MRAs: More Radical Misogyny?
Gender equality, now wouldn’t that be a fine thing? Well that’s what feminists for the past two centuries have been saying. Women across the world have been protesting, demonstrating, shouting and striking in the name of gender equality, but apparently we’ve been doing a rather bad job of it. That is, if you agree with the views put forward by the Men’s Rights Activists. The movement that first emerged in the 1960s has recently had a global resurgence and now enjoys a growing internet presence, too. When a University of Warwick Men’s Rights group was recently established on Facebook, feminists and anti-sexists on campus instantly opposed the idea. So what exactly is the Men’s Rights Activism movement, and what does is mean for gender equality in 2013?
Why shouldn’t men voice their grievances? Men are human beings, after all, and like any human being they have legitimate reasons to complain about gender discrimination and the violation of their human rights. The growing confusion over masculinity, the rise of male eating disorders, the lack of male shelters, the quadrupled risk of suicide in men and the lack of fairness in family courts, to name but a few, are under-publicised issues that we as a society really ought to be having a discussion about. Great, so Men’s Rights Activists are working with feminists to address these issues for the betterment of society, right? Wrong. That is exactly what Men’s Rights Activists (or MRAs) are not doing. In fact, the label “Men’s Rights Activists” is about as far removed from the truth as it is possible to be. They’d be better off branding themselves “Feminist Baiters of the World” or “Misogynistic Pigs United” because at least then we’d have a clear idea of the mind-set of these activists.
Even if we overlooked for a second the fact that the demographic making up the MRAs is predominantly white, Anglo-Saxon males, and we overlooked the fact that historically this group is the least oppressed group in the history of civilisation, and we overlooked for a second the fact that the average salary for these men in the UK in 2012 was ten thousand pounds greater than for their female counterparts, and we overlooked the fact that of the top 200 companies in the world almost half have entirely male executives and only 6 have female CEOs, we would probably still come to the conclusion that discrimination, objectification and inequality principally affects women, and not men. We would also probably conclude that feminism and anti-sexism movements are working hard to counter the inequalities suffered by both sexes. We only need to do a quick Google search to see that movements such as Fathers For Justice and campaigns such as Say No To are firmly established and working hard alongside feminist advocates to promote gender equality.
Wrong again. In a statement by Erin Pizzey, the first Patron of MRA London (it’s even got regional groups so that these Neanderthal individuals can feminist-bait at a local level) she states: “My hope is that…the twenty-first century will see men and women standing shoulder to shoulder to work together to actively take on the feminists”. What a brilliant idea. Take on the people who are striving for gender equality, work against them and undermine everything they’re fighting for (that includes men’s rights, by the way) because this will ultimately be more productive than just working alongside them. Why didn’t we think of that? The deeper one delves into the murky depths of MRAs, the more anti-feminist vibes one senses.
In an article published on the MRA-endorsed A Voice for Men website, the author asserts that women (he means feminists, naturally he assumes that feminists can only be women) mistakenly synonymise men as a species with the patriarchy, and so naturally he concludes that all women (feminists) hate all men because they think all men represent an oppressive system of social and sexual hierarchy. This is absurd, and here’s why: Firstly, feminists are not just women. Feminists can be female, male, and those who don’t identify with either binary. Secondly, feminists don’t think that all men represent the patriarchy. The patriarchy is a set of values grounded in society that promote men as the powerful sex and women as the subservient sex, and thankfully large numbers of Western men today don’t subscribe to that view.
Thirdly anti-sexists everywhere will argue that the patriarchy is bad for most men, too. The patriarchy is responsible for the men at the bottom of society – men dying in wars, on the streets, in prison and in suicide. And this comes as a result of the say so of the alpha males who actually form the male oligarchy, and not as a result of feminism. The average man is sold a piece of control over women as a sop for their lack of control over the rest of their lives. Not only this, but the average man is encased in rigid gender-specific roles in the same way that women were put into corsets. Men have to look muscular with a full head of hair and a strong jawline, and they have to attract women with their masculine pheromones and then spend the rest of their lives providing for their woman and families. Yes, the average man needs to say enough is enough, but fighting feminism is not the way to do this. Fighting feminism just plays into the hands of the alpha males who feed the patriarchy and keep it alive. By all means, get mad (we’re mad!), but get mad at the real culprits, not fellow female fighters. Fourthly, hating men is not part of the Feminist Bible; we don’t hate men, we hate patriarchy. And we hate people who write silly articles suggesting otherwise.
