Misogynist Warren Farrell, invited by “Men’s Issues Awareness at UofT”, gets exposed by UofTstudentsAgainstSexism@gmail.com
By Jesse McLaren
“Men’s rights” groups are a growing phenomenon, with “men’s centres”, and “men’s issues awareness” clubs appearing on campuses. Manipulating men’s anxieties faced with neoliberalism and austerity, “men’s issues” groups ignore the poverty, racism, ableism, homophobia and transphobia that men and women face, and instead scapegoat the women’s movement and progressive movements in general.
Men’s Issues Awareness at UofT claims it wants to “build a movement centered on Men’s Issues which will engage in consciousness-raising, public education and efforts to change public policy” in order to “engage in critiques of contemporary society” and “focus on positive activism to advance a healthier society.” This group is part of the “Canadian Association for Equality”, who claim they “believe the goal of true equality and human rights is best served by conducting inclusive conversations based on facts and evidence, not by promoting ideology or special interest agendas.” They want “men’s centres” on every university campus.
The rhetoric of “equality”, “diversity”, “human rights” and “inclusivity” that these groups use can certainly seem appealing, as can their claim to “provide support for individuals whose equality rights have been denied.” And their claim of “evidence not ideology” gives them a semblance of objectivity, which they apply to issues many people are concerned about: “men’s health, fathers and family issues, boys issues, suicide, violence, safety, workplace issues, crime and punishment.”
There is certainly a kernel of truth to what these groups claim: men do experience bullying, suicide, occupational injuries, violence, and specific health issues. But nobody has ever denied that (contrary to claims that these issues are being ignored in general, and undermined by women’s issues specifically). The problem with “men’s rights” is how they generalize these experiences, who they ignore and who they blame. These groups claim there is a “large societal pattern of discrimination, ignorance and harmful public policy that disadvantages boys and men.” This implies that men are oppressed as men, and in relation or because of women—a claim that is justified using simplistic sound-bytes and “evidence” that is cherry-picked, ideologically-driven, and easily debunked.
SOUND-BYTES
1) health: “prostate cancer gets less funding than breast cancer.”
This is partially because women’s health has been ghettoized into what some have called “bikini medicine” that reduces women’s health to breasts, ovaries, uterus. Women have higher rates of misdiagnosed heart disease because their symptoms have been called “atypical”—because the science on heart attack symptoms (amongst others) was derived from middle-class white men. And as the documentary Pink Ribbons Inc shows, funding for breast cancer awareness is part of a strategy that generates billions for corporations while ignoring the occupational and environmental factors that contribute to all forms of cancer—and ignoring health concerns of the global south. The complaint that prostate cancer gets less funding implies that men’s health suffers because of one simplistic measure of women’s health. But there is no feature of men’s health that is so systematically attacked like abortion rights—with violence and harassment at clinics and motions in Parliament.
2) bullying: “boys have high rates of being bullied”
Yes they do, but this is an abstract statement that ignores the main perpetrators and reasons. Boys are not bullied by girls for being boys, they are mainly bullied by other boys—who also bully girls. The main causes of bullying are sexism, racism, ableism, homophobia and transphobia—issues “men’s issues” ignore. Boys are not subjected to the systematic sexist bullying that drove Amanda Todd to suicide, and when boys have been drive to suicide it is often from homophobia by other boys—not “reverse sexism” from girls.
3) suicide: “more men kill themselves than women”
Another abstract statement. Men do not kill themselves because of men’s oppression, they kill themselves of poverty and other real forms of oppression along lines of sexuality, ability and race. And many more girls attempt suicide than men, often related to a history of sexual abuse—an endemic problem that “men’s issues” clubs ignore.
4) violence: “men are victims of violence”
In terms of interpersonal violence, the vast majority of domestic abuse and rape victims are women. There was no recent epidemic of men being assaulted in Toronto’s Christie Pits Park, and when men are assaulted the police don’t blame them for dressing like “sluts.” When men are victims of interpersonal violence it is usually from other men, and often related to police brutality, racism and Islamophobia, ableism, homophobia and transphobia. It’s true that more men die on the jobs (though less men are sexually assaulted on the jobs), but this is not because of women but because of the (often male) boss—and the solution is strengthen trade union rights, another issue ignored by “men’s issues” clubs. More men die in the trenches of war, because women—and queers—have until recently been excluded from the military; but women are not excluded from the civilians raped and killed by war. When male soldiers are sent to kill and die, they are sent by male generals and male presidents, not women, and the solution is to build a united movement against war and the racism and sexism that drives it.
5) education: “women do better on some educational indicators, like test scores or enrolment”
The main threats to education for men and women is corporatization, which increasingly imposes a rigid reliance on test scores (like was tried in Chicago), while undermining accessibility through tuition hikes (like was tried in Quebec). These threats to education harm both men and women, and a united fightback is necessary. Chicago teachers fought to defend education, and Quebec students fought back the tuition hike—while emphasizing that women would be more affected because they earn less. Despite advances in some educational indicators, women have still not achieved equality in the labour market.
6) legal: “women have higher rates of custody over children”
Given women provide the majority of unpaid labour raising children, it’s no surprise that courts might award more custody cases to the mother. But the legal system is not generally skewed towards women—as survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence can attest to. The legal system fails to challenge endemic sexism, while incarcerating poor, indigenous and racialized men—groups who also get no mention from “men’s issues” groups.
7) work: the major features of work are not considered by “men’s issues’ groups
In the home, women still do the majority of unpaid labour, despite entry into the labour market. In Canada 60 per cent of women are part of the paid workforce, but comprise 70 per cent of part-time workers, two-thirds of minimum wage earners, perform two-thirds of unpaid caregiving work, and earn 70 cents per dollar of what men are paid
There’s a pattern to these sound-bytes: framing these issues as “men’s issues” erases the dynamics of race, class, ability and sexuality that are at the heart of so many experience of men (and women). “Men’s issues” fail to address any issues related to men, and instead scapegoat women—appealing to two different audiences: the confused and the misogynist. The rhetoric of “men’s issues awareness” goups clearly appeal to people sympathetic to the language of equality and concerned about men’s health and safety. But this rhetoric hides the main drivers of “men’s rights” movement: misogynists who scapegoat women in specific and progressive movements in general.
“MISANDRY” = MISOGYNY
Paul Nathanson, who the Men’s Issues Awareness at UofT invited last month, has written extensively on so-called “misandry.” His theories begin with a heteronormative view of human society as rigidly divided between men and women, where men’s identity was biologically determined by “the male body’s distinctive characteristics: tis size, strength and speed.” His view of hunter-gather societies claims humans began with social structures like the 1950s (the era to which “men’s rights” look to with so much nostalgia), where men hunted for all the food and women provided the babies. According to Nathanson, the whole march of civilization has been a series of attacks on the mythical male identity: “Masculine identify has become increasingly problematic due to technological and cultural changes over the past 10,000 years, beginning with the horticultural and agricultural revolutions but gaining momentum with the industrial, military and reproductive revolutions. Egalitarian feminists have unwittingly exacerbated the problem, leaving men unable to make even one contribution to society, as men.”
Particular targets include any deviation from patriarchal family—including single mothers, same-sex marriage and abortion rights: “The reproductive revolution undermined the only remaining source of masculine identity for men: fatherhood. Many factors have contributed to this problem: new movements that trivialize fatherhood (single mothers by choice, and same-sex marriage)…new legislation that undermines even the remnants of fatherhood (abortion on demand as a private matter ‘between a woman and her doctor’).”
Contrary to claims of inclusivity free from ideology, “men’s issues” groups directly attack feminism—relying on right-wing alliances like the National Post’s Barbary Kay, who claimed at a previous talk that “feminist-inspired policies have contributed to a devaluation of boys and men and their purpose in society…social services discriminate against men as a direct result of an ideological belief system that permeates university programs and churns out biased policies.”
Warren Farrell, author of The Myth of Male Power, is one of the most mysoginyst of their leaders, and has built a career promoting and profiting from the backlash against women—dismissing women’s oppression and comparing feminism to Stalinism:
“Hearing women’s internal stories – without hearing men’s – made the world seem unfair to women. Ironically, because we didn’t know men’s stories were being left out, the more we heard from women the more we thought we’d been neglecting women. Soon it became politically incorrect to interrupt her flow. So women’s stories became women’s studies, not to be interrupted by men’s studies… The Iron Curtain shut out opinions considered a threat to Communism. The Lace Curtain shuts out opinions considered a threat to feminism… Feminism has made women-as-victim so credible we would sooner think of saving whales than saving males… Why, though, would the feminists not debate? For the same reason any one party system has no interest in debating. When you have the power you have little to gain and a lot to lose.”
Farrell has dismissed statistics on women’s oppression as “victim data” used to “catalyze Victim Power.” In his book Why Men Are the Way They Are, he defends sexism: “we beg men to express feelings, but then when men do express feelings, we call it sexism, male chauvinism, or backlash.” (As someone who identifies as male I’m insulted by the claim that the only feelings I’m capable of expressing are sexist). He has also defended rape, claiming: “If a man ignoring a woman’s verbal ‘no’ is committing date rape, then a woman who says ‘no’ with her verbal language but ‘yes’ with her body language is committing date fraud, and a woman who continues to be sexual even after she says ‘no’ is committing date lying…We have forgotten that before we began calling this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting.”
This is the hardcore misogyny at the heart of mens groups, which is why they have been labeled hate groups. But how can they pretend to be building a progressive movement, promoting “equality” through “consciousness raising,” and appealing to men’s perception of powerlessness? Understanding the roots of women’s oppression, and changes of last couple of generation, explains how mens groups attack women directly and scapegoat them for mens anxieties.
WOMEN’S OPPRESSION
Turning Paul Nathanson’s version of history right-side up, the evidence shows that for most of human history people lived in equality, with no rigid division between production/reproduction. There are obvious biological differences regarding childbearing, but child-raising was a collective task—and women also gathered food (which often provided more food than the hunt) and had equal say over community decisions. Without the nuclear family there was a free range of sexualities, and without a capitalist labour market there was neither racism nor disability oppression.
When the agriculture revolution provided a surplus, a small class emerged to control it and the nuclear family emerged to pass on private property. This produced a rigid and unequal division between the sexes: women were separated from production, confined to reproduction, and made subordinate to men who controlled production and the state.
As Engels described in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, the emergence of class society marked “the world historic defeat of the female sex. The man took command in the home; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude; she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children.”
