? Isn’t there an extra dose of horror when a female body is violated–or even bruised or superficially wounded, for that matter?”
There’s more about the IWF’s anti-male bias on my blog here:
http://redneckfeminist.blogspot.com/2005/04/men-against-chivalry.html
Conservatives are also unwilling to recognize female violence against males. Why? Because they believe a man must always be strong, and a woman must always be weak. If they admit that men too can be victims of domestic violence, then their entire ideology goes out the window.
The conservatives don’t want freedom for men. They want to trap men into the bread-winner role just as much as your average gold-digger does. How, exactly, is that pro-male?
“”Valerie Solanas…[…]”
She was a fucking nutcase. I’m a feminist, but I don’t defend her. I don’t even believe she was feminist. But that’s just me. You read Solanas when you want to read something sociopathic and homicidal, but not Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Hitler’s grammar was pretty damn bad anyway.”
I first learned about Valerie Solanas as an art student when I wrote a paper about Andy Warhol. She wasn’t part of the feminist movement, and she was the founder and lone member of her “organization,” SCUM. She was trying to break into the entertainment/art scene. She shot Andy Warhol because he wouldn’t produce a script she had written. I don’t know why men’s rights activists constantly cite her as a feminist, because she wasn’t one.
Ah yes, crazy Valerie Solanas, the spokesperson for all feminists in the fantasies of anti-feminists. By the same logic, Charles Manson is the spokesperson for the hippies of the 60s.
“I beg to differ with “The courts automatically give custody to the mothers…” I know, the plural of anecdote isn’t data, but two of my male friends got custody after the divorce, and the only reason two of my sisters got sole custody was their ex-husbands explictly granted it to them in the settlement. (Neither wanted to be involved in day to day child-rearing operations, and neither pay child support.)”
When fathers contest custody, they get some form of it more than half the time, even if they had been absent, abusive, neglectful, disinterested, or simply not the children’s primary caregivers. What MRAs don’t say when they complain about court bias in awarding custody to mothers is that most parents settle out of court, deciding on their own that mom should have custody because she had taken on the primary care of the children over the entire course of their lives. Most parents don’t need a judge to make their decisions for them.
50/50 custody doesn’t take children’s needs into consideration. Children don’t do well when exposed to parental conflict, and 50/50 custody would exacerbate conflict. Children also don’t do well shunting back and forth between two homes. No valid joint custody study has ever endorsed presumptive joint custody. Each state has laws that allow for joint custody if both parents freely choose it. Parents also do go into court on equal ground, despite what MRAs say. One parent, most often mom, had been the primary caregiver of the children regardless of whether or not she had been employed outside the home. That’s why moms most often get custody. Creating a false “equal playing field” ignores the contributions mothers have made towards the rearing of their children. 50/50 custody ignores all of that, giving a leg up to fathers who haven’t taken on the day-to-day care of children the way mothers have.
Claiming that dads are turned into paychecks in divorce is ridiculous. Mothers pay more out-of-pocket in caring for their children than they ever receive in child support. Both parents financially support their children.
“Actually, according to VAWA http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ipv01.pdf
15% of reported domestic violence is against men. Even knowing this number to be staggeringly low due to the nature of the problem and bias in the system, I will work with 15%.”
The VAWA report stated that “By contrast, during the year intimate partners committed 3% of all nonfatal violence against men.” It also said “In recent years an intimate killed about 33$ of female murder victims and 4% of male victims.”
The report didn’t differentiate between same-sex and opposite-sex intimate violence. Most male intimate violence happens in gay male relationships.
‘The fact is that it IS a joke when men get hurt. Watch any romantic comedy, any disney cartoon, and television comedy.’
“Gee, I wonder who owns most movie studios. I wonder who produces, directs, and films these movies. Hmmm, could it be men? Men must hate themselves, then. This is really sad. We need to bolster the fragile male ego, not crush it.”
I wrote about this on my blog, but it was about television. Most television shows men’s rights activists complain about being biased against men were produced, directed, and written by men. The same applies to films.
Oh but Trish, women watch a lot of movies and television, so what can the helpless male writers and producers do but cater to their bloodlust for groin injury?
All the “chick flicks” that are supposed to be created for women are stupid anyway. Please, give me Star Trek any day!
Annejumps, I was under the impression that movie people catered to adolescent boys and young men, not women. Why do you think there are so many movies based on comic books? The helpless male writers and producers cater to kids who like bathroom humor and that bloodlust for groin injury. I used to work in the movie and television industry. Those people think movies like Die Hard III are art. Yeah, “Porkys” caters to women.
I wish more movies were aimed at adult men and women. It gets a little boring seeing the same old explosions, comic book superheroes (excuse me… graphic novels, and party-til-you-puke in the movies nowadays. I’d love to see more movies like Chocolat and Hotel Rwanda.
