The Misguided Message of Men's Rights Groups

[Monk Of Reason]

My own personal experience (in short):

- I was invited to a local MRA group several years ago since I have been a more well-known feminist in the area. The invitation was sincere, as we both wanted the same things in regards to custodial rights, selective service, and domestic violence against men. When I arrived, the first thing I was met with by one of the members was "Feminism ****es me off!" Followed by an hour or so of other members wanting to vent about how much they hate feminism. When I listened and asked what can we accomplish together, the direction if their questions were targeted about how I should call feminists out. It was an unproductive meeting.
- I have received death threats by self-described MRA's and self-described egalitarians. Some of them have even threatened my family members. I keep the evidence on file in case there was any attempt.

I honestly want to work with Men's Rights groups because I have three sons and a husband I care deeply about. I'd like to do that without getting threatened or harassed repeatedly.

I have had similar experiences. The second and last time I went to an MRA group I apparently had the gall to question if we could do this without having to go against feminism and I was literally called (not by the group mind you but a single individual so as to allow others to know that I am not portraying the whole group this way) one of those "feminist ****". The term of course being derogatory to me being a male and still a feminist. Having the one guy say that didn't really bother me that much but it was the fact that no one corrected or said anything to him on it. They laughed, let it be and moved on. I don't care about it being against me personally as I can take insults without batting an eye. But the mentality being instilled in that room was harmful and negative. I could see that there were other men in that room that agreed with me or at least understood and sympathized with my plight. However none of them spoke up because they were lashed out at with such negative language. "*****, ***, *****, wuss, femnazi" were all stated within the context of conversation in that group throughout the night. When we got down to business it calmed down quite a bit but it was the casual conversation that really turned me off going to any more MRA meetings.

The first MRA meeting was actually a lot better but I had not stayed after or got their early for the general discussion.

 

[JerryL]

With education, I think, we can show how ethical domination-submission relationships are. The popularity ofFifty Shades has brought out numerous people in the kink community spreading information about BDSM.

As Batman said: When life throws you lemons be glad they are just lemons rather than life killing your parents in a dark alley when you're eight.

Though more to the point: Yes, the kink community should use this opportunity to make lemonade. I just really wish it could have been a movie that didn't portray kink as a mental disorder (the result of child abuse in the case of 50-shades... and Ana is, as far as I can tell, a child that the book puts a lampshade on by claiming she's 21)

Definitely. I miss NYC. Used to live there.

I will likely be there in May. Any suggestions (not my first trip, but there's always more to see). If you happen to visit around the same time, I'm always open for a tour.

Oh yeah. The whole "nice guys finish last" myth and the stereotype that women only go for the abusive men more often? That's a conversation in and of itself that is super complex as it involves culturally conditioned gender roles for both men and women.

I agree that's a really big can of worms and covers a lot of myths... but its also not entirely without truth.

50 shades really gives a great example. Grey warns Ana off, while simultaneously sending the mixed message of expensive gifts. She's turned on by the flat-out-stated "I'm a bad match" and drawn all the more. I've helped more than one unrealized submissive learn to recognize the difference between "dominant" and "controlling", and how they were often confusing the two in their relationship choices.

Perhaps that's another, very complex, conversation to have elsewhere. I think you and I both have some things in mind that, on the surface appear in conflict but, in reality, are both true.

 

[Debater Slayer]

You're erroneously claiming false dichotomy. See below.

Well spluuuUUUuuuUUUuuuhhhh....of course not. I've clearly stated that this is not an inherent conflict. Some feminists do support men's rights, just as many men support both men's & women's rights.

Then you were unclear at best, since you didn't specify that you were only talking about a specific subset of women's rights advocates.

Yes, yes, yes.....you keep giving your very low opinion of men's rights advocates. You should hear what they say about your lot's fuss'n & feud'n. You two SJW groups should really make up, & focus upon similar goals instead of continually wallowing in rancor.

That's precisely the point; the misogyny among a lot of MRAs doesn't help anyone because they should be able to work with feminists if they really aimed to promote men's rights first and foremost.

Anyone can find a few links to make any group look bad....feminists, MRAs, black power, Dems, Pubs, Libs, etc. But to find examples & make'm writ large is bogus. Neither do loopy feminists who call Newton's Principia Mathematica a "rape manual" represent the whole of feminism. To find some bad apples & then claim the whole barrel is bad smacks of bigotry & sophistry.

Okay, I would like to see some examples of achievements of specific MRAs. Not just one or two either; I'm talking about a solid list of people and/or organizations.