Capitalism remains dependent on women’s oppression for unpaid labour at home and reduced wages at work—with 30% more wages going to the boss—and attacks any alternative expression, including abortion rights, queer rights, or single parents. Capitalism has also bred racism and disability oppression to lower wages and divide resistance.
NEOLIBERAL BACKLASH
Capitalism has restructured in the past few generations, with women entering the labour force while still doing unpaid labour. With these changes the women’s movement emerged to fight for equality, alongside anti-racist and queer liberation movements.
These has been both a specific backlash against progressive movements and a general neoliberal and austerity offensive against working class. As Susan Falludi, feminist author of Backlash, documented in book Stiffed “the post-war restricting of the economy” has led to a “crisis in masculinity.” (We don’t need “men’s studies” to study masculinity, we have feminist and socialist analysis)
Men are socialized to be dominant and in control. But with capitalist restructuring, working class men are in precarious work, unable provide for their family as they were socialized to do. Working class men work harder for less pay, more tuition, less job security—and don’t see the 30% pay gap that goes to the boss.
“Men’s rights” groups blame this experience on few gains of women’s and queer liberation movements, while ignoring racism and disability oppression. This homogenizes men, and tries to dupe them into thinking they have more in common with 1% of men who exploit most men and women, than the rest of the 99%. The 1% uses sexism to further the austerity agenda—like Ontario Conservative attempts to defund abortion—while dividing resistance movements of the 99% along lines of gender, race, sexuality and ability.
RESISTANCE
It’s by uniting the 99%—by challenging the systemic oppression that divides it—that we all win. Though the process of struggle, men with sexist ideas can come to see they have more in common with women than the 1% of men who rule. The Russian Revolution started on International Women’s Day, culminating in a movement that ended WWI. The Egyptian revolution saw men fight side by side with women, overcoming sexist ideas which the regime is constantly trying to regenerate in order to weaken the revolution.Women were critical to the 1937 Flint sit-down strike that sparked a unionization drive, and the Canadian labour movement has been strengthened by the fight for maternity leave and abortion rights. Chicago teachers and Quebec students fought united strikes against attacks on education, and on November 14 there will be general strikes against austerity in Europe.
If we want “positive activism to advance a healthier society” we have to identify sexism and the backlash against women as a major barrier, and mobilize men and women against it. This means challenging “men’s rights” groups who attack women, manipulate men, and don’t care about poverty, racism, ableism, homophobia and transphobia. Challenging these groups includes patiently explaining to people who are legitimately concerned about equality but have been misled by false rhetoric—and firmly exposing and challenging the misogynists at the core, because free speech doesn’t include hate speech.
Misleading, dishonest, and disappointing article. The author misrepresents the men’s rights stand that “equal rights for men and boys is ONE OF MANY legitimate civil rights narratives” with a dishonest false flag claim that “equal rights for men and boys is THE ONLY legitimate civil rights narrative.” Egalitarian women and men who fight for equal protection under the law for men and boys do not detract from other worthy civil rights agendas.
Quote for Truth! Sage words!
I’m not sure how familiar you are with the “MRA” culture that is being talked about, but it’s a fair assumption to make that they do this stuff in *opposition* to anti-oppression movements like feminism.
So basically , you’re against men getting any kind of fair treatment as long as some woman somewhere is suffering in any way .
Well , okay then . By that definition then sure , I guess men organizing to have their rights respected and getting so much feminist dogma (that was premised on revisionism , wholly imbalanced research , and outright lies) would be your idea of hatred .
I think the real question here is whether you actually know what hatred , bigotry , or even equality actually mean .
nice try gaslighting.
.:. .:.
I think it would be worthwhile remembering the diversity of perspectives and research that exists in the feminist ‘dogma’ – 1st and 2nd wave feminists for example are in constant clash over ideology and points of intervention. I think the point the author is trying to make is related to the hatred bigotry and equality that some groups in the mens movement might be side stepping or even perpetuating by not including women or comparing unfairly or inequitably (as some women’s movements have fallen victim to, not including men). Comparing the biased custody laws that favour women and exclude men and the domestic violence faced by women and perpetuated by men is comparing apples and oranges.
One of the really great things about the rising cultural awareness of misandry is the rising awerniss of face that contract points made in this post.
It is not true that the number of DV victims are largely one sex.
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020
Results. Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among women (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.9, 2.8), but not men (AOR=1.26; 95% CI=0.9, 1.7). Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women (AOR=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.5), and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with greater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (AOR=4.4; 95% CI=3.6, 5.5).
http://smu.edu/experts/study-documents/family-violence-study-may2006.pdf
Summary: 21.45% of couples reported violence. Male-to-female violence was reported in 13.66% of couples, while 18.20% for female-to-male violence. Thus, women are 1.33 times as likely to be violent. (Severe violence only raises this ratio to more than 2x as likely.)
It is not true that the vast majority of sexual assault victims are a single sex:
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID45-PR45.pdf
(Almost 3% of men reported forced sex and 22% reported verbal coercion. … 2.3% of [women] reported sustaining forced sex from their current or most recent romantic partner, and close to 25% of the female sample sustained verbal sexual coercion)
http://www.nursing.ubc.ca/PDFs/ItsNotWhatYouThink.pdf
(Males were just as likely to be sexually exploited as females. Among younger street-involved youth (ages 12-18), a greater percentage of males were exploited (34% vs. 27% of females in 2006). Among older street-involved youth (ages 19-25), a higher percentage of females reported sexual exploitation (53% females vs. 32% males))
I don’t really know what to say honestly – this is a poorly written article without much substance or real thought put into the issues and a lot of bile against men. You simply can’t brand everything and anything as misogyny and expect any educated person to take you seriously. That world has a meaning and you simply fail to make a real case for it’s use.
Utter nonsense full of disgraceful smears and lies. With some of those points you aren’t even trying. The entire education system discriminates against men but your article basically just bring up an entirely unrelated point because you couldn’t think of any other way of diverting attention away from the plight of men.
I stopped reading when I got to the lies about war. Ever heard of Margaret Thatcher? Or the the mostly suffragette campaign in world war one to attempt to send vast quantities of men to be slaughtered through shaming them by handing out white feathers (something they wanted to repeated in world war 2 also).
“There is certainly a kernel of truth to what these groups claim: men do experience bullying, suicide, occupational injuries, violence, and specific health issues. But nobody has ever denied that.”
Most feminists lie, deny the issues facing men and at best they completely brush them under the carpet. This article is further evidence of this fact.
Anyway the photo was certainly interesting. Unsurprising to see yet more feminists vandalising perfectly legitimate posters in Canada again. I wondered if they waved box cutters around in men’s faces whilst they carried out the vandalism like last time?
I like how you made a false accusation about rape against Warren Farrell.
I like how the feminists made a false accusation about rape against Warren Farrell.
Pingback: Socialist Worker Canada promotes false accusation about rape against men’s rights advocate Dr. Warren Farrell. « ACatalogueofLies
The Socialist movement was the champion of the plight of the common man. The fact that now it attacks those of them who fight for issues that effect them would make Marx turn in his grave.
This article employs the age old maxim of demonize the enemy and tell the big lie. The fact the author should dismiss the educational gap with such a dismissive wave of the hand is breath taking. Keeping the men uneducated has always been a tactic of the ruling classes. The graffiti on the Warren Farrell poster is reminiscent of the Hitlers Brown Shirts, Farrell is one of the more articulate and reasoned voices on gender issues effecting men. Anonymous Ad Hominem’s are easy, cowardly and cheap.
This whole article is sad and discouraging, especially so in that it comes from the Socialist Worker. The Socialist movement needs to return to its roots and retrieve it from those who have co-opted it was their own agenda. As a long time Socialist all of this saddens me.
how dare you invoke the likes of Marx to back up your oppressive nonsense. if anyone’s co-opting, it’s you.
“Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.” – Karl Marx
Yeah, bullshit. All of it.
But there is no feature of men’s health that is so systematically attacked like abortion rights—with violence and harassment at clinics and motions in Parliament.
That’s not so cut and dry. No one has the right to kill a child, not even the person carrying that child, and most people agree that a fetus is not a blob of jelly, but a small person under construction. Science demonstrates this, also. Murder is murder.
Boys are not bullied by girls for being boys, they are mainly bullied by other boys—who also bully girls.
Boys bully girls? I’ve never heard that.
You know who else is a fucking person? THE HUMAN WITH THE UTERUS. My god, okay, you can believe that maybe-or-maybe-not a fetus is or is not a human, whatever. Fine. But that “human’s” right to life ends the second it becomes dependent on USING another human’s body without that human’s consent.
That human has already consented to creating that child, so consent has already been established.
shmiggen, that’s exactly the same logic by which marital rape used to be legal: the wife consented to have sex with the husband by marrying him, so he gets to force himself on her any time he wants until one of them dies.
Consent to the use of one’s body can be withdrawn and is, in all sorts of contexts. People with wombs aren’t flowerpots.
No, she exercised her agency the moment she conceived, as a result of intercourse. She exercised choice. She cannot claim to be the same as a flowerpot, that is no defense.
Another abstract statement. Men do not kill themselves because of men’s oppression, they kill themselves of poverty and other real forms of oppression along lines of sexuality, ability and race. And many more girls attempt suicide than men, often related to a history of sexual abuse—an endemic problem that “men’s issues” clubs ignore.
How is that abstract and not concrete? It is also true. And no one has ever said that male suicide is a result of oppression. It is stated as a fact, end of. Nothing more than a fact, and no blame is being pinned on anyone. And female suicide attempts does not minimize the fact that more men commit suicide. Let me ask you which is worse: a man who contemplates suicide and goes through with it by jumping off the Bay Bridge, or a woman who contemplates suicide and takes a dozen pills and wakes up the next morning feeling ‘woozy’? Men do not ignore the fact that women attempt suicide more often than men, but which is worse, attempting suicide or successfully committing suicide?
I’d like to see where you get your statistics from. Please cite author, date of publication for every statistic presented here please.
Unless you do. This is just feminist rant. I could the exact same thing, by switching “women” for “men”. Unless you produce hard- hitting facts about domestic violence numbers, wage discrepancy, etc. this article loses all credibility.
Also provide quotes for:
“Given women provide the majority of unpaid labour raising children, it’s no surprise that courts might award more custody cases to the mother” Can you provide me with numbers and sample population? Can you provide the legal validity of benefiting women with custody?