In another such misogynistic and frankly quite deplorable article written on Angry Harry (in its own words “one of the best-known websites frequented by those concerned with Men’s Rights and by MRAs”) the anonymous author considers the reasons behind female rape fantasies. In a pathetic and belittling attempt to explain these fantasies, he equates them to “winning the lottery”. Everyone would like to win the lottery even if they know that statistically lottery winners often end up very miserable. Er… what? Unsurprisingly, he goes on to blame women for being victims to sexual assault because if they will choose to “engage intimately with stridently aggressive males…their experiences turn out to be decidedly unpleasant”. In a mere fourteen words the author successfully perpetuates the attitude that it’s okay to advocate sexual violence against women, that it’s okay to blame women for sexual violence, and that it’s okay for society to treat every man like the naturally aggressive, sadistic, power-crazed rapist that he is. And all this in the name of Men’s Rights.
On the topic of rape accusations, Men’s Rights Activists, such as Paul Elam, the founder of A Voice for Men Radio, have openly stated that they believe false accusers of rape should spend as much time in prison as rapists themselves. Presumably he feels the same about the false accusers of crimes such as murder and fraud. In the spirit of fairness, and all.
Sadly, it’s not just the general public who have been subject to this insulting display of sexism and misogyny. Universities too have been the target of MRA presence. Just last week Warwick’s own Anti-Sexism Society became the latest in a long line of university societies to be challenged by a Men’s Rights Facebook group. The group (which has since been removed) cited its aims as “defending men’s rights” because the already-established Anti-Sexism Society wasn’t “effective enough” in combatting discrimination against the same under-privileged, oppressed, white, Anglo-Saxon demographic of men that a leading, fee-paying British university attracts. In reality the group discussed and debated precisely nothing conducive to the combatting of gender discrimination, and it took exactly a day for the first “get back to the kitchen” joke to emerge. Funny, that. As a rational reaction to the concerns voiced by the Men’s Rights Facebook group, the founder of the group was invited to attend a Warwick Anti-Sexism Society meeting to air his views and discuss his ideas for gender equality. Unfortunately he did not accept this invitation and has since chosen not to initiate contact with the society.
All of this does beg the question, what is all of this achieving for men’s rights? Well the answer is very little. In highlighting exactly the wrong way to go about fighting gender discrimination, MRAs are simply enforcing existing stereotypes about misogyny and socialised sexism. By claiming that women enjoy being sexually assaulted, MRAs are not helping to either reduce the number of rapes that take place each year (that’s 50,000 rapes and attempted rapes), increase the number of convictions (that’s between 2,500-3,000) or fight the prevalence of rape culture that both increases the number of attacks on women, and increases the number of false accusations made against men (a 2013 study by the Crown Prosecution Service revealed that in a year there were only 35 prosecutions made for false rape). When we take into account the number of rapes that go unreported each year, we are left with a very different picture to the one Mr Elam would have us believe.
A comment left on The Student Room sums up the situation pretty accurately. “MRAs who hate feminism because it only cares about women are similarly hypocritical; if the problem is that feminism focuses on only one gender, then nothing is solved by doing the same thing for the opposite gender. Two wrongs don’t make a right and all that. If you truly think sexism is a problem, fight it in all cases, for both genders.” So, join your university’s feminist or anti-sexism society and use it as a space to discuss the evolution of gender discrimination for both sexes, lose yourselves in a copy of The Female Eunuch, attend a protest, start up a grass roots campaign, but whatever you do, do not support the misogynistic and regressive movement that is Men’s Rights Activism, because you will inevitably be doing a lot more harm than good.
Edit: Article amended at 01:00 21/6/2013 to include writer’s full statement.
Comments (64)
The problem is that feminists steadfastly REF– USE to acknowledge that men face ANY issues whatsoever.