"Patriarchy" (as it is wielded) is a good example, & goes hand in hand with "male privilege" as a source of woe. Bound up in use of the term is that men are culpable for women's woes, that women themselves have no power, that women bear no responsibility for their lot in life, & that their low status is exaggerated. This is obsession over victimhood is disempowering to to women themselves, who might become needlessly discouraged as a result. The female feminists I know who earn real success in life don't go on & on about "patriarchy", "male privilege", "misogyny", "male gaze" or "rape apologetics".
There are many other examples of feminist jargon which are by etymology & usage sexist, eg, "mansplaining". I've covered a bunch. Need more?

I don't think "patriarchy" and "male privilege" are what you say they are. The fact that many women succeed under a patriarchal system doesn't mean that women aren't generally disadvantaged as a class in any given society. "Patriarchy" refers to male-dominated cultural systems where norms, traditions, and even laws are primarily based on men's perspectives. Pointing out that males are generally privileged in such systems is a mere objective description of facts.

Regarding the supposed feminist jargon, I think the terms you listed are all very useful and pretty accurate when it comes to describing certain trends and cultural phenomena. So, for example, I think that certain anti-feminists here engage in profuse mansplaining in threads like this one.

That was one example in a list of problems afflicting feminist culture. But my standards are higher than what you use to criticize MRAs to a far greater extent than I do feminism, & my criticism is more narrowly focused. At least I point out the usefulness of feminism, & cite positive role models. You offer only negativity & extreme partisanship....what one might call "Social Justice Warrior Syndrome".....or perhaps "Femdamentalism", eh.

Well, I have already asked you to prove me wrong by showing a solid list of examples of the particularly bright men's rights movements and advocates that you keep hinting at. I'm still waiting to see what you have to offer.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Aye, titles expressing bigotry always attract attention & get the blood boiling. Does this mean that you believe something a little more generous than the title?

It's not bigotry unless it's not backed up by facts and actual observations.

 

[JerryL]

What white issue have you given support to recently?

Earlier this morning, on Religious Forums, in this thread, I brought up the issue of affirmative action and racial quotas and how that adversely affects white candidates.

But this is a discussion about Men's rights and topics directly related to that (it's relationship with Feminist movements, for example); so I moved away from much more on this thread as it is a derailment of the topic.

I would like a quote for me where I said this. I have a feeling its far more you reading into it.

"do you actively look into advancing the issues affecting Caucasian individuals?

The general answer is no. The reason being that Caucasians are still the ones that benefit the most from the racial dynamic of our current society."

You have taken my criticism of the MRA personally. If you don't like it then its tough ****.

Not at all: Though I do take you making claims about me like the one you just did a bit personally.

Let's look into why you've done so .

The causes are legitimate and I have stated that several times. The fact that you seem to be caught on the fact I don't like the MRA as an organization has blinded you to anything I have actually said. I have hope that the rest of your response will be far more coherent.

Ahh. So your post is about trying to change the topic *again*. Why are you so desperate to respond to me, but not to what I've said?

I was bringing up an example of how we have observably different levels of difficulty. It doesn't make the issues any less legitimate but it brings up to the point where I wanted to discuss from. There is no large scale problems with men in society as there were and tends to be with women.

There are tons of large-scale problems for me. Let's look at declining college graduation rates, for example.

How about that 76.8% of murder victims are men? That's not a large-scale problem?

How about the life-expectancy gap? women live longer—81 years on average, 76 for men?

And bluntly; some of what they are doing about women's issues (such as programs for STEM which exclude boys) are harmful to men; not because they create equality, but because they create inequality.

I don't think you and I speak the same language if you don't consider those large-scale problems.

I can honestly say as a white male it has never hindered me and I doubt it has really ever hindered anyone else. There may be specific instances and that should be addressed. However in our society there is no statistical disadvantage for being white or male in terms of finding jobs. In fact I have worked in areas that were predominately women and I still managed to get hired.

Of course there are statistical disadvantages. They are just offset by statistical advantages. (though I suspect I could find ways of looking at it, particularly by percentages, that would show actual overall disadvantages)

But here's the thing: I'm not a statistic but a person. When people get hurt by things designed for statistics then there's a problem. I've worked in more than one location where my gender was the major obstacle to promotion.

Its incredibly important to what my position is. I support men's rights. I do not support Men's rights Activists. (notice the capitals)

How does that interact with anything I've said?