“Men are socialized to be dominant and in control” Wow. I’m Scholar in Cultural studies and I have never observed this phenomena or read an author that claims this either.
“The problem with “men’s rights” is how they generalize these experiences, who they ignore and who they blame”
For someone who doesn’t like how men “generalize” these experiences, you seem quite comfortable in putting all “men” into the same bag, and all men’s rights demands into the same category.
Your critique of Warren Farrell is valid and you call him a misogynist – however, what happens when criticism comes from within the same sex? Please elucidate yourself with proper criticism (backed by science and statistics, unlike this article) from the hands of Christina Hoff Sommers, Camille Paglia, and Erin Pizzey.
Kind Regards
A Man
Typical “misogyny exists, misandry doesn’t” bullshit. Perhaps you should learn to spell properly before writing your hateful articles?
In terms of interpersonal violence, the vast majority of domestic abuse and rape victims are women.
This is false. Interpersonal violence is reciprocal, with women and men equally complicit in committing violence against each other. Most rape victims are men when we include men in prison. The most extreme IPV is certainly male-on-female, but hard-core batterers and outright killers are rare. In violence of the mild to moderately severe variety that constitutes most of IPV — shoving, slapping, hitting, punching, throwing objects, even stabbing and burning — both genders initiate and cause harm in equal measure.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/12/21/barbara-kay-the-awkward-truth-about-spousal-abuse/
The legal system fails to challenge endemic sexism, while incarcerating poor, indigenous and racialized men—groups who also get no mention from “men’s issues” groups.
Not true. Men’s groups are inclusive of all men – gay, straight, trans, black, white, brown – whatever.
Interpersonal violence isn’t reciprocal. After a breakup, the murder suicides, homocides, rapes, abductions, are 100% men attacking women. During a relationship, men hit way harder and they do it to maintian control.
ah wow, 100% ? Really ? Girls never freak out when they get dumped and throw shit at their ex ? They never plot revenge ? Lesbian couples are never violant either ? Some man always pops up in their living room to smack them around ?
Lets have some stats to back this up please.
deleting my comment when all I ask is for some evidence for your 100% figure ?
You’re a bloody coward. Its ridiculous to claim that only men are violent after a breakup.
ah, you didn’t delete it. looks like comments are a little buggy. Apologies. But I still expect some proof here.
Got any proof to back this up? Don’t think so.
So schmiggen quotes an article to prove his point. You, on the other hand, don’t. Who are we supposed to believe?
Yes. Men hit way harder, because we are indeed physically stronger. That’s why women use kitchen knives every now and then.
BULLSHIT mens groups are NOT welcoming of gay or trans people. AT ALL. You are such a liar. Shut the fuck up, you cannot claim that queer people, MY PEOPLE, fucking support you. Don’t you dare steal my community’s agency and image to strengthen MALE DOMINION. You assholes ALWAYS misgender trans people, you say trans women are male women ALL THE TIME, You CONSTANTLY talk about how if you have sex with a trans woman, you’re technically a rape survivor, you CONSTANTLY say that “trans women used to be men, and trans men are women who are becoming men, so they’re both our allies” without realizing how fucking offensive that is to your “allies”. But you don’t care, to men allies just means footsoldier in YOUR war. You just want a bunch of GayMRAs, not necessarily gay rights activists.
I wish you could hear me cheering you on right now, Howitzer.
If you want to se a gay man talk about men’s issues search youtube for integral math’s channel. No MRA is coming after him with a pitch fork. Your hysterical smears are very disapointing.
Men’s groups are not welcoming of gay or trans?
Oh rlly?
Suck on this:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/chivalry/from-woman-to-man-to-red-pill/
In Canada 60 per cent of women are part of the paid workforce, but comprise 70 per cent of part-time workers, two-thirds of minimum wage earners, perform two-thirds of unpaid caregiving work, and earn 70 cents per dollar of what men are paid.
This is misleading because it assumes women have no agency. It seems you are presuming that women do not make personal choices in their lives. I could be wrong, but this appears to be what you are doing. Nothing in your above statement is evidence of systemic oppression. Regarding the mythical wage gap, that has been debunked.
http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf
But this rhetoric hides the main drivers of “men’s rights” movement: misogynists who scapegoat women in specific and progressive movements in general.
Where is this proof? You are making an assertion and not backing it up. Proof please. Are you saying that advocating on behalf of men and boys is prima facie evidence of misogyny?
You moron, she said women (on the whole) receive 70 cents for what men (on the whole) make. She didn’t say “For the exact same job, and the exact same position, at the exact same company”. Even if men don’t attempt to pay women less, if a policy ends up giving women less money on a grand scale its still discrimination.
You really have no clue do you? Why not compare apples to apples here. But if that were done, then women would not be able to argue that they earn less then men. Facts are women earn less because they chose to earn less. They work less overtime, and take jobs that give them more time off and flexibility. If women worked the same hours and in similar professions to men, they would often earn more because they get promoted faster because of sexism and affirmative action policies.
No it isn’t. I work part time as a cleaner and get paid commensurate to the to the type of job and hours I work. I’m not discriminated against, I just choose work that allows me more personal time to pursue other projects. Similarly if women generally prefer lower stress jobs with fewer working hours they will get paid less. It’s not a policy, its many individual choices creating a societal trend.
What is ironic is that Marx was one of the best scholars on human agency – the class struggle is based on individual agency!
I don’t think you are familiar with men’s rights groups. Additionally, you sound quite young, and quite foolish. You are probably a student of political science, privileged, and white. Someday soon you will see that the world is not easily divided by class, that it is, in fact, quite messy. Good luck to you.
Oh and next time, provide some links to support your thesis, that men’s rights are misogynist in nature, because you say so. An assertion is just an opinion if you do not support it .
Mansplaining shit. I don’t think you know just how shitty the groups you belong to are, why don’t you try opening your eyes to the real world, and maybe growing up a little. I pray for you.
Womansplaining shit. I don’t think you know just how shitty the groups you belong to are, why don’t you try opening your eyes to the real world, and maybe growing up a little. I pray for you.
I feel dumber for having read this. It makes ridiculous suppositions, quotes articles that have since been retracted, debunked, or corrected, and ends in perhaps the most hypocritical statement I’ve ever seen. “Free speech doesn’t include hate speech.” Unless it comes from the author, than it’s fine.
And Jesse, hiding behind moderated comments is cowardly. You are simply silencing opposing viewpoints, and we both know it. This is why no one takes you seriously.
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/12uxqe/why_mens_rights_groups_are_wrong_and_warren/
You’ve been linked to on r/MensRights/, a web site described by the SPLC as a misogynist hate group. That’s why you’re getting thousands of comments. MRAs are a bombastic sort aren’t they, with writing like fireworks: Big, loud, pretty, explosive, and after a couple seconds they disappear leaving you with nothing.
Anyways, well written article, don’t worry about those men, they are literally unreachable with english language.
Anyways, it might be interesting to do a follow-up article where you talk about the systemic problem of MRAs who flood and invade comment boards and dominate discussion, by whitewashing reality.
Look at this poster Howitzer, given the hateful false accusation about /MR and the SPLC, I assume that you are a feminist.
So, someone would have to be both a woman and a feminist to disagree with this men’s rights bullshit?
haha you say ‘feminist’ like it’s a bad thing, that’s so telling
congratulations on playing right into the 1%’s greedy maw
The SPLC has never classified /r/MensRights as a hate group. This is something that the Legbeards (led by ArchangelleDworkin/Rebecca Eisenberg/ShitRedditSays) always spout off.
They’re pretty much full of shit.
Dear Medigram
This article is self-explanatory on how “feminism” can be a bad thing. So in this regard, I have to agree with Catalogue.
so because you don’t have any real arguments or studies to rely upon to support your rhetoric, you dismiss ever man who posts here? Get a grip, and open your eyes. Men’s rights groups want equality the same as women’s groups did in the 1960′s. Perhaps once the pendulum swings back towards the center, society can get back to benefiting society, instead of just one group over another.
You know, Russ – I want to thank you for more plainly stating than any MRA group member here what the MRA truly is – a backlash movement against the women’s movement that they perceive has caused the “pendulum” to swing too far towards women. The fact is that women aren’t even close to reaching equality with men in our society; we still do the most unpaid labor, we still make less than men, and that does include at the same companies and in jobs that equate in terms of responsibility, required education and hours worked….. but even though women are not yet equal, we have become TOO close for many men’s comfort. We are changing the status quo too much for their ease, and they want that old pendulum to swing back closer to what it was when we started this movement. To where? to 1976, the year I was refused entry into a typically male-dominated study only because I was female, despite better grades than my male counterparts? Was that a better time for you? Or how about in the 1980′s when men I taught were routinely advanced past me because of they received mentoring by the male bosses that I was not privy to.. would that be better? Women are by no means equal yet to men in our society. As we get closer, is your group going to become more violent in not just rhetoric, but in action? That is my fear. The MRA is a frightening backlash group that does NOT want women to be seen and treated equally with men; they want to hang on to their male privilege in a patriarchal, some privilege which they seem strangely unaware that they posses. And they want to continue to blame women for the result of our patriarchal culture, as if it was something we had wanted int he first place. (It was not).
Oh noes! People with differing opinions are registering the disagreement. MISOGYNY!!! I find it ironic that you accuse a whole swathe of people of being bombastic when in an earlier comment you through a shit fit because someone suggested that mens rights groups aren’t exclusive. “MY PEOPLE” was the term you used I believe. Grow up.
And of course you’re aware that r/MensRights was described as nothing of the sort. They said it was a site that might possibly contain misogynistic comments, but that applies to pretty much any relatively open site on the Internet.
^_~ my people. meaning trans people. are definitely not in the mrm. The MRM is bombastic! I may be at times, but you all are almost exclusively bombastic. John The Other frequently writes about apocalyptic scenarios where women rule over feminized men! Read Manboobz, you guys are the most bombastic group i’ve ever seen. Not that being bombastic is BAD, its not necessarily bad. But it does make for entertaining writing.
I am a fellow socialist activist in Ontario and know about the great work this group has done. However, perhaps more research and a better understanding of the Men’s Rights movement would been helpful before you jump on the bandwagon of calling the MRM “misogynist” or a hate group. We’re all working to end sexism, attempting to dismiss men’s issue by blaming men as the source of the problem doesn’t help anyone.