“Chick flicks.” Bleh. Am I the only woman who hated “Bridget Jones’ Diary”? Lifetime movies are worse. If movie people supposedly cater to women, they need a better class of women to cater to to avoid dreck like that.
a note: Women have been running most of the big studios in Hollywood and are in leadership positions in network television too.
a criticism: “A better class of woman”??? No offense, but if you wonder where charges of “liberal elitism” come from, it might be from phrases like that!
E-Rock, it is my experience that men are usually more feminist than women. So it makes perfect sense to me if women run most of the big studios. Most movies/TV play on gender stereotypes big-time, and I don’t think that’s particularly flattering to either sex.
However… you didn’t cite a source for that, so I’m not sure I believe it. But if it’s true, it doesn’t matter. It just means that men and women are equally lousy at producing quality media material.
http://www.fitnessbusiness-pro.com/mag/fitness_entertaining_marketing_strategies/
Go tot he bottom.
According to the neilson media report, from admittedly a while ago, women 19-55 watch on average 3 hours a week more television. Given that they also make up more of the population, and spend upward of 80% of consumer wealth, women definately decide what goes on major network television. When you look at male stations like Spike TV, you find a LOT less male denegration. The men who make telivision want to make money, and are not above denigrating their own sex to do so. You think Raymond would be running if he wasn’t making millions off of it?
Your mocking of men as “helpless” is not really a good arguement. We are criticizing the current social trend. Did early feminists appreciate it when men laughed at women and mocked them for wanting to vote? You don’t make change without criticizing the status quo. I would not mock you if you wanted to change something about how women are seen in the media. I may ask for examples, as I had not, when we had TV, seen any mistreatment of women, but I would be willing to listen.
Trish: “I first learned about Valerie Solanas as an art student when I wrote a paper about Andy Warhol. She wasn’t part of the feminist movement, and she was the founder and lone member of her “organization,” SCUM. She was trying to break into the entertainment/art scene. She shot Andy Warhol because he wouldn’t produce a script she had written. I don’t know why men’s rights activists constantly cite her as a feminist, because she wasn’t one.”
Amanda: “Ah yes, crazy Valerie Solanas, the spokesperson for all feminists in the fantasies of anti-feminists. By the same logic, Charles Manson is the spokesperson for the hippies of the 60s.”
Well, to be fair, Valerie was not part of the organized Women’s Liberation movement (the SCUM Manifesto predated the first WL actions), but some prominent early feminists defended her — Flo Kennedy and Robin Morgan in particular — even though the ideas in the SCUM Manifesto, if taken seriously, are quite different from what they believed at the time. That’s why, e.g., Morgan refers to Solanas a couple of times in “Goodbye to All That” and why excerpts from the SCUM Manifesto are anthologized in “Sisterhood is Powerful.”
One of the problems with Valerie is that she was both clearly a deeply disturbed woman who slid into paranoid schizophrenia but also someone with a wicked sense of humor, and it’s hard to tell which parts of the SCUM Manifesto are satirical, which are seriously meant, and which are the products of madness. So simply treating the Manifesto as if it were a straightforward statement of Valerie’s opinions (or reading her later paranoid delusions back into the whole thing) is problematic at best. Of course the other problem is that no matter how many feminists publicly defended her, that doesn’t mean that their views were the same as her views in the first place.
(Also, to be fair, The Weathermen — a violent splinter of Students for a Democratic Society — did at one point cheer Manson as a hero.)
Actually, the demographic most broadcasters and cable nets are chasing the most right now is Men 18-39. Advertisers consider this the most attractive demographic as they are considered to have disposable income and have not yet developed hard brand loyalties. So a lot of the TV programs right now are geared toward the younger male audience. Whether they’re actually capturing that audience is another thing altogether.
(Disclaimer: I work in the TV/Advertising business. You may throw your tomatoes now.)
Here’s a source, but you’d better check it quickly before it goes dead. It’s from the April 24 NYTimes. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/movies/24hass.html?ei=5090&en=2719f4e24b81631d&ex=1271995200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&position=
Last month Mr. Grey - who succeeded Sherry Lansing, 60, in Paramount’s top job - named Gail Berman, a respected television executive, to lead the studio’s creative team. As a woman deciding what gets to the world’s movie screens, Ms. Berman becomes the latest player in a quiet revolution transforming a business that until recently was regarded as a male preserve.
Four of the six major studios have women in the top creative decision-making roles, as Ms. Berman joins Stacey Snider, chairman of Universal; Amy Pascal, chairman of Sony Pictures; and Nina Jacobson, president of Walt Disney Company’s Buena Vista Motion Pictures Group. Earlier this month, Ms. Snider announced that Mary Parent and Scott Stuber, would be stepping down as vice chairmen at Universal to become producers on the lot; their replacement is Donna Langley, the Universal executive who oversaw “Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason” and “In Good Company.”
Sorry for the long link above.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/movies/24hass.html
That is great, that they are trying to target men. Perhaps they will realize after a while that insulting men is no way to get them to watch and buy. Because men are watching less and less tv, dispite their efforts, and movies such as Master and Commander are huge hits.