Therefore it is impossible to work with them. And people, just like you, who condone sexism against men are part of this.
Unsurprisingly this is a very biased story. I do understand that MRM make it uncomfortable for fisting-plus activists to freely disperse misandry. MRM is a movement of free thinkers not bound but political ideologies or social constraints. We see a huge flaw of hypocrisy and lies within feminist movement and certainly not afraid to point it out. We do not see women as weak or irresponsible. We do not see women as victims. We do not bend to emotional manipulation or anger displacement. We do not buy into fisting-plus pseudo-egalitarianism. We see right through your tricks and lies. We know your goals and we know your tactics. Please keep doing exactly what you have been doing.
Unsurprisingly this is a very biased story. I do understand that MRM make it uncomfortable for fisting-plus activists to freely disperse misandry. MRM is a movement of free thinkers not bound but political ideologies or social constraints. We see a huge flaw of hypocrisy and lies within feminist movement and certainly not afraid to point it out. We do not see women as weak or irresponsible. We do not see women as victims. We do not bend to emotional manipulation or anger displacement. We do not buy into fisting-plus pseudo-egalitarianism. We see right through your tricks and lies. We know your goals and we know your tactics. Please keep doing exactly what you have been doing.
So basically.. There are serious men’s issues (You forgot to say “Patriarchy hurts the Menz too”)..but MRA is not the way to go about it. Even though you accept that there’s some hypocrisy with feminism via this stmt “MRAs who hate feminism because it only cares about women are similarly hypocritical“.. Feminism is still the way to solve Men’s problems as well.
Awesome.
How many times does such a message get repeated? Didnt it happen in the early 90s with Susan Faludi’s book?
And by the way.. the MRM is alive in India as well.. not even a single White Male there you know.. I was an MRA when I lived in India. I am an MRA here in the US too.
Maybe you should ask psychologist Dr.Helen Smith whats the source of the issues impacting men.. She’s not an MRA. Why would she find fault with feminism? Hmm..
Men on Strike ~ Finally, men are waking-up
I’m not a feminist but I must give them credit, they are very adept at labeling any man a misogynist if he disagrees with them. Feminism’s greatest strength is how masterfully they utilize political correctness. Don’t underestimate the power of crying victim. Men, for the most part are scared to challenge them for that very reason. Most men, whether they know it or not have developed guilt because feminists have created a narrative that the average guy is a horrible oppressor. This is partially achieved by manipulating statistics. Because of their ability to cry victim its very difficult for a man to challenge them without being seen as a bully.
Its odd that such a small percentage of the female population yields so much power among their gender. Whats even more perplexing is how the vast majority of women don’t like them. At my college the Women’s Studies Department is considered a joke by the majority of women on campus. They’re nothing more than a cult of hypersensitive and impressionable young women. Fear tactics about the ‘horrors’ of patriarchy are used as means to lure them into this cult. Don’t hate them, pity them.
‘Feminism explained’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05ro6fcj6Ek
One you abandon that mindset and start thinking on your own, things become very clear. Something fisting-plus activists don’t want you to do. Cold, emotionless, facts do the ‘trick’ with any rational person.
What an amusingly naive and one-sided article.
Feminism is libertarian in theory, progressive in action, but totalitarian in outcome.
A nice attempt at laconic phrasing that only achieves sounding trite.
Why not say something of actual substance?
In my understanding, please correct me if I’m wrong, many feminists think it is wrong for men to structure feminist discourse. It is obvious that women have more experience and know more than men about gendered oppression as they are the primary victims of a patriarchal system and it is their lived reality.
Therefore, many feminists dislike the idea of men’s voices within the feminist movement as a whole and accordingly men feel disenfranchised. Boo hoo I’m sure would be the response – straight, white men losing control how sad we must feel for them. In any case, I think it is in this atmosphere that the Mens Rights Groups emerge and are cultivated. I obviously deplore nearly every aspect about the movement and its anti-feminism – men clearly don’t like their privilege being checked. However, do you not think that the exclusionary nature of the feminist movement is at loggerheads with tackling real issues that men face, for example in academic underachieving (60/40 split in degrees in the US (http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=72) ) or anti-male biases (even if small compared to women) – for example the non-existence of men-only domestic violence shelters even though they make up 10-40% (depends on what studies you look at) of the victims.