Thank you. Finally someone from the other side who recognizes the issue that the MRM is trying to get across.
I agree completely. While I won’t deny that some of the more extremist MRAs tend to overreact to certain issues, in all fairness, who doesn’t? As a man and a devoted anti-misandry advocate, I’m more concerned with the general mockery, degradation, and demonization of males in general (which IS misandry, regardless of what labels or euphemisms one chooses to stick to it). To point out all the atrocities committed against women in an effort to justify male-bashing simply proves you’re no better than what you make all of us out to be. Men have some privileges in society which may be construed as unfair or “favoritism”, but so do women. Sexism is sexism, regardless of which gender said ridicule is directed at.
Nearly every single comment here disagrees with the author of this article. I’m so proud of all the MRA sympathizers out there. We can’t do anything without you
All this rabid vitriol makes the case for how disturbing men’s rights advocates are better than any article ever could. Thanks, fellas!
You mean the parts proving studies? Or perhaps you mean stuff like this:
What is ironic is that Marx was one of the best scholars on human agency – the class struggle is based on individual agency!
For someone who doesn’t like how men “generalize” these experiences, you seem quite comfortable in putting all “men” into the same bag, and all men’s rights demands into the same category.
Egalitarian women and men who fight for equal protection under the law for men and boys do not detract from other worthy civil rights agendas.
And so on and so forth. Not exactly what I’d call rabid vitriol.
‘Everyone who knows anything of history knows that great social revolutions are impossible without the feminine ferment. Social progress may be measured precisely by the social position of women’ Karl Marx. Sorry, you were saying?
First of all. Thank you Derick for quoting me.
Second. Mr John Bell. When I talk about human agency I explicitly state “individual” which, according to the dictionaries, can be women or men. Your Marx quote is completely unrelated to mine.
For all the misogyny people claim about MR groups, these comments are not about attacking women but about defending the rights of men as gender to equal social and legislative practices. If you feel tarnished by this endeavor, I’m sorry your thinking is still so backward.
Dear Socialistworkercanada
I recommend you to remove this article from the site as it clearly shows no sign of merit and is demeaning all socialist ideas. I come from a real socialist country in Eastern Europe and this is not representative of our true ideals. The “rabid vitriol” is pretty good and fact-checked. That can stay.
Regards
if you knew anything about real, genuine socialism, you’d understand that there are not, and have never been a “real socialist country in Eastern Europe” – only bureaucratic state capitalist countries who governed as if the entire country was a giant capitalist firm, corporations with standing armies and national borders. they called themselves socialist, but so what? East Germany called itself democratic. its official name was the “German Democratic Republic” – mere lip-service to democracy, just like they paid mere lip-service to socialism.
however, you’re not wrong about one thing – this article doesn’t represent the ‘true ideals’ of those countries!
when it came to the question of women’s liberation, those so-called socialist/communist (read: state capitalist) countries were in fact frequently reactionary, patriarchal and all too willing to exploit women in the interests of consolidating state power. that brand of totalitarian, bureaucratic ‘socialism’ has nothing to do with the author of this article or the viewpoint of this website. nice try.
Dear fallinggrateofprophet
You are indeed correct sir/madam. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Objection to being smeared as racist and misogynistic is now being “rabid and vitriolic”. Got it, lol. What vacuous dogmatic bigots you lot have allowed yourselves to become. You and your movement are speeding past the last exits to relevance and people are finally recognizing your hate speech for what it is.
Propaganda is propaganda.
Health – That makes no sense, although I will give you that abortion rights being attacked is a problem.
Bullying – girls aren’t bullied for being girls, either. Many boys and girls, however, are bullied often because of homophobia and transphobia.
Suicide – So you are saying that women are killing themselves because they are women?
Violence – First, saying that rape and DV victims are only women is false. They are a majority, but not a vast majority. And since you said that “More men die in the trenches of war, because women—and queers—have until recently been excluded from the military”, do you support mandatory selective service for women as well?
Education – You are ignoring the fact that women are almost 60% of college students.
Legal – “Given women provide the majority of unpaid labour raising children, it’s no surprise that courts might award more custody cases to the mother” is like saying that it should be no surprise that men earn more than women because men are often the primary or the only breadwinners. Also, female victims of rape and DV are at least given attention; male victims are just laughed at.
While I am not a socialist, I do agree with some aspects of it, and I don’t think that completely dismissing men’s issues like you have done is what the equality that socialism tries to promote means.
You do realise that girls ARE bullied for being girls? BOYS are bullied for being “girls”! “You’re such a pussy”, “be more manly”, “grow a set of balls”, as if being a woman is demeaning.
Suicide: Women are more likely to be killing themselves over oppression than men are. Men won’t kill themselves because they can’t get an abortion, or because they’re called a slut because they like to have sex, or because at work they’re constantly sexually harassed.
Violence: I don’t think anyone said that women-only violence happens. Men experience violence too, it is just less commonly reported. Probably because men fear it would be “womanly”, and I personally don’t see how that’s bad..
Education: You’re forgetting the fact that graduation caps were only worn by women because it symbolized that they had reached the top, they got an education, now go make babies. You’re forgetting that a lot of women didn’t receive an education and still don’t in many parts of the world because they’re unimportant.
Legal: No. The author is saying that because women are in general the primary caregivers, they would be chosen first to raise a child. Just because a man is the sole breadwinner doesn’t mean he should be paid more than a woman doing the same job.
Female victims of rape and DV aren’t laughed at; they’re shamed. “He raped you? What were you wearing? Were you acting like you wanted it? Did you have sex with him before?”. And why do you think men are laughed at? Because rape and domestic violence “happen to women”, not men. Oh, how degrading it must be to be like a woman! So funny!
Dear Madam
Bullying: Kids are bullied for every reason whatsoever. Making it a gender issue is ridiculous. Some kids are bullied because they’re fat, ugly, nerds, stupid, too skinny, jews, they have a stupid name, etc etc. Kids are mean, they’ll find any particularity and joke with it, don’t make this a gender problem when it isn’t.
Suicide: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/31/bbc-investigate-death-journalist-harassment
Violence: Happens to men and women. Deal with it. Men don’t often report it because of pride and because sometimes thing can be resolved without the proper authorities. I don’t know where you got the womanly thing.
Education: In western modern world (USA, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Australia) females do comprise the majority in academia.True: Change is needed in countries that actively degrade women and restrict women from accessing an education, but not in the Westernized countries.
Legal: Men are not the sole breadwinners anymore neither are women the sole caregivers. The legislation should have had at this point the appropriate changes to this new reality.
Rape: not funny in either case. Happens to both genders.
“All this rabid vitriol makes the case for how disturbing men’s rights advocates are better than any article ever could. Thanks, fellas!
”
We call this a thought terminating cliche based on a tone-argument. Dismiss your opponents as being too ‘harsh’, and you can just say they’re being violent and not worthy of response.
“In his book Why Men Are the Way They Are, he defends sexism: “we beg men to express feelings, but then when men do express feelings, we call it sexism, male chauvinism, or backlash.” (As someone who identifies as male I’m insulted by the claim that the only feelings I’m capable of expressing are sexist).”
Even out of context, it’s a very, very long stretch to say that he’s actually calling you sexist. What he is saying is that when men do express their feelings–as the MRM does–it is quickly labeled that way by society as a whole. You know, like what you’re doing now. You are doing literally everything that feminism as a whole has been legitimately criticized for. The only reason that nobody gives it any legitimacy is because patriarchy. Any attempt to criticize the idea of patriarchy, that person is wrong because patriarchy and check your privilege. It’s impossible to actually have a reasoned discussion with that kind of circular logic. That could be (and this is a shocker!) why the MRM even exists.
DEATH TO FASCISM, FREEDOM THE PEOPLE
KILL ALL MEN
-S.C.U.M
Did not read past, “Boys are not bullied by girls for being boys, they are mainly bullied by other boys—who also bully girls. ”
Bullshit. You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.
One of the worst and most sexist articles I have read in a long time. Words of a bigot hiding behind a false flag of equality. Shame on you.
Wow, You “men’s” “rights” people get really worked up when you’re quoted, eh? Having read the article and your replies it’s obvious that the real attacks on men come from the one dimensional 1950′s white dad rules the family and the rest of society attitude of the “men’s” “rights” crowd. As someone who identifies as a man, those are “rights” that I’m happy to do without, thank you very much. Now, free abortion on demand, 24 hour free childcare available to all, equal wages regardless of gender, an end to gay and trans bashing, those are some rights I’d like to see!
For those of you who think socialists only support the rights of men, check out the article (and the picture!) on the Russian Revolution: http://socialistworkercanada.com/2012/10/31/reasons-to-celebrate-the-russian-revolution-of-1917/
And thanks guys for your comments – they’ve cleared up any lingering misconceptions I might have had that the “men’s” “rights” supporters were interested in equality of any kind!
I’m sorry that you’ve cemented your generalzation of the men’s rights movement; there are those of us that realize that there are places where one gender gets shafted more often than the other and seek an equal footing for all.
Not all MRAs are “1950s white dad rules”, just the most vocal, it seems.
I’m confused as to which parts of the criticism here you would consider as being against equality. Could you reply to my post with qoutes please?
You also come across as trying to fit what people have said into your existing bias. The 1950′s white dad shpiel is just nonsense.
I like lines like “No one has every claimed that”
As soon as I see sentences like that I know I’m dealing with someone who can really rationalize their own bullshit.
Your bigotry and hatred towards half the world makes me embarrassed to call myself a left winger. Are you sure you aren’t just a right wing infiltrator trying to make us look bad?
I came across one comment in your article that I disagree with: “Given women provide the majority of unpaid labour raising children, it’s no surprise that courts might award more custody cases to the mother.”
It’s not about who put in the most unpaid (or paid, for that matter) labor into the rearing of the children. It’s about whatever situation is in the best interests of the children.
You go on to say:
“But the legal system is not generally skewed towards women—as survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence can attest to. The legal system fails to challenge endemic sexism, while incarcerating poor, indigenous and racialized men—groups who also get no mention from “men’s issues” groups.”
I feel that making this comparison is a little apples-to-oranges.
wow.. the misogynist freaks are in a tizzy. let them keep writing. their comments highlight the hateful reality of these bullshit “men’s issues” groups for all to see. $20 says its all the same dude using a bunch of different names anyway. wordpress is too easy for trolls in that way.
good article jesse..