To be honest I have not had television in my home for a year this mothers day. Last I was watching, every channel had marginalization or negative stereotyping of men on most of the day. That is why we do not have television, so our sons would not be subjected to it day in and day out. Their self esteem as young men has risen visably since we make the decision. I have been amazed at the change.
If you work in the TV advertizing business, you have a chance to push change. Let the powers that be know that if you treat men with decency and dignity, they will start watching television again. If they continue to treat men like idiots or devils, they will continue to drive men away. Treating men with respect does not mean you have to demean women, either. You can respect both, which would be the best thing.
Most of the insulting portrayals of men are that they are too stupid and/or childish to control their behavior or take on dull responsibilities. While that is annoying, the cumulative effect is to help bolster the notion that men shouldn’t have to cook, clean, raise children, or otherwise manage household duties because women are “naturally” better at it. It is insulting, but the “boys will be boys” stereotype is not some sort of feminist conspiracy–in fact, we speak out against it becaues it allows boys and men both to avoid responsibility for their actions.
You know, I am getting really tired of all of you father-haters degrading the good decent men I know in the Fathers Movement. You are outside looking in, trying to tell people what’s going on. Well, let me tell you, again, you are wrong.
http://feminist4fathers.blogspot.com/
http://sharedparentingworks.org
Yep. We hate fathers. I called mine tonight and yelled at him for no reason. But since I do that 3 times an hour, he tolerated it. Mostly because he knows that if you care about women and children, you must hate fathers. Part of the package and all that.
“Most of the insulting portrayals of men are that they are too stupid and/or childish to control their behavior or take on dull responsibilities. While that is annoying, the cumulative effect is to help bolster the notion that men shouldn’t have to cook, clean, raise children, or otherwise manage household duties because women are “naturally” better at it. It is insulting, but the “boys will be boys” stereotype is not some sort of feminist conspiracy–in fact, we speak out against it becaues it allows boys and men both to avoid responsibility for their actions.”
First of all, it is more than annoying. How would you feel if women were portrayed like that in every major network show? I know I would be furious. It is a serious problem, not merely an annoyance. I do not like how women are portrayed in violent porn either, so I am not just defending men.
Second of all, of feminists don’t like it, and men don’t like it, then why is it on?
******
Tangent
*******
Thirdly, the men do not avoid consequences.In the shows such as everyone loves Raymond, that my parents watch so I have to sit through when I visit, he is always goofing up, and she is alwayds catching him. He gets in trouble all the time, like a kid. To have such poor examples of fatherhood and very few good examples, marginalizes fatherhood.
While I do not think that there is some specific conspiracy, I do think that women in general, and I speak both from observing trends and personal expirience, feel better about motherhood when fatherhood is mocked. Motherhood is supposed to be better and more important than fatherhood, and women perpetuate this. I received dozens of anti-father email jokes from otherwise really nice women until I finally asked them to not send me more. They didn’t hate fathers, they just thought the jokes were funny. But the effect was the same.
I do not think this is about hating fathers. I think it is about women feeling good about themselves. Making fatherhood second rate gives mothers a great deal of both self-esteem and power. Yes, there is responsibility, but that is taken care of through money. Men pay, and women run the show. While women may bitch about having to do more “work” (ie housework not including outside jobs) they have control over what happens in their home and with their children. You cannot underestimate the lure of that kind of power.
I see modern women wanting both the stutus of powerless minority AND the power of running the show. And that is what is going on today. Society still feels women are powerless even though they are not. I have the power right now to take everything my husband has, get the kids the house, and both alimony and child support. I could disrespect my husband, treat him like a child, tell him what to do, and he will still pay for everything, because the alternative is to lose everthing.
Luckily I would not do that, but the power is legally mine. That is not right. In the name of protecting women, men are put in jeopardy.
I do not think there is some grand dame of feminism sitting up on high pulling all the strings. I think this is the tide of society flowing through channels of assumption. (pretty fancy wording, eh?)
Put assumptions like “men run the show” “patriachy” “Women are victims” “mothers are biologically sacred” “glass ceiling” “only men abuse” firmly entrenched in place, and you will have society naturally coming to certain conclusions. I do think that those assumptions were put in place on purpose, starting with the earliest feminists. But society has blindly done the rest. And most don’t even know it.
“Second of all, of feminists don’t like it, and men don’t like it, then why is it on?”
Because the majority of people are neither feminists nor MRAs. They are complacent with the way things are.
“While I do not think that there is some specific conspiracy, I do think that women in general, and I speak both from observing trends and personal expirience, feel better about motherhood when fatherhood is mocked. Motherhood is supposed to be better and more important than fatherhood, and women perpetuate this.”
I agree with you, 100%. I think most feminists are against the whole “mommy madness” craze that’s going on. But your “average” woman is all about it. And yes, I have received those email jokes too and they are disgusting.