In other words, regardless of whether it is men’s fault for constructing the patriarchy is it not the case that the lack of feminist discourse on male issues which some put down to its exclusionary nature only serves to perpetuate an adverserial character which alienates men?
I do not say that men should be leaders in or structurers of feminist thought, but at least give male voices, despite their admittedly smaller challenges by comparison, some avenue to be heard meaningfully.
Steven,
That is exactly why the MRHM has become so successful. Feminism has failed to address men’s legitimate issues. Feminism wanted women to escape male authority. Now, MHRAs want to escape female obligation. One of the real problems has been that women fail to recognize their own chauvinism. Too bad! Men have checked out.
If by ‘successful’ you mean by generating lots of traction in areas of the internet where similar things were already being said in an unstructured way.
Why has the MRHM online (MRA London I’m looking at here) concentrated so much on insulting feminists and so little on activism on the issues that it should supposedly care about?
Why has feminism concentrated so much on insulting and attacking men in general?
Feminism is a hate movement.
mmm yeah this is the point where I’d like to see some evidence.
Well let’s start with a quote from Robin Morgan, past President of NOW and Chief Editor of Ms Magazine:
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.
I suggest that you could start by googling the SCUM Manifesto which is a current mainstay of Women’s Studies courses throughout the US.
A wonderful example can be found by doing a search on YouTube for “University of Toronto Warren Farrell Protest”.
That’s just nonsense and really insulting to feminists all over the globe working in organisations to help people, or conducting research about people’s lives.
Well, I will let someone from your side of the Pond address what is happening there. Here are a few examples of MHRAs success:
Passed 5 Family Court Reform Bills in California in 2010, including child custody reform (AB 2416 and SB 1188), child support reform (SB 580 and SB 1355) and alimony reform (SB 1482)
Helped defeat two 2010 California legislative attempts to prohibit or limit family courts’ ability to recognize and properly deal with Parental Alienation (AB 612 and AB 2475). These successes help protect the loving bonds parents share with their children.
Reduced excessive child support by over $1 billion in Massachusetts from 2001 through 2008
Helped lead successful campaigns in 2004 and 2006 to defeat California “move-away” bills which would have made it too easy for custodial parents to move children to other states without regard for children’s best interests
Helped pass military parent child custody legislation in California, Georgia, Ohio, Arizona, and Nevada in 2010/2011, and in numerous other states previously.
Helped block 2010 bill to dramatically increase Ohio child support guidelines
Enlisted over one-quarter of the Massachusetts Legislature as co-sponsors of our shared parenting bill
Placed a shared parenting initiative on the 2004 Massachusetts ballot and led a successful campaign for its passage, winning 86% of the vote
Helped achieve a 50% reduction in the interest rate Massachusetts charges on overdue child support
Helped pass bills in California, Arizona, and Indiana to protect disabled parents from family court financial abuses
Helped defeat a 2010 Massachusetts bill which would have further marginalized noncustodial parents in relation to their children’s medical needs
Helped pass paternity fraud legislation (AB 252 and SB 1333) which allows California child support obligors to use DNA evidence to set aside false paternity judgments and the concomitant child support orders
Solicited amicus letters to California Supreme Court from legislators and leading family law professionals to block the California Department of Child Support Services’ attempts to depublish the crucial Navarro paternity fraud ruling; helped use Navarro to win the 2011 Soto paternity fraud case
Worked on the 2009 National Defense Reauthorization Act (HR 2647) to include a mandate that the U.S. Secretary of Defense produce a report on child custody litigation involving members of the Armed Forces, as well as international intrafamilial abductions of servicemembers’ children
Persuaded the Boston Globe to become first major newspaper in country to publicly endorse shared parenting (Feb 23, 2008)
Written an amicus brief which helped win a precedent-setting Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case protecting children in joint physical custody from being moved out of state, away from one parent. To read our brief, click here.