Do you seriously think this is the work of the average femnist? Has this actually brought any laws to pass? For the record I disagree with the way that these women have done this protest. I don't think they need to protest MRA groups.

You are trying to change your standard.

Your standard was "the face of the movement", and now your standard is "average".

By all means: show me what the "average" men's rights advocate is like.

I would like to know the reason why they protested the MRA group. If the MRA group had already had previous misogynistic protests of some kind or if it was just blind hatred towards men. I don't know. I don't think it was appropriate either.

Firstly: I wish people would stop saying "misogynist" when they mean "sexist".

"Women belong in the Family room" is sexist. "Women should suffer" is misogynist.

I'm willing to let stretch "woman as property" into misogyny; but not simple sexism.

That said: So the new, new standard is "has the group done anything sexist"... and apparently defacement of a church isn't good enough?

I have responded with exactly what I mean to say. The MRA is an organization. It isn't some hazy movement of loose nit individuals who all speak for peace and love. There is real damage caused by the organization and you were misunderstanding exactly what I was saying. And the fact that I continued to describe my position and now you think I've pulled some kind of bait and switch makes it apparent to me that there has been a miscommunication for several posts now.

You've brought up white power groups, feminists, entitlement, and a whole host of other issues that are not "MRA".

By all means: Go back and find where you said that and I straw-manned a response. Then tell me why you didn't respond by saying "You've misunderstood: here's what I really meant" rather than the ad-hominem's you've resorted to at this point.

 

[suncowiam]

It's not bigotry unless it's not backed up by facts and actual observations.

So you believe all MRAs are misguided in their messaging?

 

[Debater Slayer]

So you believe all MRAs are misguided in their messaging?

Not all, but I certainly think men's rights groups in general contain far less genuine advocacy for men's rights than some people seem to think.

 

[JerryL]

Okay, I would like to see some examples of achievements of specific MRAs.

This is to counter what claim? Who, exactly, has claimed that MRA groups have successfully lobbied for effective change? How is that that topic?

"Patriarchy" refers to male-dominated cultural systems where norms, traditions, and even laws are primarily based on men's perspectives.

No. That would be "male-normative".

Patriarchy
- a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.
- a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.

The first definition is far closer to true in the US than the second; but certainly not what feminist movements are (usually) trying to address as it's not codified.

Pointing out that males are generally privileged in such systems is a mere objective description of facts.

There's male privilege. There's also female privilege.
There's white privilege. There's black privilege. There's Asian privilege.
There are privileges based on income, and based on where you live, and based on your accent.

"Privilege" is anything you get for being part of some group. All groups get something because of their membership... even something positive.

The issue with privilege is when we don't recognize it. We assume some privilege we have is something everyone has when it is not. There's not something inherently wrong with privilege.

Regarding the supposed feminist jargon, I think the terms you listed are all very useful and pretty accurate when it comes to describing certain trends and cultural phenomena. So, for example, I think that certain anti-feminists here engage in profuse mansplaining in threads like this one.

And I don't think you, nor the others who use them, even know what they mean.

You've misused in this post "privilege" and "patriarchy". The previous person I replied to misused "misogyny".

"Mansplaning" seems recently concocted so must, by defnition, mean however it is used.

But now: You've misused a ton of words.

And right or wrong: they make adversaries of who should be allies and alienate people.

 

[Debater Slayer]

What do supporters of MRAs here think of this self-described MRA organization?

A Voice for Men - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[suncowiam]

Not all, but I certainly think men's rights groups in general contain far less genuine advocacy for men's rights than some people seem to think.

Ok, concerning the title. What should one infer when one reads the title of this thread?

And concerning your recent statement, how do you acknowledge those that are trying to be genuine in the movement?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Ok, concerning the title. What should one infer when one reads the title of this thread?

1) That I chose to copy the title of the article and use it for this thread as well to be very specific about what the topic of the thread (i.e., the merits or lack thereof of MRA groups in general).

2) That I mostly do lean toward the opinions expressed in the article concerning a lot of so-called "men's rights activism."

And concerning your recent statement, how do you acknowledge those that are trying to be genuine in the movement?

By pointing out that a lot of self-proclaimed MRA groups are quite sexist and hateful and that people who genuinely care about men's rights should probably think twice before siding with those groups on much of what they promote.

 

[freethinker44]

Not all, but I certainly think men's rights groups in general contain far less genuine advocacy for men's rights than some people seem to think.