“I see modern women wanting both the stutus of powerless minority AND the power of running the show. And that is what is going on today.”
Another thing I agree with. And in fact, that’s one reason I’m a feminist. But I can’t control how other women think. They want to be put on a pedestal, to be the pampered princess, and to get through life relying on male chivalry. They aren’t feminists, but rather they are anti-feminists in my opinion.
Penelope, if the average vocal feminist, the one who publicly advocate women, the one who is representing women politically, was as reasonable as you are, and as geared towards true equality and not privilage, I would not have any problem with feminism. I really wouldn’t.
Second of all, of feminists don’t like it, and men don’t like it, then why is it on?
Well, first, I don’t think you can accurately claim that *all* men are against this sort of thing. Sure, there are men who are vocal about taking offense to it, but a lot of guys don’t care, and some have even bought into the portrayal wholesale. After all, remember that men in the media are generally portrayed as incompetent in certain specific areas (housework, cooking, child-rearing, interpersonal relationships)– areas which just happen to be traditionally associated with a woman’s role in the family. Taking into account that many men have a near-psychotic phobia of ever being perceived as “feminine”/”unmasculine” or associated with the female gender role in any way, it’s not surprising that they might not take a whole lot of offense at the allegation that they’re not particularly good at “women’s work,” is it?
Of course, the flipside of this is that a lot of women also like these stereotypical portrayals, because they reinforce the importance of the female presence in the home (the old “if Mommy wasn’t around, the house would be a mess, the children would be miserable, everyone would starve, etc.” fantasy that’s inspired countless commercials and at least one episode of every family sitcom ever). The fact that they reinforce that importance in a very narrow, limited, and stifling way either doesn’t occur or isn’t important to these women. People like to see their lifestyles validated, and for whatever reason a lot of families still negotiate their households in such a way that the woman handles all or a majority of the domestic work– so why should they take offense to media portrayals of households that look a lot like their own?
I’m not defending those stereotypical portrayals at all, though– personally, I think it’s an unfortunate self-perpetuating cycle. Society thinks domestic work is for women, therefore the media reflects that, therefore the stereotype continues to be visible and people are influenced by it, and so on. I’m just puzzled as to why men’s rights activists blame feminists for these portrayals when it’s pretty clear that feminists don’t like them either, although they may frame their objection from a slightly different angle, (”this is wrong because it implies that women are inherently better at domestic work and therefore should be expected to fulfill that role” instead of “this is wrong because it makes men look dumb and incompetent”). Yes, they may be focusing more on the effect it has on women than on men (which shouldn’t really surprise anyone; the name of the movement should’ve clued you in), but unless I’m missing something, the desired result is the same– more equitable, less broadly stereotypical portrayals of men and women and families in the media. So how are “the feminists” at fault, exactly?
The people who are truly to blame here are the ones who don’t think critically about gender issues at all, and have no interest in seeing the status quo change because it reinforces their chosen lifestyles. They’re the ones who respond positively to stereotypical media, and they’re the reason it’s stuck around for so long.
Annejumps, I was under the impression that movie people catered to adolescent boys and young men, not women.
Heh, my dad says that generally, the target of most TV and movies is “12-year-old boys.” Not for everything, of course, and he does tend to exaggerate….
Oh but wait, I’m supposed to hate my father, right?
Don’t mean to complain: just had a little trouble finding you again on this new gizmo you got, Amanda. Wanna thank Hugo for sendin me here. And Mediagirl, Goddess bless her an’ her’n, for the original intro. Blue Rebel on ‘nother line, y’all.
First, lemme say I missed you somethin’ fierce while you been tinkerin’with gittin’ your word out, and I shore am glad to find you again, even if (from lookin’ at the first haf), you still being plagued by trolls and them as can’t resist whompin’ ‘em as they crawl out from under the bridge. I’m pow’ful sorry to larn ’bout some of these fellers, can’t ‘mit thar wron’doin’s, an’ makin’ worse fools of themselves, if’n that’s possible.
I guess I’m glad some is called to try’n make some sense to the worst of ‘em, though you gotta heed the danger of being sucked in. I do hate losin’ any potential human, even when they doin’ thar best agin admitin’ it. Still, I lack the tempermint fer it; I jest wanna bash ‘em, bury ‘em, and fergit it. Good thang I aint runnin’ the show.
I ‘bieve I oughta thank Ms. Bitch, Ph.D, there too, fer water when I was thirsty, an’ linkin’ me to some good Christian folk, which is a word I wanna help start anew. They’s some of us still, though we do have the dickens of a time gittin’ through them as wanna tell ’bout all them strange demons talkin’ Bible, but not botherin’ with most of it, nor tryin’ the bes’ to live by it. Ms. B,I hope ever’thing goes good fer ya.
Lookin’ ferward to yore nex’un, Amanda.
Is it not interesting that of all the hate speak quoted above the only person they selected out of all to address was Valerie Solanas. All others were conviently ignored as if they didn’t exist.