Dear Patrick
Wow. I’m assuming you’re actually a men’s rights activist trolling to make feminists look bad, because no way in hell, would I write something so sexist and ignorant, even if I tried.
My reaction to this “article”:
Misandry does exist. The general mocking, degradation, or demonization of men IS misandry, and no amount of fabricated evidence or shoe-horned agendas is ever going to prove otherwise.
“But the legal system is not generally skewed towards women—as survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence can attest to.”
Except for the fact that women are seldom prosecuted for FALSE accusations of rape and abuse, as my uncle in Florida can attest to, having been falsely accused of molesting his children by his wife, a woman who’s sexually abused her son from a previous marriage, swindled the church into giving her money, and has been known to physically & verbally abuse her son (my uncle’s birth child), while encouraging her daughter (also my uncle’s birth child) to do the same. Not generally skewed, my ass.
This article isn’t even worth printing out to wipe my ass with. It’s obvious it was written a) as a joke, or b) by a self-hating mangina. Those are the only two explanations I can think of.
Am I the only one who read this article and realized it was a joke? People, the author never meant for any of this to be taken seriously. He was just trying to be humorous. Geez, learn to develop a sense of humor, for a change.
i think it’s sad that so many are either totally for- or against-
there are some problems with the article, but it also says some important things
one thing i’ll take issue with is ‘violence’
so you mention domestic violence, rape, deaths on the job and deaths in wars, in your discussion on violence
the prime thing i think these men groups might be getting at is that men are murdered at much higher rates than women in our society (i think it’s like 5x as many, but i might be off on that) … but b/c it is not gender-based violence but instead ‘men-on-men’, most ‘social justice activists’ don’t really see it as as much of a problem … and i think that is something lacking, it is a ‘blind spot’ that this article misses (but illustrates, by missing, that it isn’t considered an important problem or that other people can’t have valid points when they have problematic politics)
So many men here duped by the MRA movement. It’s sad and seriously concerning. People think if someone proves how misogynistic the MRM is that it’s an attack against men in general. It isn’t. The movement itself is filled with hate and misogyny at it’s core. Yet there are plenty of issues men face and need representation for. Don’t be such children. Practice some self awareness and realize what’s actually going on with you and the world you live in FFS.
Dear FuchsiaGauge
We are. Sure, several misogynists label themselves MRA’s just so they can be jerks with a semblance of authority behind them.
I don’t belong to a group. What I do is read feminist authors and dissident feminist authors, statistics, and articles. Every now and then I comment online: sometimes to praise, sometimes to criticize. Above all, i form my own conclusions from behaviors I see in women and men in the community I live in.
I have yet to understand how my position is wrong, misogynistic, and warped.
Watching all the MRA mouth-foaming here is certainly entertaining. They *really* don’t like being called on their shit. Perhaps if they stopped attacking feminism instead of trying to genuinely understand it, then the dialogue would have been better originally?
Dear antihero
If feminism stopped attacking legitimate MR movements (like the article above) and men in general, there would be less “mouth-foaming”.
Regarding the so called “mouth-foaming” – they seem very well constructed arguments, with quotes, without slurs. So I’m assuming we’re not reading the same comments. Please go through the comments better – ignore the occasional rant (provided by men and women) and inform yourself.
Though I think we should also realise that this doesn’t cover *all* MRA activism, and that generalisation does us no favours.
These comments are depressing and terrifying.
Why are we turning this into a man vs woman thing at all? Supporting men’s rights, building men’s centre etc is not taking away women’s rights. Rights are NOT a zero-sum game.
All your rebutals seem to more or less be “well, women have it worse”. That’s not justification to blantantly ignore the plight of men. Cause, you can always find some man who’s got it much worse than some woman and vice versa.
I’m calling BS on this one. Jesse is not saying “women have it worse”. He is saying (and I agree) women are systemically oppressed as women. Men are not systemically oppressed as men. And quit being ingenuous – the entire “Men’s Rights Movement” is an overt attack on feminism. Far from “turning this into a man vs woman thing” we are saying men must stand in solidarity and support with women struggling to expose and end their oppression.
Dear John Bell
I’m also calling BS on your comment. The entire MRA is not an overt attack on feminism – I have no idea where you got that.
First of all – there is no such thing as a MR “movement”, similar to the feminism of the 1960′s civil rights movement. What exists are individual men and women, with their very own agency, that think some things should be changed to benefit men. Period.
Sure. You’ll find countless idiots within the MR’s message boards and blogs. Just as, I believe, there are several idiots within feminist blogs (hint: article above).
“because the science on heart attack symptoms (amongst others) was derived from middle-class white men.”
why wouldn’t it be when men and women are equal except for reproductive parts! and men make better guinea pigs?
“And many more girls attempt suicide than men, ”
like more men go for sex change than women, even though many more women aspire to behave like men?
“Given women provide the majority of unpaid labour raising children, it’s no surprise that courts might award more custody cases to the mother.”
LOL why not provide pay to women by making them nannies of children under father-custody? Voila! paid labour for women is here!
” earn 70 cents per dollar of what men are paid”
and spend more than men, which begs the question whether you’d work to earn or work to spend?
“In terms of interpersonal violence, the vast majority of domestic abuse and rape victims are women. ”
no they aren’t. Majority maybe, vast majority nuh uh. Even if they were, the vast majority of soldiers dying are men, yet you do not not hear ‘men and women fighting for freedom and yada yada yada”.
“because women—and queers—have until recently been excluded from the military”
weren’t women excluded from the franchise too? Did the superwomen run out of strength after securing the prerogative and instead of proving themselves first with the responsibility?
“Egalitarian feminists have unwittingly exacerbated the problem, leaving men unable to make even one contribution to society, as men”
hey there is rape and domestic violence! and rape culture! and rape by logic!
“The man took command in the home; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude; she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children”
LMAO men went out to work and so men took command in the home, logical contradictions are for the weak! And of course work was all fun, which men did for making the wage-gap larger instead of those pesky children.
“has led to a “crisis in masculinity.” ”
women trying to ape men is a loss of men’s identity, the wonders never cease.
“30% pay gap that goes to the boss”
wth is that even supposed to mean? Entry of women in ‘paid’ labour who work for less thus bringing men’s wages down or stagnating them?
dunno much about socialism or marxism, but here’s one of them making mockery of the falsehoods of feminism a 100 years earlier;
“The wife, we are told, is the only unpaid servant! A more blatant lie could scarcely be imagined. As every educated person possessing the slightest acquaintance with the laws of England knows, the law requires the husband to maintain his wife in a manner according with his own social position; has, in other words, to feed, clothe and afford her all reasonable luxuries, which the law, with a view to the economic standing of the husband, regards as necessaries. This although the husband has no claim on the wife’s property or income, however wealthy she may be. Furthermore, it need scarcely be said, a servant who is inefficient, lazy, or otherwise intolerable, can be dismissed or her wage can be lowered. Not so that privileged person, the legally wedded wife. It matters not whether she perform her duties well, badly, in- differently, or not at all, the husband’s legal obligations remain just the same. ”
- The Fraud of Feminism by Belfort Bax, 1913
I agree, men’s rights groups are wrong, but for entirely different reasons than the stupid sludge that has been posted here.
The desire to free oneself from work was common to all classes and both sexes. Dr Joanna Bourke of Birkbeck College, London, has studied the diaries of 5,000 women who lived between 1860 and 1930. During that period, the proportion of women in paid employment dropped from 75 per cent to 10 per cent. This was regarded as a huge step forward for womankind, an opinion shared by the women whose writings Dr Bourke researched. Freed from mills and factories, they created a new power base for themselves at home. This was, claims Dr Bourke, “a deliberate choice. . . and a choice that gave great pleasure.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/feminists-history-of-housewives-challenged-1534788.html
Justification through insane and irrational rationalization.
Great article. The violence of the responses is terrifying though. Yikes.
the violence of their responses reflects a violent ideology. it’s thoroughly reactionary to the core, and shows that they are absolutely incapable of admitting any guilt or responsibility for the oppression of women. some of of them go even further – they won’t even admit the existence of the oppression of women at all, ever, whether in today’s world or historically.
i don’t think that all of the audience for this ideology start out as diehard woman-hating types, though prolonged exposure certainly turns them into such.
the saddest part is that there are a lot of men, who aren’t adequately equipped with the sorts of tools that it takes to actually understand what’s going on in the world in a coherent fashion, get duped by these sorts of lies masquerading as arguments against ‘oppression’ in much the same way as so many otherwise decent human beings have historically been sucked in by the deceit of fascism. tell the big lie often enough, and some will start to believe it.
If you would admit that men got the vote a mere ten years prior to women, then we wouldn’t have this debate. It is the lies feminism spreads which causes these flame wars. We don’t deny women were oppressed, we merely assert that men were equally oppressed.
When a woman was considered her husband’s property, if she misbehaved, the husband was whipped! So no, you were not especially oppressed, none more so than men.
As for the vote, women got it in 1928 in the UK. Men got it in 1918. So shut the fuck up already! Ten years difference is not oppression
The pay gap is a lie. It has been debunked by the Obama administration:
http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf
I have already linked to an article above debunking the lies surrounding domestic violence, which is reciprocal: women are just as abusive as men within interpersonal relations. I could go on but you get the point
Stop spreading lies about men and claiming all of the world’s oppression is women’s.
