stirring the pot >:)

Post Reply New Topic

Common Characteristics of Men's Rights Activists

http://mensrightsactivism.com

http://www.womensviewsonnews.org/2012/0 ... ate-group/

The article was addressing MRAs, a specific group advocating for the rights of men and boys, and not men in general. That's not to say the content of the article wasn't derisive, dismissive, and outright hateful toward all men.

Men as a group face very real, substantiated problems. The abject dismissal by feminists of all male grievances, just because they are happening to men and not women, is unjustifiable and absurd--no matter how much ethereal, curiously unmeasurable and undocumented "privilege" men as a group might enjoy.

Anyway, the response from A Voice For Men says it quite well. (I can't post the link, google "an open letter to feminists")

You'll have to excuse me if I am not entirely impressed by the integrity of SPLC, as they designated the False Rape Society (now the Community of The Wrongly Accused) as a "misogynistic" solely on the basis of an off-topic commentary to a Yahoo article on... Michelle Bachmann's campaign statements...

...

... ...

... ... ... oh, wait. That *is* pretty extreme...

Not to mention the cushy relationship between SPLC, Radfemhub (now defunct, apparently) and the ridiculously transphobic Cathy Brennan (isn't she the kind of person they should be monitoring???) ... ah, but I digress...

Yea. That movement does seem to be quite contaminated with a mixture of idiotic reactionaries and bitter men. I just know that radical feminist groups are not innocent either as they also seem to attract a lot of bitter people.

But the posted article did not dismiss all male grievances.

It shoehorned all the MRM's problems into two categories: "Men are responsible for their own problems," and "Feminism is on your side guys, so hang tight and hate the patriarchy." (LOL.) Really, they're both the same category: "Men have problems because women are oppressed."

I haven't seen feminists publicly decry or take any action concerning any of the specific issues in section 5, besides to turn them back around as part the system of oppression they're so hard-pressed to prove actually exists. "All these things are the patriarchy's fault. We're busy combatting patriarchy for you. So shut up."

Meanwhile, people who want to gather peacefully and talk about male problems are harassed, physically attacked, and denied a public voice. Not by fringe feminist extremists, but by mainstream feminist groups with positions of power in academia and the media.

Toronto feminists attacking attendees of a lecture about men's problems:
/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0

Maybe "dismissal" was the wrong word. "Denial" fits better.

So your dismissal/denial is fine while theirs isn't???

Last edited by marshall on 06 Apr 2013, 12:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Dismissal of substantiated claims of real-life problems, each steeped in facts and statistics /= dismissal of amorphous boogeyman that is somehow responsible for every problem faced by men and women.

Sorry I didn't elaborate, but I'm not feeling very voluble right now.

To put it succinctly, I'm not a fan of defining women (or any other group for that matter) as "victims" of society, at least not as long as were talking about affluent Western nations. I have a hard time believing that any group of people experiences true systematic "oppression" in the good 'ole U.S.A. To me, painting groups of people as "victims" of society does more harm than good.

Additionally, I define "patriarchy" merely as the state in which males control the majority of political and economic power. I don't think devaluing females necessarily goes hand-in-hand with patriarchy, for example, "The Patriarchy" DID give women the right to vote in 1929. In fact, I'm fine with patriarchy (as I define it) providing that I, as an individual women, am still given the option to pursue whatever path it is that suits my abilities.

As for the label "feminist," I prefer to think of myself as a "pro-individualist." It's less.....tribal.

Anyway, I'm on my lunch break, so this post probably sucked monkey butt.

Tootles.

Master Pedant is exactly correct when he points out that the OP is addressed to MRAs, not to men in general.

Also, the list at the end of the OP was not pointing out that 'men are oppressed because women are oppressed,' it was pointing out that oppression of men and oppression of women are frequently two sides of the same coin. For example, men and women are both oppressed by the patriarchal assumption that women are natural caretakers of children, and men are not: women, because they end up being expected to shoulder more of the burden of childcare, men because they can have their masculinity questioned if they do take care of their kids, and/or automatically be assumed incapable if and when a custody battle emerges.