Penned an amicus brief for the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in A.H. v. M.P. supporting the parenting rights of a non-biological lesbian mother — a woman who had been a parental figure for the child for years but who was cut off from the child by the biological mother after the couple separated. Fathers and Families feared that the case could set a precedent marginalizing parents to whom children are deeply attached simply because they are breadwinners. To read our brief, click here.
Been instrumental in passing a law opening up access to report cards and school records to non-custodial parents in Massachusetts
Led 2008 campaign which stopped FOX from airing the anti-father reality TV show Bad Dads
Led 2009 campaign which stopped Lifetime Television from airing the anti-father reality show Deadbeat Dads
Joined with Jane Doe Inc., the Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence in successful 2011 campaign to get Jimmy Choo Ltd to remove ad trivializing domestic violence against men from their stores, ads, and website
Helped extend and expand California’s COAP program, which allows parents who are unfairly saddled with inflated, unpayable child support arrearages to settle them for modest cash payments
Worked with Texas Senator Jane Nelson to pass SB 279, a bill to protect military parents’ custody rights, which was signed by Texas Governor Rick Perry in 2009.
Pursued lawsuit against Massachusetts 2009 child support increases all the way up to the MA Supreme Judicial Court, where we were defeated
Helped spearhead a massive nationwide grassroots protest campaign against anti-father PBS show on child custody, successfully forcing production of even-handed documentary
Helped spearhead a successful national protest campaign against Florida’s refusal to reunite a fit and loving Cuban dad with his daughter
Helped lead a successful campaign to free Brian Gegner, a father jailed because his adult daughter didn’t get her GED.
Helped pass California SB 285 to protect disabled veterans. The bill prohibits courts from illegally garnishing disability compensation for child support. It also prohibits courts from calculating veterans’ disability compensation into divorce settlements as income or as a divisible asset.
Helped defeat an amendment to California AB 164 which would have prevented fit noncustodial parents from gaining access to school and other records
Built the only organization of its kind to achieve financial stability through broad-based individual financial support
Developed the largest website, blog and e-newsletter in the world devoted to family law reform. Our subscriber list is the largest in the world on our issues.
Become an established presence in major broadcast and print media, including CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR and others; hundreds of radio shows; major magazines, including Newsweek, Time, the New York Times Sunday Magazine, Forbes, U.S. News and World Report, People, and many others; and hundreds of newspapers, including the New York Times, USA Today, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the Houston Chronicle, the San Francisco Chronicle, the New York Daily News, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Chicago Tribune, MSN.com, and numerous others.
You are right in that feminism is still a movement where the agenda is set by women: and quite naturally so, because it is there that the most inequalities lie. However, men lead the discussion on male-focussed feminist issues like father’s rights.
I think that the fact that some people felt dissatisfied with their inability to dominate the agenda with male issues shows the psychology of the MRA movement. However I don’t think this is the origin. If MRA was a *progressive* movement attacking gender inequalities that exist, then it would be a good thing. It is not. It exists to attack feminism and is thus a *conservative* group (can’t really call it a movement if it doesn’t move). Conservative groups don’t spring up from disgruntled members of progressive movements.
John,
That is reassuring, I do not identify with the some of the comments posted in response to mine – typical MRA rubbish. They do spend more time being anti-feminist than tacking real problems. As I said in my post, men shouldn’t dominate the conversation, if I went to a feminist meeting I would listen, yet I don’t think it is unreasonable that I should be able to speak when it concerns men but for that to happen there needs to be more discussion on men. I know this is a typical but what about teh menz, but it seems to me that mens issues are ignored or under-addressed.
Feminism’s agenda should still be set by women for women, but secondary to that there needs to be more internal discussion on men. Whilst MRA’s would still exist because as you say men like to dominate things, perhaps their growth would be checked somewhat.
There’s been some discussions around the WASS grapevine about having a male focussed campaign next year. If you think you have some ideas, by all means bring them along!
Well I’m on WASS page so I’ll be on the look out. Thanks.
http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/mras y’all might want to read this thread, too.
Good illustratio of the hatred that feminists have toward men.
First post when I click that tag:
“I feel like with feminists, you can agree with them completely and they’re fine with it.