TAKE OWNERSHIP!
you think men are ill equiped, i agree with you, lots of retarded men out there, but hate to break it to you, but plenty of idiotic women out there too, this includes some feminists!
it’s true that there are some very legitimate critiques that one can make of patriarchy theory as a coherent explanation for women’s oppression. it’s also true that there are ways in which men can (and do) experience oppression.
from these two conclusions, though, it does not logically follow in any way whatsoever that such explanation for that oppression is that it’s caused by women.
patriarchy theory actually makes sense of the world on the surface – it’s when you poke a little deeper that it starts to show serious faults compared to a marxist, historical materialist form of analysis.
however, the theory that men are being oppressed by women as a result of those flaws, or by ‘misandry’ doesn’t even make sense on a surface level. it is in no way compatible with reality.
perhaps the term misandry isn’t completely useless on a personal level when describing people’s attitudes. there are, no doubt, man-haters out there.
but listen up, ‘men’s rights’ types – they don’t oppress you.
they don’t have access to the sort of political and economic power that it would take to oppress you. at all. in fact they’re almost universally marginalized, and tend to exist either only on a solitary level, or if organized, in isolated pockets with extremely minimal influence over society.
the reason for the existence of those attitudes is pretty much invariably a reaction to oppression that they personally experience and witness on a daily basis, as women.
please note that the inverse is not true of the men who hate women. they can and do have access to the sort of political and economic power that it takes to oppress women. and they exercise it all the time. far from having minimal influence on society, that influence is widespread. it’s global. it’s deeply rooted in the political and economic system and backed up by force. it in turn backs up and sustains the sort of physical force that hurts, injures, and even kills women. all the time. every single minute of every single day, women everywhere, in every community, in every country, experience this at the hands of men who abuse them, whether individually or collectively.
many who abuse are family members. ‘friends’. co-workers. classmates. neighbors. many others abuse women from a distance, whether it’s through the anonymity of the internet or the anonymity of stock market transactions. the awful, and very real consequences of physical and sexual abuse are not the only ones. this also drives many women and girls to self-hatred, to feeling isolated and alone. to hopelessness. to suicide.
but that’s not the only way that women respond to this abuse. thankfully, that’s not the whole picture. many women have decided they are unwilling to take it any more. and so it drives them to resist. to organize and fight back. some men who agree that women should not be treated this way join them, too. they haven’t won yet, or even come close to winning the larger fight. but there have been victories.
admit it. those victories scare a lot of you.
where your so-called ‘men’s right’s’ movement gets it so horribly, horribly wrong is this: the act of taking away your ability to abuse, to exploit, to dominate, to hold absolute hegemony over society, culture and its values does not constitute a form of oppression. on the contrary, it’s progress. grow up, boys.
Best, most reasonable comment on here.
I don’t believe men are claiming oppression, and that’s the beauty of it. They seek to the record, in my estimation. It is feminist historiography which is problematic. Here’s the thing: many feminists will claim that women were denied the vote, and they were. But this is misleading because, well, men were also denied the vote. Universal suffrage was not extended to all men until 1918 in the UK. A decade later it was extended to all women.
There are a myriad of other lies feminism preaches, and that is what mra’s challenge. To my knowledge, mra’s do not claim oppression.
please note that the inverse is not true of the men who hate women. they can and do have access to the sort of political and economic power that it takes to oppress women. and they exercise it all the time. far from having minimal influence on society, that influence is widespread. it’s global. it’s deeply rooted in the political and economic system and backed up by force. it in turn backs up and sustains the sort of physical force that hurts, injures, and even kills women. all the time. every single minute of every single day, women everywhere, in every community, in every country, experience this at the hands of men who abuse them, whether individually or collectively.
This is highly problematic because it seems you are referring to alpha males specifically. MRA’s are not going to be alpha males. They are not the cream of the crop, so to speak. So your thesis is highly flawed. Ordinary men do not control the levers of power, and I think you know that.
many who abuse are family members. ‘friends’. co-workers. classmates. neighbors. many others abuse women from a distance, whether it’s through the anonymity of the internet or the anonymity of stock market transactions. the awful, and very real consequences of physical and sexual abuse are not the only ones. this also drives many women and girls to self-hatred, to feeling isolated and alone. to hopelessness. to suicide.
Here are several links which demolish your argument:
http://www.barbarakay.ca/articles/view/600
http://www.barbarakay.ca/articles/view/558
http://www.barbarakay.ca/articles/view/546
http://www.barbarakay.ca/articles/view/523
http://www.barbarakay.ca/articles/view/457
http://www.barbarakay.ca/articles/view/423
Now, you don’t have to read all of that. Barbara Kay is a leading mra.
So I think it is you who needs to grow up. Admit it, you are scared of us. Put your soy latte down and look in the mirror: you are not oppressed. Indeed, you are privileged.
Excellent article! Thanks so much, Jesse. Many of these commenters seem to assume the writer is a woman! Nice try, guys. Jesse McLaren is a well-informed, non-sexist man.
The comments on this page – foaming at the mouth that someone dares to question male supremacy – really speak to the need of more stories like this. When confronted with facts, all these folks can do is sputter and cry “Lies! Lies!” with nothing to offer but references to Margaret Thatcher. Of course, one woman prime minister proves that all sexism has been erased. Just like Obama’s presidency proves racism has been eliminated. Nice dream, but those of us who live in the real world are not fooled.
One commenter even claims that most victims of sexual assault and domestic violence are not women! I think 85-90% constitutes “most”. There are male survivors, to be sure. And their assailants are almost 100% men, too.
Obama is still a monkey, just like you are still a cunt. You are dead right.
*There was no recent epidemic of men being assaulted in Toronto’s Christie Pits Park, and when men are assaulted the police don’t blame them for dressing like “sluts.”* – what the F are you talking about? you think only if there is an epidemic of men being assaulted should it start counting? or they have to be called “sluts” before your freakin ass will feel sorry for those who have been assaulted?
so essentially what this duche is saying is that if few thousand men are assaulted it should be paid no attention, it has to come to an epidemic level before any one lends an ear to their cries … load of bull shit
here is a dose of reality. a women to falsely accuse her spouse of any sort of DV essentially commits perjury. even though it may be shown many times over that she is a liar, she almost never gets tried for charges of perjury. thats how sexist this system is. if interested read this case. http://canlii.ca/en/on/onsc/doc/2006/2006canlii727/2006canlii727.html
The staggering amount of hate you’re getting from whiny MRAs kinda reinforces your point, Jesse.
Thank you for this much needed article. You should be proud, you’ve managed to get the hateful ignorant bigots riled up!
Dear Bambou
“hateful ignorant bigots”
Can I quote you on that? (Wow. I love it when people help my research get along so smoothly).
In my experience men’s advocates are far more inclusive of diversity, minority and truly oppressed groups than the privileged elitist white rad fems, who denigrate women who choose family and motherhood over career, denigrate women’s sexuality and those who choose employment in the sex and porn industries, denigrate trans persons, and want to act as imperial and colonial oppressors of foreign cultures by enforcing their elite white women’s feminist dogma onto them.
As for this authors attempt to offer criticism of the well researched, referenced and scholarly works of Nathanson ( and his female co-writer Catherine Young) and Warren Farrell, un-referenced diatribe’s and socialist rhetoric thats just hypocrisy pure and simple.
with un-referenced diatribe’s and socialist rhetoric thats just hypocrisy pure and simple.
Enjoying the mansplainin’ here. Endlessly repeating the word equality does not alter the objective reality that women remain oppressed in our society. Tossing around the word “feminist” as an insult is a bit of a tip-off, lads. Next you’ll be saying we live in post-racist society and affirmative action measures are the real racism. Anyway, sorry for the interruption, carry on foaming.
Dear John Bell
Oh the irony of this post!
Not sure what the hell the author of this article is talking about; the men’s rights groups I’m associated with are merely concerned with dispelling the negative stereotypes forced upon men in modern society. None of them are even close to “misogynists”.
What I’m concerned with is the constant mockery, degradation, and demonization of ALL men (which IS misandry, btw, regardless of how much fabricated evidence and shoehorned agendas one presents). Female rape/abuse victims are still taken a HELL of a lot more seriously than male victims are, thanks in due part to the stereotypes surrounding men (i.e., “You must’ve done something really bad to piss her off”, “Chill out, her punches couldn’t have hurt THAT much”, “What are you, gay? It’s free sex; just take it”, etc.). Not skewed towards women, my ass. Just ask my uncle, who’s serving time for being wrongfully accused of molesting his own kids, while his wife is showing favoritism towards her daughter, verbally/physically abusing her son and encouraging her daughter to do the same. Or ask David Bedoya, who was falsely accused of rape and jailed under the jurisdiction of the unbelievably flawed VAWA.
And yet, society does absolutely NOTHING to punish women who make false accusations, choosing instead to blame the male party instead. I’m not sure if SWc thinks this is funny or is merely talking out his own ass, but he needs to wake up and see sexism for what it is; if it’s not okay for one side, it’s not okay for EITHER side. I wouldn’t print this article out to wipe my ass with.
I love how every person who disagrees with this article completely missed the point. The author is neither attacking nor trivializing the (valid) issues that men face in society, he is pointing out that often, the existing men’s right’s groups do not rightly or productively address said issues; we instead see their ideology gear more towards misogyny and male supremacy. BUT NO. An article that calls out the questionable nature of these groups = an attack on all males. All the men’s rights groups I have gone to always have people like the unhappy commenters of this article, who think being feminist is a bad thing.
and it’s not even a question that women have it harder in general, because IT’S TRUE. I’m sorry, but men do not have to worry as much as we do about sexual safety every time they go out in public. In my experience, people who promote rape culture (victim blaming, objectification of women, trivialization of rape) are more often male than female. Someone already mentioned that majority of reported rapes are by men on women, and one of the reasons for why that is is that rapes on male are not reported as often, due to fear of being labeled as womanly, as if being a woman is a terrible thing. But what do I know, I’m non-straight, non-white and I have a vagina!
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/12zcuj/a_rant_from_a_feminist_and_a_mother/
>The author is neither attacking nor trivializing the (valid) issues that men face in society,
…Yes, he does. What? Did you even read it?
>and it’s not even a question that women have it harder in general, because IT’S TRUE.
Unprovable, but sure.
> I’m sorry, but men do not have to worry as much as we do about sexual safety every time they go out in public.
Because this is the only measure of how bad a group has it? Really?
so my last comment didn’t seem to make it up on here.
but basically – at the end of the article, where it talks about the need to ‘unite the 99%’ – well all the ‘we’re so much better than the other commenters’ types, you’re not helping much
in my original comment, i noted that there are some problems in the article – along with a lot of good stuff – but one thing i did want to note (at the risk of being judged a pro-MRA type) was that the section on ‘violence’, which seemed to focus on men-on-women violence as well as violence related to all the favorite activist oppression/isms … what about all these murders (and yes men are more likely to be murdered than women, also to be imprisoned but that’s another story) that relate to male culture, a culture of violence that men are brought up into … maybe perhaps there could be men’s groups that look at men’s experiences with this type of violence that is in their lives that can actually be helpful?
i think the reason why MRA groups probably attract people is because there is some truth in what they are saying, apart from the problematic things they say/do … and if the approach to counter them is to give no validity to anything they express, well i don’t think that’s really going to help very much
Indeed, so many unfortunate comments here from devotees of the ‘men’s movement’ who are determined to ignore the fact that the structural inequality that has historically subjugated women (and continues to do so) is in fact just that: a structural inequality supported by a lengthy philosophical tradition that generates false stabilization between genders; this dynamic also simultaneously elevating maleness which in turn has justified any number of forms of misogynous violence.