For an advocacy group, by and for people who were taught from birth that the only emotion they're allowed to express is anger, and if they talk about their problems they are weak and should just "take it like a man", it's predictable they would have difficulty articulating their message and advocating support and instead lash out in anger when they feel they've been wrong, isn't it?

As misguided as they may be, they don't deserve scorn. They deserve sympathy and inclusion.

 

[Akivah]

Strangely enough feminist groups have made more headway than MRA groups in many of these issues. In fact I don't know of a single thing MRA has accomplished. I know there have men things that they supported passed but it was generally due to another agency such as Father's Rights groups or domestic violence groups working with men on male victims of abuse and rape.

Anti femnist means those that generally feel that feminism needs to be retracted or beat back. In 100% of the open MRA members I have debated felt that they were positive that feminism was about removing men from power and making women the dominate sex.

Thank you for teaching me something Monk. I hadn't heard of the separate father's rights group before. According to Wikipedia:

Father’s rights movement is a movement whose members are primarily interested in issues related to family law, including child custody and child support that affect fathers and their children. Many of its members are fathers who desire to share the parenting of their children equally with their children's mother—either after divorce or as unwed fathers, and the children of the terminated marriage. The movement includes women as well as men, often the second wives of divorced fathers or other family members of men who have had some engagement with family law.

Men’s rights movement is made up of a variety of groups and individuals who are commonly concerned about what they consider to be issues of male disadvantage and discrimination. The men's rights movement is considered to be a backlash or countermovement to feminism. The men's rights movement consists of diverse points of view which reject feminist and profeminist ideas. Men's rights activists have said that they believe that feminism has overshot its objective and harmed men.

Others see the men's rights movement as a complement to the work of feminism. Some see the men's rights movement as bringing attention to gender roles facing men similar to how the women's right's movement brought attention to gender roles facing women.

It seems that MRM have a history of being anti-feminist, so I can see why feminist groups are hostile to them. Since the FRM includes some females and champions families and not just men, I can see why they would generate less hostility.

But still, a feminist shouldn't assume that every compliant voiced by a male should be dismissed or treated as an attack upon them.

 

[suncowiam]

1) That I chose to copy the title of the article and use it for this thread as well to be very specific about what the topic of the thread (i.e., the merits or lack thereof of MRA groups in general).

2) That I mostly do lean toward the opinions expressed in the article concerning a lot of so-called "men's rights activism."

By pointing out that a lot of self-proclaimed MRA groups are quite sexist and hateful and that people who genuinely care about men's rights should probably think twice before siding with those groups on much of what they promote.

I understood that you copied the title from an earlier thread, but at face value, the title suggests a different absolute ideal without first reading through the many posts in this thread.

There's always going to be an extreme side to any group. You can say the same for muslims, christians, minorities, gun rights, anti gun, feminists and so on...

Are you absolutely sure on the percentage of men that are hateful and sexist in such group? And why do you have that impression?

 

[Revoltingest]

I will repeat something that I have stated earlier. We cannot rectify injustice. We can only attempt to rectify it in a haphazard way.

Hogwash. Injustices can sometimes be rectified, even if only partially, eg, wrongfully convicted inmates being released & financially compensated, men accused of sexual assault can be afforded due process instead of summary judgement. Discriminatory practices can be ended. We can do what we're able, even if the efforts are imperfect.

If there is a discriminatory tendency towards minorities and women there has been an incentive in place to attempt to get businesses to rectify that unequal hiring trend. Now we have a law that will unjustly affect certain male or white individuals. However the policy was created to deal with the statistics as a whole rather than on the individual level. So we are faced with a problem. Do we let injustice on a large statistical scale go on? Or do we suffer individual discrimination on a case by case basis to better the statistics as a whole? I don't like it either but unfortunately that tends to be the only choices we have.

You might choose to unfairly discriminate against individuals in order to make the statistics more palatable, but I believe that is wrong.

And many do. MRA has intentionally gone counter to feminism as well as other similar groups.

You say that "many do". And in the next breath you say the movement "has intentionally gone counter to feminism ". Do you believe that achieving fairness in child custody is "counter to feminism"? Is due process for a man accused of sexual assault also against feminism? Of course not....but your post is still naught but unsupported demonization of men's rights advocacy.

Its my main problem with it. Had it just been for men's rights it would have been perfectly fine and I would probably be a member. However the situation has changed in dynamic to be a counter-movement to feminism with an attempt to undermine feminist goals rather than advance masculine goals.