But the second you mention the fact that men have problems too, they want nothing to do with you.
It’s almost like they think only women are allowed to have problems.
Well, if that’s your idea of gender equality…”
Ya. Why do we have to work with feminists to promote gender equality? Who put the feminists in charge?
Why do feminists feel they should hold the monopoly on the narrative? Not everyone in this world is a feminist, not everyone in this world believes that our problems can be solved with only one point of view.
Why can’t feminists start practising a little humility? You criticize people who don’t want to work along side you but you have made it clear that you won’t work alongside people who believe there are faults in the feminist ideology?
Feminism is proving itself to be a very close minded movement. But that’s not surprising considering that feminism is actually a stuffy old ideology that probably doesn’t want to admit that it has become as much a part of the rigid establishment as the people it originally sought to challenge.
I used to support feminism. But over the years I have learnt that it doesn’t have the answers. It has become far too rigid, single minded and un-democratic.
Asking who put the feminists in charge of gender equality work is sort of like asking who put the charities in charge of cause-based fundraising work.
Feminism isn’t the mother of which is a cause that encompasses all groups regardless of the trait in question. Gender is just one of many. The arrogance of feminist has lead to their declining popularity and the rise of MRA’s. They’ve left men no choice but to organize against them once the made it clear they would not stop trying to bias public policy against men. If they want to be back on the side of fighting sexism they need to clean up their act.
Sigh. This was the shortened version of the article that was submitted for the paper edition. There was a much more detailed 2000 word piece that was supposed to be submitted online, but it seems this hasn’t happened. Not very happy 🙁
Patriarchy doesn’t hurt men, the double standards that have been put into place by 50 years of unopposed feminism hurts men. Most men have done the math and come to this conclusion. So trying to convince us that “the patriarchy is responsible” just doesn’t cut it anymore.
So the double standards previous to 1960 weren’t hurting men?
Most, if not all of the double standards that hurt men prior to the 60s stand today. Few of those double standards that hurt women exist today. The failure of feminism may not be that it didn’t change men but, that it didn’t change women!
But that’s not necessarily feminism’s fault. Sure, there are arguably failures in the sense that a lot of feminist debate has occurred in academic circles, but that’s one thing. There has also been a backlash against feminism in mainstream media since it began, unsurprisingly. Feminists have been demonised for decades, your suggestion of ’50 years of unopposed feminism’ is laughable.
There are still plenty of misogynistic men which feminism has been unable to change. Just because not all women have become strident feminists, doesn’t mean that feminism isn’t a force for good, or that people should oppose a feminist ethic.
You insist on processing everything in terms of male authority. You only see the MRA/MHRA in terms of male authority. You miss the point. This is about male obligation. Most men support equality. However, more and more men are recognizing their obligation to women and want to be free of it. Many feminist apparently believe the MHRM is somehow trying to reassert male authority. This could not be further from the truth. In fact, it’s probably more accurate to say that many men in our culture are fed up with women entirely and want out altogether.Let’s agree to define pre-feminist western culture as “patriarchial”. The last 50 years of feminist activism has worked only to free women from male authority. It has done nothing to free men from their obligations to women. In many instances it has fought to keep men bound to their obligations to women. While patriarchal roles have been discarded, male patriarchal roles have been entrenched. Feminist selectively support one half of the patriarchy while attacking the other, even while claiming universal opposition to the patriarchy.
Could you give examples of where feminism supports one half of the patriarchy?
I will give one, though there are many. The current feminist idea of a patriarchy, one of the root tenets of modern feminism upon which so many of their grievances are based, can not be interpreted any other way than as a directed attack against men. So to say that feminism does not promote misandry is self-defeating
That’s not an example.
And it doesn’t have to be interpreted as a direct attack against men. Yes, some men will have to lose their privilege and positions of power in order to create an equal society, but that doesn’t have to be seen as an attack on men.
It is an extremely valid example. I agree that it doesn’t have to be interpreted as a direct attack on men, but to have that happen would have required feminist to stop directly attacking men and attack the system. Too late now.
“And it doesn’t have to be interpreted as a direct attack against men.”