Says alot.
Sorry, I must have missed these posts. I will reply now, if it is OK.
“This is a lie. See, for example, Gay Men’s Domestic Violence Project of Massachussetts and Battered Men’s Helpline.”
Actually, I was not. I was partially wrong, but I was not lying. I never looked for ‘gay’ men’s shelters, only men’s shelters. There still are no men’s shelters for straight men. Until I see the cites which tell me that the majority of abusers of men are other men, I will assume the ratio is the same for the larger culture, which means most of the abused men are straight. And the second is a hotline, not a shelter.
“Primary funding came from local women’s groups, private donors, and some national nonprofit groups like the Ms. Foundation for Women.”
And where do you think this money came from? Women were not working at this point in large enough numbers to support this. This money came from male donations to charities, or widow’s donations, which amounts to male donations. I do not belittle the work that had to be done, but I will not pretend it was something it was not, either. There is no shame in knowing good men fought along side women for a cause which obviously needed doing. Just as there would be no shame in having good women fight alongside good men.
The women who fought for these shelters also had free time-they were not working. Men today do not have that luxury. Feminism has always been a white, upper middle class project. The men who need help today simply do not have those resources of time and money.
“JenK, you’re being disingenuous about being barred from Trish Wilson’s blog. You posted crap from the MRA side and got nailed for it.
People who lie or use outdated data don’t do their cause any good at all. Don’t be coy.”
Um, I am an MRA, I never tried to hide it. I was polite, on topic, and respectful, and was banned for, as you just admitted, having a different opinion. I was not being coy, I was being honest. At least disagree with what I said before trying to dispute it.
“I see what you’re saying, really I do. What I don’t get is why on earth you think conservatives would be on your side.”
I do not recall saying that conservatives speak for men. All polititions speak for the votes, and women are the majority vote in the US. They are also the most powerful single demographic, so of course politiions will pander to them.
Bush has pissed off feminists because he stands by his belief against abortion, and I was very suprised he won this last election because of it. I think had his opponant been a fraction less mediocre he would have lost.
I do not think either party is for men, but the conservatives are the lesser of two evils in my opinion. The war issue is MUCH more complicated than being anti-male. I have done a fair amount of research about the business of war, and I truly believe for ground troups it is no place to mix the sexes at this point for safety reasons. This is one issue where men and women are different and no amount of affirmative action will change that.
It benefits women, but to try and change it would endanger the men further. The funny thing is that many men would rather have an honest appreciation from people for the fact that they and only they can do the job well than to have women making the job more dangerous and claiming they could do it better. I am in shape, and I have worn the packs, carried the guns, tried to drag an adult male across a field, and there is no way I would last a week. We just aren’t built for it. Maybe on in ten thousand could handle it, but most cannot.
So , I think I caught up on all the posts worth responding to. There were a couple that were just venting, so I won’t bother with those.
JenK:
If you’d bothered to follow the link, you would see that Battered Men’s Helpline has built a shelter providing refuge services to battered men. The scheduled opening was on April 15. In any case, there are several shelters already existing for gay and trans men besides the one I pointed to in Massachussetts and it’s a bit irresponsible to categorically claim that there are no shelters for battered men without having done enough of the basic homework to find this out.
Me:
JenK:
I just told you. From local women’s groups, private donors, and some national nonprofit groups like the Ms. Foundation for women.
You have absolutely no evidence for this claim whatsoever. As it happens, the paid workforce participation rate of women in 1972 (the year that the first modern shelters opened in the United States) was 44% (Source: BLS). That’s fewer women than are in the paid workforce today, but it’s certainly a lot of women with a steady paycheck. If you have some empirical evidence to demonstrate that women were not, in fact, the primary funders of local women’s liberation groups or the Ms. Foundation for Women (for example), you’re free to cite it, but in the meantime I don’t see much reason to take the suggestion seriously.
Nobody denies that “good men” helped in the development of the early battered women’s shelters. However it is quite obvious that men–whether private citizens or men in government–were neither the primary advocates, nor the people actually doing the work of building the shelters, nor the primary funders. Women did that, and (not to put too fine a point on it) feminist women did it. (Some Brits supported the American Revolution; that doesn’t mean it’s inaccurate to say that Americans were the ones who made it.)
This is, frankly, nonsense. If you would take the time to study the history of the battered women’s movement, you would know that it is nonsense. Most of the early shelters were founded by battered women themselves (Boston’s Transition House, for example, was started in Chris Womendez’s and Cherie Jimenez’s apartment. Womendez and Jimenez had moved in together after fleeing abusive relationships). We are talking about women who fled beatings themselves, worked outside of the house to keep a roof over their heads, and turned over their own apartments and homes to help fellow battered women. (You might point out that they got a lot of help from women’s liberation groups that included many women who had not been battered. That’s true; it’s also true that the women in those WL groups were mostly unmarried and working on their own to keep roofs over their heads.)