Wrt. my position on circumcision: I'm not sure what was meant by that, since I've said multiple times that it's not really my business in the same way that it's not really a man's business to get into abortion issues. If I had a son, it would be up to his dad whether or not to have him circumcised. I do think that the false equivalency some anti-circ activists make between foreskin removal and removal of the entire clitoris (and worse), as practiced in many African countries, is just asinine, so maybe that was the point.

@xfiles geek: I definitely understand your point wrt. victim mentality. I have had that frustrated, annoyed response to feminist writing in the past, for example around the whole Julian Assange case (initiating sex with a woman who went to bed with you, in order to have sex with you, is rape? Really? Even when 'she couldn't be bothered' to ask you to stop?) I didn't get that feeling with the OP article, though, I guess because I saw it as expressing specific frustration with the MRA rageosphere.

The tone she takes is insulting toward anyone who might share with MRAs the belief that men face certain disadvantages, whether they associate with that movement or not.



She cannot believe they are two sides of the same coin if she believes one side does not exist. She makes it abundantly clear earlier in the article that she does not believe that men face any systemic disadvantages at all and that any unfairness directed at men is solely an individual issue.



Which makes it hard to interpret that section the way you do.



i guess I just believe that, when a wrong is committed, it is everyone's business, whether or not they have the same anatomy as the person it was committed against.

As for equivalency, you are right that one circumcision is not as bad as one FGM. The female version is more harmful and, I would imagine, much more painful. But the male version is far more common and is accepted as normal in the culture most feminists are actually a part of.

The reason I mention it is because the number of feminists I've encountered who show complete apathy about men's issues (of which circumcision was only one example) is at odds with the author's belief that feminism will ultimately be beneficial to men as well. The reason I mentioned you specifically is that I find it ironic that that you claim to agree with the article which, I assume, includes her belief in feminism's benefits to men, while being one of those who sees men's issues as "not really [your] business."

The author didn't state that she was directing her comments at anyone in particular. And, I suppose that if Feminist ideology ranges from one extreme to another, then MRA ideology must also range from one extreme to another. No one man speaks for all MRAs, nor for all men. We don't have a hive mentality.



That is all a bit silly. Men can be very loving fathers, without experiencing oppression.



It is better not to circumcise the poor little kid. After experiencing the trauma of entering the world outside the womb, being attacked with a scalpel makes one's first days quite unpleasant.

So, at best this article was so poorly written that most readers couldn't understand who the author was addressing and what point she was trying to make, rather than simply being condescending, off-putting, dismissive red meat for a certain segment of the feminist audience.

Perhaps such a turd was not the best choice of stirring stick, as now the pot is even shittier than it was before.

She explicitly stated that she agrees that men face disadvantages due to the current patriarchal system. She just doesn't agree that they are as significant as the disadvantages that women face.


you're begging the question, there. Not everyone agrees that male circumcision is 'wrong.' I have enough Jewish friends and family members, who view it as a contract with a god, that I'm not comfortable making a carte blanche statement about the 'wrongness' of it.


I think that things like the assumption that men are incapable of, or less good at, childcare is my business. Circumcision is a separate issue. I don't think that abortion is really men's business, either, whether they're feminists or not.


Mmmmm go look over at Spearhead or at the MRA forum on Reddit. It's pretty repulsive, and pretty hiveish.


Due respect, but I think that's naive. Men who show up at the playground with their own kids often complain about the moms there looking at them with suspicion, as if they're pedophiles instead of parents, and men have a harder time getting into teaching young kids than women do. Men also have their masculinity called into question if they choose to stay at home with their children.


You'll have to forgive me that I would take the position of the kid's theoretical father over yours.

Not everyone agrees that female "circumcision" is "wrong". If you had friend or family members from North East Africa, then maybe you'd feel uncomfortable claiming it was "wrong".

This is where we need to move beyond simple appeals to cultural relativism and accept that some things are just plain wrong. In my opinion, FGM without consent is wrong because of the pain it causes the woman, particularly type III. Male circumcision is not as bad, at least when performed on an infant, as it does not cause the same long term issues and even has many health benefits.

Just because you're personally oblivious to something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.