The detractors here are clearly implying that evidence of assaults of any kind on men is evidence of a structurally supported phenomenon, when many of these assaults actually find their source in the same patriarchal gender-binarizing dynamics that lead to violence against women. Deal with patriarchy, oh ye angry little lads, and you’ll have got to the root of the problem, otherwise your petulant and illogical ranting is simply making the entire situation worse.
Come on futrelle, the only structural inequality here is in the configuration of your faulty synapses and neurochemistry. Anyone who thinks modern western women as a group are systemically “subjugated” and “oppressed” by men as a group of “violent patriarchal abuses” has clearly overdosed on feminist rhetoric, and has little knowledge of reality outside their own deluded all encompassing victim dream state.
Yes sex is binary, nature designed it to be so, but binary can be complimentary, and complimentary can be balanced.
Gender is of course a feminist construct to try and deny nature and assume the few percent of individuals who manifest true biological inter-sex , or who identify more with the opposite sex, or want to transition to the opposite sex or who are sexually attracted to the same sex, should dominate the discourse on sexuality. Whilst the near total majority of persons are now disparagingly referred by “gender” gurus as “heteronormative.” Thats what I call binary thinking.
Manjugs,
“deal with patriarchy” means what exactly? That is precisely why these pages get flooded with mra’s. I mean, are you here to help or what? Would you tell your own son that – “deal with patriarchy” if he came to you with a problem?
We have the moral upper hand here, our cause is a just one, because we seek answers, not stonewalling.
http://www.barbarakay.ca/articles/view/457
“…and that is why no one takes you seriously.” Says the person who just wrote 2,000 foaming-at-the-mouth words in response to the post that he doesn’t take seriously.
These comments are an advertisement for Why We Need Feminism.
I wonder how these guys feel about Whites Rights groups. Or Hetero Rights. Cause, you know, the gays are taking over, what with demanding to be equal citizens and all…
Gay and trans people are coming over to our side. They dislike people who show hatred for men because they are men, such as well known feminists like Andrea Dworkin and Catherine McKinnon. If you did not preach the hatred of men, your movement would have more cultural respect.
I wonder how these guys feel about Whites Rights groups. Or Hetero Rights. Cause, you know, the gays are taking over, what with demanding to be equal citizens and all…
Are you suggesting that white people and heterosexuals are undeserving of equal treatment, because of their skin color and sexual orientation? if you are then you are advocating bigotry.
That is Why We Need Masculism.
Bigotry to any group based on their skin color or sexual orientation is unacceptable, laura.
I am saying, not suggesting, that the dominant social group does not need special protection. That whites, heteros, and especially white hetero men live in a world of privilege, and at the first signs of that privilege being shared by people of colour, queers, and/or women, they freak out, claiming their rights are being violated. When in fact all that is happening is that oppressed groups are claiming some of the power that white, hetero men have had for themselves forever.
You are openly advocating bigotry against individuals who happen to be either white or hetero, and that is unethical. I don’t see how you can argue that it is.
>I wonder how these guys feel about Whites Rights groups. Or Hetero Rights.
Neither of those groups have any problems.
Implying that women are in the same situation as racial or sexual minorities is frankly pretty gross.
basically men are trying to get a centre for men by men, anything wrong with that? the blacks have schools for blacks only. women have gym’s for women only. instead of attacking the fact that some of these things like bullying are done BY men, they are still done TOO men, putting all the victims in with the same group as the aggressors does not negate the the fact that it is done. are white males the only ones in this world not allowed any form of support groups? or special treatment? because that is what this world is coming to.
i also think people read way more into this “women earn less” it is true in life that women earn less but so many factors are affected by this
#1 women work less, still more women stay at home.
#2 women tend to work different jobs. go work hard labour and get back to me.
#3 girls out of highschool work far more than boys out of high school. (factors of this are usually that younger women are more studious) but this gives them a very good head start for the future on managing money and how to deal with life. while the boys have no jobs at younger ages.
“”"But the legal system is not generally skewed towards women”" might be the most uninformed thing ive ever read in my life.
“”"Given women provide the majority of unpaid labour raising
children”"” lol this is twisting it around 100%, they were awarded the custody, so thats the reason they are getting the money.. men are getting fucked out of #1 their kids, and #2 the free money to raise the kids, so the arguement makes zero sense.
oh and the violence thing, how many stories have you heard about women throwing shit at their husbands (knives etc) ITS FUNNY when she does it. but its OH SO BAD when he does it.
hypocrites.(you people reading this know you’ve thought the above)
oh and boys bully girls??? ive seen GIRLS bully girls and GIRLS bully boys.. boys beat each other up but we tend to leave the girls out of it, bullying is generally done by the snotty girl. or is that just me?
http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/chivalry/from-woman-to-man-to-red-pill/
I dislike the arguments against most of these points. They’re extremely shallow dismissals, just excuses to invalidate.
>Boys are not bullied by girls for being boys, they are mainly bullied by other boys—who also bully girls.
Right, but boys are still bullied more/worse, and that’s because society teaches us that boys are more suitable targets for bullying. The point isn’t contradicted, it’s dismissed.
>Men do not kill themselves because of men’s oppression, they kill themselves of poverty and other real forms of oppression along lines of sexuality, ability and race.
Of course, but again they do this more than women do due to their socialization.
>the vast majority of domestic abuse and rape victims are women.
Nothing cited, hmm.
>when men are assaulted the police don’t blame them for dressing like “sluts.”
No, they laugh at them, which is sooo much better.
>When men are victims of interpersonal violence it is usually from other men, and often related to police brutality, racism and Islamophobia, ableism, homophobia and transphobia
Again, because society (men and women alike) see men as more fitting targets for violence. People are more comfortable hurting a black man than a black woman, or a gay man versus a lesbian.
>5) education: “women do better on some educational indicators, like test scores or enrolment”
I’m quoting the question here, as opposed to the response, because the response doesn’t even contradict (or acknowledge, honestly) the statement. The statement is true.
> But the legal system is not generally skewed towards women—as survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence can attest to.
Moving the goalposts, and also a ridiculous point because male sexual assault/domestic violence victims are *not* treated better than female ones, they’re treated worse.
“You are openly advocating bigotry against individuals who happen to be either white or hetero”
Really? That would be weird, since I’m white and everyone in my family is white, and my partner is hetero. Please show me where I did that so I can correct it.
That whites, heteros, and especially white hetero men live in a world of privilege, and at the first signs of that privilege being shared by people of colour, queers, and/or women, they freak out, claiming their rights are being violated. When in fact all that is happening is that oppressed groups are claiming some of the power that white, hetero men have had for themselves forever.
Now replace “whites and heteros” with “jews”:
That jews live in a world of privilege, and at the first signs of that privilege being shared by people of colour, queers, and/or women, they freak out, claiming their rights are being violated. When in fact all that is happening is that oppressed groups are claiming some of the power that jews have had for themselves forever.
Now do you see why your statement is problematic? You cannot single out ANY group as a target for bigotry. NO group deserves that treatment.
haha omg that is not the point at all
the point is that there are groups that do not need special protection. these are the groups that represent a majority population that get butthurt because they think that smaller minority groups are getting more recognition when in fact said minority groups are not more favored and do not get more benefits, they’re just starting to attain the same rights that the majority groups have had all their lives
she’s uses white, hetero people as an example. there are many white, hetero people who get massively offended when lgbtq people of color are given the right to marry even though it actually doesn’t affect THEIR right to marry. it doesn’t mean all white & hetero people are like that…
another example are all those racist people who blew up when slaves were freed. even though all the slaves got was the right to be a human and not a piece of property.
actually, it is a STATISTIC that white, hetero people DO live in a world of privilege compared to non-white, non-straight people. that privilege i’m talking about is a life that has less chance of bullying, murder, and even suicide due to race and/or sexual preference. it lessens that chance just by virtue of being white and straight–i mean, when was the last time you heard that someone committed suicide because he/she was being bullied for being white and/or straight?
You’re missing the point. We are talking about men’s rights activists, who are being branded as deserving targets of bigotry. My point is that no one is deserving of bigotry, not even whites or heteros. No. One. Not jews, not blacks, not gay, not trans – NO ONE.
As for special protection, mra’s don’t want that to my knowledge. What they do want is equality. That is a big difference, so I do not know where you get this ‘special protection’ from. Perhaps you could elaborate on that, as i cannot respond when I don’t know what you’re talking about.
As far as whites or heteros getting butt hurt, again, what does that have to with mra’s? That’s fine, and I agree with you, but I must ask you, what does that have to do with mra’s?
Lastly, as far as whites or heteros living in a world of privilege, a point that I don’t necessarily agree with as privilege has not been defined by you, it is still not an excuse to advocate hatred and fear of them. While it was true that in historical Germany, jews lived in a world of privilege, that was still no excuse for their scapegoating.
The fact is, no one, and I repeat no one, deserves to be treated with hostility based on their skin color or sexual orientation. Period.
of course not. we’re not bigoted. we’re just calling you out on your bullshit.
what people like you think white privilege is: you’re cruel and heartless and you’re making up the concept of white privilege because you’ve never worked hard for anything in your life, ever.
what white privilege actually is: you will never experience any racist, sexist, and/or homophobic comments that are genuinely dehumanizing, harmful and challenging to your identity because you are white, male and straight.
sadly enough being white in the U.S. is a privilege; you underestimate how racist and bigoted people can be. what people like me want to see is having a life without all that discrimination turn into a RIGHT, instead of a privilege. to white people they would not see the difference because they’ve had it all their life–it’s why you don’t think it’s a privilege. it does not mean we will take away the rights of white hetero people, it just means we will have things like affirmative action.
mra’s think that feminists want to oppress men and therefore equalize feminism with misandry. you are being misogynistic when you use feminist as an insult. feminism actually means wanting is equal rights and opportunities as men, it does not mean a hatred for men and a want to exploit them. since your sex has gotten a HUGE headstart (that is, we’ve only really started becoming treated more like people instead of objects like half a century ago, when you’ve had all the rights we’ve fighting for since forever, just by virtue of being a guy), we will have things like affirmative action, to “catch up”
what i’m angry about is that many of you mra’s think that affirmative action is bigotry; what affirmative action is trying to do is countering the effects of history of discrimination, giving more benefits to underrepresented groups. you cannot say that women are already on an equal grounds with men; look at the number of women who work in a position of power in politics for example. and speaking of politics, this past couple years have been a jackpot when it comes to finding people in office who openly promote rape culture. how is THAT equal?