I know that you, like most people in our culture, have been given a set of lenses through which to view the history of the women’s movement, and that one of those lenses is the stereotype of feminism as a response to the existential crises of bored white housewives. I think that’s actually uncharitable to Betty Friedan, NOW, and the other liberal feminist targets it’s aimed at, but when I say that feminists build the battered women’s shelter network I don’t mean liberal feminists in the first place. I mean the radical women’s liberation movement. More than one early shelter was formed directly out of a WL consciousness-raising group (the c-r group provided an understanding of battery and also a group of contacts for funding and volunteering). That’s not to say that the radical feminist movement didn’t involve lots of people who had their own forms of privilege; it is to say that if you’re going to try to identify what sorts of privilege aided their success, you’re going to need a different set of templates than the ones you use to talk about NOW and liberal feminism. And if you want to talk about the feminists who played a leading role in the movement to build battered women’s shelters, you are going to be talking about WL, not NOW.
Badger:
What it says is that there are diminishing marginal returns to spending a long time discussing each and every quote on a lazily cut-and-pasted “horror file” list of arbitrarily selected quotes from arbitrarily selected women, some of whom are feminists and others of whom aren’t. I’ve already discussed several of these “quotes” elsewhere; besides the Solanas quotes, the list includes several quotes which are dishonestly selective (including at least two quotes that are taken from characters in novels but dishonestly attributed to the author of the novel) and at least one which is completely fabricated. It’s not worth spending a lot of time arguing back and forth about this or that quote and this or that author’s position and influence unless there is a basic level of honesty on the part of the person citing the quotes. So far people spewing out these cut-n-pasted “horror file” lists have not risen to that basic level of honesty.
Men’s Rights Movement
Amanda Marcotte has a two-part essay about what she calls the anti-feminist/men’s rights movement. In part 1 she gives an overview of the players she sees in the MRA, and in part 2 she discusses some of the MRA arguments that she’s encountered. The pos…
More on Whiny Guys Who are Not Hot
Amanda at Pandragon has a great series on the Anti-Feminist Men floating around the internet.
Men’s Rights Movement
Amanda Marcotte has a two-part essay about what she calls the anti-feminist/men’s rights movement. In part 1 she gives an overview of the players she sees in the MRA, and in part 2 she discusses some of the MRA arguments that she’s encountered. The pos…
>Ah yes, crazy Valerie Solanas, the spokesperson >for all feminists in the fantasies of anti->feminists. By the same logic, Charles Manson is >the spokesperson for the hippies of the 60s.
Few if any hippies repeated the sayings and rantings of Manson, while the hate-speech of Solanas was filtered through many feminist organizations and emerged as social policy.
Whilst disavowing any agreement with her unstable rantings on one hand, and enacting policy based upon it on the other, they were able to use her ideas without accountability.
Lack of female accountability…that sounds familiar…Jennifer Wilbanks, anyone?
I recall several heated ‘conversations’ with Feminists in 1983-1987 where women I was arguing with repeated Solanas’ writings verbatim as both conclusion and proof of their points.
Yet Another Feminist Demonstrates Her Deep Misunderstanding of Equality - and the Men’s Movement
There’s an interesting discussion going on here at Pandagon. It contains the usual misinterpretation of the meaning of equality – that somehow actual equality equals some sort of "patriarchal" dominance. Along with this is the usual
Reactionary movements: It’s payback time!
Angst, meanwhile, is a requirement for Men’s Rights Activists, of whom Amanda at Pandagon has meticulously researched. If you aren’t familiar with the Men’s Right’s Movement, visit some of the websites she has provided. Then read some of the comments…
Dear feminists, if you really didn’t hate men as you say, you wouldn’t say that a “patriarchy” exists. And you wouldn’t say that women are oppressed.
You also wouldn’t make all of those endless contradictions.
Feminism isn’t here to “help” men in any way, just to make their life harder. You can’t help someone by blaming them for all social ills and calling them an oppressor and such.
About Valerie Solanas, yeah she was “crazy”… now you just explain to me why did Robin Morgan (a famous feminist) call her a “champion of women’s rights”, why did she demonstrate for her release from prison, and why did Robin Morgan become the editor of Ms. Magazine (a famous feminist magazine).