Again, you offer no evidence for this broad characterization of an entire movement. And it is this duplicitous attack which pervades much of feminist culture.

Which is why the father's rights groups were so much more effective than the MRA. Weird how that comes right out.

To advocate for fathers' rights is one aspect of men's rights advocacy.

Now who is baseless?

That would be you. I can show many examples here on RF of feminist hostility to men & men's rights advocacy....or as you call it, "masculinism". That seems a good term, since it's a counterpart to "feminism".

Opposition to what exactly?

We see feminists & their advocates here who are very hostile to masculinism.

I'm a hostile feminist? And I get the feeling you don't know many feminists.

Yes, you are hostile to men's rights advocacy.
I know & like a great many feminists...most of'm in the real world. I also respect many here on RF, eg, Rev Rick, Dawny, & the several "Wolf" people here. But those others who make abusive posts, & it is those which I decry.

What you aren't getting is that the history of the MRA as an organization does not match its platform. Its much like republicans or democrats in that reguard. If they did what they said I might like them.

You've yet to show this history or any cogent analysis which paints as negative a picture of MRA as you paint. I see only bias confirmation & prejudice.

I have not seen a self filtering on the MRA. If you have please link me to that information.

If you don't see it then it isn't there eh? And you give me the homework assignment to provide you with links to debunk your unsupported characterizations of an entire movement?
Looking at feminist posts on RF, I don't see them rushing to defend targets of wrongful attacks by their fellows. I see naught but attacks on MRA, which points out the necessity of MRA.

You and Jerry are making the same mistakes. What exactly do you think my position on MENS RIGHTS are? Tell me that and this will tell me if you are absorbing what I am saying or jumping the gun.

No mistake here. You pay lip service to supporting men's rights, but then you attack efforts to secure them....unless of course it's by feminists. It's like saying that you have black friends to prove you're not a racist, while opposing blacks fighting for their rights because they're too militant, too shrill, & too impolitic. If you fight against a group's efforts to seek justice, then you're fighting against the group & against justice. Men should not stand down just because feminists claim that they'll help men too.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not bigotry unless it's not backed up by facts and actual observations.

The title is unsupported.
Whether it's mirthful histrionics to garner attention, or an accurate representation of the OP's views would matter. The former is good form. The latter suggests bigotry.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The title is unsupported.
Whether it's mirthful histrionics to garner attention, or an accurate representation of the OP's views would matter. The former is good form. The latter suggests bigotry.

I have already pointed out that it's a mix of both.

I'm also interested to know how leaning toward the views expressed in the article suggests bigotry—and bigotry against whom.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I understood that you copied the title from an earlier thread, but at face value, the title suggests a different absolute ideal without first reading through the many posts in this thread.

There's always going to be an extreme side to any group. You can say the same for muslims, christians, minorities, gun rights, anti gun, feminists and so on...

Are you absolutely sure on the percentage of men that are hateful and sexist in such group? And why do you have that impression?

I'm not absolutely sure on the percentage of any given subset of people in different movements, since statistics are always bound to contain some errors. Nevertheless, from what I have read in different places, I think that many (not sure if most, but I wouldn't dismiss the possibility) self-proclaimed "men's rights" groups are rife with misogyny, bitterness, and male supremacism.

Let's put it this way: If there are so many good examples of men's rights movements that have achieved anything that is particularly beneficial to males, I certainly haven't seen much if any evidence of them. I'm still waiting for anyone who opposes the Jezebel article to cite examples of what men's rights groups have accomplished in promoting equality.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have already pointed out that it's a mix of both.

I'm also interested to know how leaning toward the views expressed in the article suggests bigotry—and bigotry against whom.

I've covered both in prior posts.

 

[Debater Slayer]

For an advocacy group, by and for people who were taught from birth that the only emotion they're allowed to express is anger, and if they talk about their problems they are weak and should just "take it like a man", it's predictable they would have difficulty articulating their message and advocating support and instead lash out in anger when they feel they've been wrong, isn't it?

As misguided as they may be, they don't deserve scorn. They deserve sympathy and inclusion.

I know very well what it's like to grow up in a culture that emphasizes gendered roles, traditions, and behaviors, and I still think that "lashing out in anger" against women as a class is absolutely unjustified and usually indicative of deeper issues than mere difficulty in expressing emotions.

People like Paul Elam don't really deserve inclusion in any sane gender-specific activist group unless they demonstrate a genuine desire to combat sexism. As things stand, he and those like him only deserve to be criticized and called out for their blatantly harmful and sexist views.