But it is. For example:”Yes, some men will have to lose their privilege and positions of power in order to create an equal society, but that doesn’t have to be seen as an attack on men.”
Do you want to know what the attack on men was? It’s when you stereotyped men as fearing the loss of privilege because that’s how your gender theories taught you to think. We don’t want to be stereotyped as a gender by people who hate us. You can’t resist the temptation to shame and attack men as a group. The loss of power is irrelevant because we are individuals who wouldn’t notice if a thousand men lost their jobs to women unless we were one of them and since we’ve been working along side women our whole lives we have no more reason to be threatened by women than we are anybody else seeking a job. You don’t get that. You can’t see how men changed because your theories are stuck in the 1970’s. Men are fed up, it’s too late. We signed up for equality not systematic bias and hatred.
There exist many improvements for the lot of men. And there hasn’t been a better day than now to be a man who challenges the gender standards.
I’ll repeat my reply from earlier: insulting Feminists the whole time is not promoting gender equality, and that is what I have seen of MRA, after a decent amount of time searching.
I just don’t see any plausible alternative to the feminist movement that exists today.
MRAs are not losing the battle for gender equality, because gender equality is not a battle to be won by one side or the other. MRAs are gaining traction all across the western world (evidenced by more coverage being paid to men’s issues by mainstream media outlets every day) and they are gaining this traction because people are seeing first hand what Feminism really is, an antiquated cult-like ideology that preaches hatred and seeks only increased power and privilege for white upper-middle class radicals.
Please google Cathy Brennan and the University of Toronto Feminists who protested a talk by Warren Farrel on suicide among men. See for yourself Cathy Brennan, vile transphobe, Warren Farrel soft-spoken mild mannered ex-feminist, violent toronto feminists.
Sophie Blyth-Bristow you should be ashamed of yourself.
Naming a few individuals is sadly not enough to shame a whole movement. And as long as sexism continues to exist for women regardless of race, ethnicity, age and religion, feminists will be there to fight it.
‘Naming a few individuals is sadly not enough to shame a whole movement.’
A pretty ironic thing to say having written an article consisting primarily of just that. If you want to demonstrate that the men’s rights movement is misogynist (or whatever else you think it is), then do it properly – with statistics, not a stream of anecdotes.
Well, I’m missing any specifics in this article, except for the fact that there are occasionally idiots on the internet. If “In reality the group discussed and debated precisely nothing conducive to the combating of gender discrimination”, then what did they discuss? Do you know?
Full article has now been posted (you read the 700 word shortened version) so I hope this gives you the specifics you were looking for.
Why would you assume MRAs would work with feminists? Feminism deals with issues affecting women, despite protestations to the contrary feminism isn’t a positive force in the lives of the majority of men. it certainly does not promote gender equality, only benefits for women. Does feminism serve a purpose? Sure in some circumstances it is of benefit to some women. Men however have their own advocacy – the Men’s Rights Movement. Men need feminism like the proverbial fish.
if you are offended by some of the language and tone in MRM groups, I suggest you take a look at RadFemHub, Feministing, Jezebel or the feminist stronghold The Good Men Project. Look at it from a man’s point of view and then consider why there might be angry retorts voiced in MRM forums. Consider that when MRAs do open dialogue in feminist forums, they are censored and banned. Apparently feminism is weak when it has to be debated rather than just taken on faith. MRM forums are the only place men can discuss issues without facing a ban hammer for daring to disagree with the faithful.
The gender divide is only going to get worse before it gets better; there are some influential feminists whose livelihood depends upon the maintenance of the conflict. There are also MRAs who don’t care about hurting the feelings of feminists. The dialogue will get angrier before it can approach rationality again.
Feminism is the idea that we can make both genders equal by solely focusing on the issues of one gender.
And why not? Allowing women equal access to combat roles will reduce the burden of military service on men. Allowing women to work will reduce the breadwinner burden on men.
Feminism doesn’t simply focus on the issues of one gender, and as the article states campaigns like Fathers For Justice are also heavily feminist. Whether they say it or not, Fathers for Justice *is* a feminist campaign as it is exactly aligned with the ideology that gender should not play a part in legal rights such as access to children.