I read the summation of the general tenets of the so-called MRAs listed at the beginning of this page. . . Loonies aside,
other than the paranoid “feminazi” accusation (last half of last sentence), what in this paragraph does not ring true to most men over the age of, say, 40? Where’s the controversy? Are not 18 yr. old so-called “men” “selected” by the “selective service” at the convenience of the gov. and with the full cooperation of their loving parents, and society, to be slaughtered by the thousands in meaningless political squabbles? And by virtue of what special quality are the girls that age exempted from the carnage? Can any feminist realistically assess what this long-standing cultural bias does to a boy’s thinking? Are men not socialized to hide pain, to hide or distort emotions, to made do with a much more limited emotional spectrum than women? Are they still not more or less expected to pick up the tab, so to speak, in a broad societal sense and step forward as cash-providers when it really comes time to up the ante? Aren’t boys still socialized to tolerate and even promote violence and uphold the “warrior code”? Nothing’s changed for boys, or for men either. Having dated lots of self-professed feminists in the past, I was always surprised that their advocacy stopped at the mention of men’s rights, an elusive concept that rarely seems to be part of the feminist calculus. A lively discussion usually opened their eyes to the fact that men actually DO feel a sense of opression, not liberation, when they throw on a suit and a tie, that they really DON’T necessarily want to make the first move sexually or romantically, that they feel an almost overwhelming, though highly secret (after all, another egregious aspect of maleness is that incommunicativeness is part of “the code”) resentment against women because in traditional domestic model’s men are by default the designated protectors and providers, and that even in relationships with so-called feminists there seeems to be a passive acceptance of those tradional male roles as the female roles are roundly condemned, dispensed with (if convenient) and even further, if felt to be oppressive, blamed on men, or, “the patriarchy.” That men still aren’t liberated isn’t the feminists fault, of course. But that men are oppressed . . . is it even possible to say that the gender that dies sooner, finds it harder to maintain close human networks, is without reproductive rights and who suffers a higher rate of alchoholism and successful suicide rate of women isn’t oppressed in some profound way? Please get real–look around at men.
Do they look or sound like they’re really doing all that great?
Until boys and girls are 9 their suicide rates are identical
from 10 to 14, the boys’ rate is twice as high as the girls’
from 15 to 19, four times as high
from 20 to 24, six times as high
Source; U. S. Bureau of Health and Human Services
“MEN’S rights men focus on the costs and destructiveness to men of masculine roles. They dispute the feminist idea that men (or some men) gain power and privilege in society, claiming that both women and men are equally oppressed or limited or even that men are oppressed by women. Men are “success objects” (like women are “sex objects”) and burdened as providers, violence against men (through war, work and by women) is endemic and socially tolerated, and men are discriminated against in divorce and child custody proceedings. As far as “men’s rights” are concerned, these men believe that men’s right to a fair trial in domestic violence cases, to a fair negotiation in custody settlements, and to fair treatment in the media have all been lost.
The men in men’s rights groups are typically in their forties and fifties, often divorced or separated, and nearly always heterosexual. In both general men’s rights groups and fathers’ rights groups, participants often are very angry, bitter and hurting (with good reason, they would say), and they often have gone through deeply painful marriage breakups and custody battles.
For some men’s rights men, feminism has largely achieved its goals and women have more choices, while men are still stuck in traditional masculine roles. For some, feminism was once a ‘human liberation’ movement that now only looks after women. For others, it never tried to liberate men, it has even tried to keep men in their traditional roles (eg as providers), and “feminazis” are involved in a conspiracy to discriminate against men and cover up violence against them.”
Men’s Rights groups-ugh.
What real man would belong to one? If there is one thing good about ‘real men’ is that they don’t whine. Male support group? Hokay, let’s get together for the big game and have a couple suds. At halftime maybe we can do ’sensitivity exercises.’ Yeeech.
For life of me I can’t imagine getting together with a bunch of metrosexuals to go to the woods to beat drums or whatever it is they do. Guys, you look like geeky weenies when you do that stuff.
It is certainly true that the modern media almost exclusively portrays males as boorish slobs without any feelings. But who actually watches tthat crap anyway? If you are, why? If you are and it’s making you insecure why don’t you ravish your lady or fix something for her (or one of a million other guy things)? Worried about your son having a good self-image? Be a man around him and he’ll be just fine. Teach him to honor and love women. Teach him to support and listen to them. Teach him to protect them if they want it and leave them alone if they don’t. Teach him that women need him to be a haven for them in times of need and not a wall between them and the world. Teach him that girls are pretty good people.
As for all the “man-bashing,” it’s just a stage society is going through. This too shall pass. Good women who love men hate these unfair stereotypes as badly as you do. So shut up, stop whining, and get on with the business of being a man, father, lover, brother, etc. You know what needs to be done so just do it and be a ’strong silent type’ like you’re supposed to be.
Let’s talk about sttrong women. Maybe it’s because I’m from the West or something where we have real cowboys (cowpersons?) and real blue collar folks. We don’t seem to to have much trouble figuring out what’s a ‘man thing’ and what’s a ‘woman thing’ and what are ’shared things’ (most everything). Strong women are a western tradition and a good one.
Speaking as a man, I loathe whiny, self-depreciating, faux-weak, apparently brainless women. It’s not cute, girls. Not to me its not. Tigers are supposed to mate with tigers and mice with mice. Men, if that’s the kind of woman you like, see a shrink about your own gender consciousness (or security or whatever). My lady is a tigress and I love her for it. Wouldn’t have it any other way.
Just because we finally let women be real women doesn’t mean we have to stop being real men. Kinda nice that way I think and, all in all, a pretty positive thing.
By the way, Amanda the Magnificent, the pictures were a hoot. I hope you don’t mind that one part of me drooled over them a tad while still getting the joke. A ‘guy thing’ you know (or was that another thread, pardon the senility).
Teach him to honor and love women. Teach him to support and listen to them.
Teach him to water them twice a day and put them in direct sunlight.
It’s really difficult to focus on this excellently written blog when the sidebar ad is of a giant set of fake porn star breasts clad in a sheer black teddy. Thank goodness it’s only showing the women from the breasts to the bikini clad crotch. I’d be even more distracted if she had a face! Since the ad is for John Q TV, might I assume the young lady is named John? Or is she just looking for one?
etap: We didn’t ask to be exempted from service. It is still widely believed that women aren’t capable of service, despite the numerous countries that use them in way. Despite historical evidence that women were fierce warriors (Vikings anyone?). It’s a little silly to criticize women for being exempted from service and risk when the people choosing to exempt women from service and risk are male, who then toss that out as an argument about how good women have it. Draft my ass. I’m up for it, its only fair. I’m a citizen too. So draft me already.
Secondly, we ARE aware of the negative results for men. My response to that is 1) change the way gender is programmed in and it benefits men too and 2) this isn’t about men, it’s about women, and its a bit of a topic hijack to come in and say, essentially, ‘nevermind about the women, look at the poor men’.
Thirdly, I don’t ask anyone to pay for my dinner or drinks specifically because 1) I don’t want to reinforce that B.S. and 2) men tend to think you owe them something when they buy you dinner. And yet, when I politely say no, the hounding begins. Oh, I’m a coy flirt, saying no, just playing hard to get. Except I really mean no. But that doesn’t help. Then the harrassment starts. Then the anger. How DARE I refuse him. He’s just being NICE. Then it goes to my sexuality. I MUST be gay. Sometimes I get threatened, name-called, or my arm gets grabbed. Sometimes they curse at me, then walk off. And sometimes I have to get a bouncer to walk me to my car, because *I* have to leave to escape. Golly. We women have it so easy. If only we weren’t the gate-keepers of the nonnie, forcing poor men to badger us, and wheedle, and coerce, or simply steal the life-giving bajinga!
Men’s rights is sort of like… why don’t they teach Men’s Studies in college. They do. Its called ‘College.’ All civil rights are, by default, assigned primarily to men, then later granted to minority men, and then women. Which particular rights are men being stripped of by the feminist movement? You don’t have the right to get laid, or get your butt kissed, by random women of your choosing. You don’t have the right to knock your wife’s teeth down her throat when she burns dinner, or talks back. You don’t have the right to be a drunken ass who doesn’t support his family… well, actually, you do have the right to that last one, but you DON’T have the right to deny your wife from leaving. Or take her land. Or her money.
And regarding the oppresion of men, come on. While I can sympathize with you, that you don’t want to always be the first move maker and whatnot, y’know what they call women who make the first move? Sluts. They call us sluts, and they mock us, and they leave us. Hell, calling us a slut is the #1 defense to use when one of us gets violently raped. Can’t rape a slut. Change the social programming that says men are stones and women are broken when used, and all of these problems go away. One of the reasons a lot of psych types think men have higher suicide rates is because they’re programmed to not express emotion. Also, biologically, women have lower pain thresholds, but the ability to suffer greater pain then men (re: childbirth). But men are not taught to deal properly with emotional pain. Again, nullify the b.s. gender programming that says men are all grit and no femmy tendancies. Allowing men freedom from that crap allows men to be better husbands, better fathers, and better humans.
And how are men the defacto provider, when over half of all married couples BOTH work? And then wifee is also usually the primary caregiver for the children? How is the man the provider when the women is working two jobs? Men are oppressed? Why is female nudity totally acceptable in movies, but male nudity gets a higher rating and carries a massive taboo? Oh yeah, because men are the default, and pretty much everything is there to cater to, and tittilate, them.
Men’s Rights movements essentially complain about having to take out the trash AND wash the dishes. Why do I have to be the MAN here, AND be nice? Again, what rights are women stealing from men? The right to be successful? Nope. Almost ALL CEOs are male (with stay home wives). Almost all the wealthy-by-earning are male (with stay home wives). Ever heard the phrase, “Behind every successful man is a strong woman?” It means that behind every man who devotes himself to a career and makes a crapton of money and success, a woman has devoted her life to making sure lumpkins doesn’t have to worry his head about the kids, or dinner, or laundry, or the house, or the shopping… or anything inside the home. That’s a perfectly acceptable arrangement to me, a feminist, providing its what BOTH partners want for their lives, and the wife gets the respect SHE deserves for contributing to her husband’s success. Because he would not have been able to accomplish such greatness without her support and hard work at home. And again a double-standard. The woman gets criticized for staying home. Because children require no effort, right? We get called gold-diggers. I submit that without our support in the home, there’d be little gold to dig.