No. Feminism actively campaigns *against* father’s rights.
Calling Fathers for Justice “feminist” is like calling the civil rights movement “white supremacist”.
[citation needed]
Feminism is only at odds with Father’s rights where Fathers Rights equals MRA activities, which is common. The idea of appropriate legal access to children is a big deal.
What are MRA activities and what does that have to do with father’s rights? If MRA’s support a cause feminist will turn on it even if it’s a matter of men getting their rights? That’s petty and I don’t think you’re fooling anyone.
Ignorant and bigoted articles like this are part of the reason men’s rights movements can’t woirk with feminists. Feminism demands subservience from men, while actively discriminatinmg against them.
Any attempt to discuss men’s issues from a male perspective is smeared and silenced.
However, you can’t jkeep half the population silent forever.
Feminism doesn’t demand that, only strawman feminism cooked up in the minds of people who have never actually attended any ‘feminist’ activity. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve choked on my fair amount of bile at certain ‘feminist’ things (don’t get me STARTED on Margaret Atwood), but really male opinions on male issues are very much valued. What *isn’t* universally valued is male opinions on female issues, which grates on people who aren’t used to their opinions being assessed on merit rather than on the authority that they are an educated white guy (for example).
I’m used to my opinions being held in contempt because I’m a white guy – rather than being assessed on their merits.
And this is done by feminists and other advocates of “identity politics”.
Feminism is a hate movement against men, nothing more.
Have you considered the possibility that your opinions are held in contempt because of what they are, and not who you are? I’m a straight white guy and I am not encountering the same problems as you.
Yes by turning on other straight white men who are collectively shamed by the movement you support. I’m black and I’m appalled by the level of white male bashing coming from white female feminist. Where exactly do they get off on attacking whiteness? There sons are white males as are there fathers. Do they hate half their families? It’s stupid and just another example of feminist co-opting civil rights e rhetoric for their own ends but they failed to notice black people haven’t been going after white people much because we’ve moved on. Also people of color took issue with white men and women. See Paula Deen. White women are also a problem so you remember to add the in everytime you wanna white bash in our name.
Sophie, I think you’re making a terrible assumption.
No-one has to work with feminists to promote gender equality. Feminism is but one political ideology seeking to bring about its definition of gender equality. By no means do feminists have a monopoly on gender equality.
That’s almost like saying if [name your religion or group describing a religious stance here] doesn’t work with Christianity to help restore good morals to the world, then one cannot support moral behaviour.
See the major logical flaw in your argument?
Also, please prove patriarchy theory to be more than just a hypothesis in the scientific sense; it’s another flaw in your argument which makes it unbelievable to anyone who isn’t a Feminist [ally].
Full article is up now, hopefully this should answer some of your questions.
At the same time, insulting Feminists the whole time is not promoting gender equality.
It is if feminism is a significant source of the problems that afflict men.
But feminism is NOT the only source. MRAs fight against ALL sources of misandry..
1) social conservatism is one source (Think all the ‘Man Up’s emanating from that corner), albeit less harmful. This is what enacted laws such as lifetime alimony. They work hand in hand with feminists to enact laws that see men as agents alone.. and women as acted-upon objects alone.
2) State institutions that benefit from feminism.. such as Family Lawyers.
Feminism isn’t but one ideology, it’s many. It’s feminisms really. But the feminism practiced by most feminists I have ever met it the textbook definition of ‘equalism’ as espoused by people who get hung up on the semantics of such things.
I think putting this in the bag with political ideologies and religions is perhaps a mislabelling. It might be better placed in with ethical schools of thought, like utilitarianism or contractualism. In many ways it can be school of social ethics rather than a political agenda. Just like utilitarian thinking has you asking yourself ‘which action leads to the greater good’, feminism leads you to thinking ‘which decision is most based on facts and not preconceptions of gender’.
I don’t think patriarchy theory is necessarily required to be interested and involved in feminist activities.
Another uninformed feminist, have a read of this and get back to us.
http://www.amazon.com/Legalizing-Misandry-Systemic-Discrimination-Against/dp/0773528628