HOWEVER, i am not saying ALL mra’s are like that. but it’s close. the amount of misogyny in the Men’s Rights reddit terrify me, as with other men’s rights blogs and groups that i have seen–and the worst part is that you don’t think it’s misogyny. that’s fucking inexcusable. we women aren’t faultless either, i do not deny that there are straw feminists who hate men instead of promoting equality–i do not associate with them.
lastly, what we (or at least i) mean by “special protection” is more representation. bigoted white heteros get panicked when non-white, non-straight groups get recognition, like the way mra’s think they are being exploited when women get representation. the point is, we are not taking away any of your rights or opportunities, our group is just getting more equality, and as much as you say otherwise, you just don’t want that to happen. you hide your misogyny behind a facade of wanting equality–that’s the problem with the current existing men’s rights groups. you don’t want equality, you want superiority. if you really wanted equality, you would be less focused about how feminism is terrible and instead focus on the issues (mentioned in this article) that you currently end up barely touching upon due to your priority of crediting the problems to women. you are not doing what your groups claim they want to do.
Dear Gina
You make the grievous mistake of assuming that MRA’s are composed of White/Male/Hetero. I find that certain postures within this 3rd wave feminist movement are way more offensive than any racial slur I’ve heard coming my way.
“you will never experience any racist, sexist, and/or homophobic comments that are genuinely dehumanizing, harmful and challenging to your identity because you are white, male and straight.”
Rlly?
Check this out: http://www.facebook.com/events/300236960092553/
This is a rally at the U of T against Warren Farrell, and what is his crime? He wishes to address the male crisis of being 75% of all suicides and 40% of all university degree earners and other various forms of gendered oppression. Why is there a rally? Well, because it is open season on males, of course. It is the last remaining bigotry. They oppose it on the basis of sex.
Feminism is supposed to be against that.
Let me deconstruct your argument, and you will see the hatred in it. Here is what you said:
“sadly enough being white in the U.S. is a privilege; you underestimate how racist and bigoted people can be. what people like me want to see is having a life without all that discrimination turn into a RIGHT, instead of a privilege. to white people they would not see the difference because they’ve had it all their life–it’s why you don’t think it’s a privilege. it does not mean we will take away the rights of white hetero people, it just means we will have things like affirmative action.”
Now let us replace the word ‘white’ with the word ‘jew’:
sadly enough being jewish in Germany is a privilege; you underestimate how racist and bigoted people can be. what people like me want to see is having a life without all that discrimination turn into a RIGHT, instead of a privilege. to jewish people they would not see the difference because they’ve had it all their life–it’s why you don’t think it’s a privilege. it does not mean we will take away the rights of jewish people, it just means we will have things like affirmative action.
Do you see the problem? Jewish people in Germany were also privileged; they owned the banks and small businesses. They were privileged. And they were the target of hate because of their race. Are you getting it now?
Lastly, you make the point that mra’s seek superiority, and we are against affirmative action. I haven’t seen that, but if you have, send me a link so I can read it. What I think mra’s want is equality. There are I think two men’s centers in Canada on university campuses, and the one that just opened up at SFU was predictably met with hostility. There are some 700 Women’s Studies degrees on offer in North American universities, maybe 12 Men’s Studies. Men are 90% of all workplace fatalities, 75% of all suicides, women initiate 65% of all divorces, men die 7 years earlier than women. And you call this privilege?
MRA’s want equality, that’s all. Now take a look at the campaign to silence Warren Farrell and tell me that isn’t misandry, the hatred of males.
first of all, BAD CHOICE, because warren farrell deserves all the hate. not because he is a guy but because he promotes wrong things, and for some reason our rejection of one dude makes you think we women hate you guys for being guys. i can confidently tell you it isn’t misandry, those campaigns are for silencing people like warren farrell, who i will admit does have some valid points (it’s just that he has so many more misogynist and offensive ones.) we hate you specifically because you are douchebags. for example, i hate you because you seem to be a fan of warren farrell, therefore you probably have disturbing views when it comes to rape and incest. (seriously, how hard is it to NOT support rape culture?)
and really, you don’t want superiority? i’ll cite warren farrell again because he seems to be an idol in the men’s rights community. he believes in restoring patriarchal authority– which, like the article says, suggests that single mothers and lesbian parents are in no position to be the head of the family because every child needs a fatherly figure to grow up into decent person or some stupid crap. yeah no.
i’m saying you oppose affirmative action in that whenever a woman is favored over a man in decisions, say like a job for example, it’s unfair discrimination. sorry, half a century ago it was taboo to be anything but a housewife. (not saying you oppose the racial, religious, socioeconomic, etc. aspects of aa)
also you should stop alter-the-words exercise BECAUSE IT DOES NOT APPLY
it is not the same matter and makes you look like a prick. you’re seriously comparing your male issues to the HOLOCAUST? get your head out of your ass, get off your high horse, and PLEASE do not compare your sex’s inequality to something of that degree. their financial privilege had nothing to do with why they were persecuted; they were the target of hate because of their jewish heritage. that is, they weren’t aryan so they had 0 racial/religious privilege. something tells me you use the term feminazi. you are seeing this too narrowly. i’ll cite a segment of an article for example:
“Pointing out that men are privileged in no way denies that bad things happen to men. Being privileged does not mean men are given everything in life for free; being privileged does not mean that men do not work hard, do not suffer. In many cases – from a boy being bullied in school, to a soldier dying in war – the sexist society that maintains male privilege also does great harm to boys and men.
In the end, however, it is men and not women who make the most money; men and not women who dominate the government and the corporate boards; men and not women who dominate virtually all of the most powerful positions of society. And it is women and not men who suffer the most from intimate violence and rape; who are the most likely to be poor; who are, on the whole, given the short end of patriarchy’s stick.”
source: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/
i can cite women’s issues too (complete with stats n numbers!1) but it’s a list too fucking long to write. there are more women’s studies groups maybe BECAUSE WOMEN HAVE IT WORSE? NAHHH, that’s definitely too far-fetched!!1
what i got from the article is that current existing men’s rights groups suck because they seem to always end up brewing misogyny than productive activity. this article lists a lot of the issues that mra’s dont address because they’re too busy comparing their hardships to that of a jewish person in 1940s germany
btw more articles you can read:
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/faq-what-is-male-privilege/
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/faq-female-privilege/
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/06/03/faq-arent-feminists-just-sexists-towards-men/
one more thing, you cannot deny that while privilege exists unless you are saying that racism against whites is on the same level as racism against blacks…
seriously, how hard is it to NOT support rape culture?
This is a nebulous concept, as is privilege, and also patriarchy. These are ill-defined terms, but deliberately so, because you do not have to prove what you are saying. Isn’t that curious to you? Don’t you find it at least somewhat curious that you use these terms as an excuse for bigoted slurs against people? So tell me, what is rape culture? Define it – in concrete terms – and support it. I want your reply to leave no room for uncertainty. What is rape culture? Prove rape culture. Provide proof. Remember: you must prove this as you are attempting to justify the hatred and bigotry of males.
single mothers and lesbian parents are in no position to be the head of the family because every child needs a fatherly figure to grow up into decent person or some stupid crap.
Well, to be frank, that is true. While it is true that most children from single parent families do not become delinquents, most delinquents are from single-parent families. Let me explain. It goes like this:
Most fatherless children do not become teenage suicides, but most
teenage suicides are fatherless children.
Most fatherless children do not become educational failures, but
most educational failures are fatherless children.
Most fatherless children do not become rapists, but most rapists
were fatherless children.
Most fatherless children do not become gang members, but most
gang members are fatherless children.
Most fatherless children do not become child abusers or child
molesters, but most child abusers and child molesters were fatherless
children.
Most fatherless children do not become unwed parents, but most
unwed parents were fatherless children.
Those are just the facts. If you go to any prison – anywhere – 90% of the inmates never knew their father.
So when it comes to custody of children, we would like the law to change to default joint custody.
We do not oppose affirmative action. For example, males make up 40% of all college graduates. We would like to see that boosted to 50%.
You say this:
In the end, however, it is men and not women who make the most money; men and not women who dominate the government and the corporate boards; men and not women who dominate virtually all of the most powerful positions of society. And it is women and not men who suffer the most from intimate violence and rape; who are the most likely to be poor; who are, on the whole, given the short end of patriarchy’s stick.”
This is problematic for the obvious reason that it smacks of envy, not injustice. It is not an injustice if it is men and not women who dominate the government, for example. Whoever is best qualified gets the job. Read this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/07/boardroom-gender-quotas-dangerous-burberry
This woman makes the case that it is not systemic oppression, but merit which places people at the top of society. You have not provided sufficient support to justify your hatred of males. It seems you envy them, but you cannot prove you are oppressed. That is your problem, not mine.
As for whether or not white privilege exists, I don’t know because those terms (as I mentioned earlier) are deliberately vague. You choose vague terms because you know they cannot be tested. You seem to assert them and stop, as though the assertion speaks for itself. It doesn’t.
Its good to see this article. I think there is a place for everyone, of every gender to take time out and reflect on ways that their socialization affects them. But that doesn’t negate the reality of sexism and the oppression of women, the point is actually starting with the understanding that sexism exists and how that affects each person. Reflective articles, such as those written by Calvin Sandborn were written with the intention of partnering men with women in ending sexism, not bolstering a backlash. But these articles could easily be used as fodder for more misinformation and anti feminist rhetoric. Looking within oneself, however, and facing one’s own potential sexism, is never a bad thing.
I think there is a place for everyone, of every gender to take time out and reflect on ways that their socialization affects them.
Yes I agree but there should also be a place for those who are biologically female-bodied and those who are biologically male-bodied.
But that doesn’t negate the reality of sexism and the oppression of women, the point is actually starting with the understanding that sexism exists and how that affects each person.
I think what you meant to say is:
But that doesn’t negate the reality of sexism and the oppression of women and men, the point is actually starting with the understanding that sexism exists and how that affects each person.
Reflective articles, such as those written by Calvin Sandborn were written with the intention of partnering men with women in ending sexism, not bolstering a backlash.
I agree and that is why I don’t condone the backlash against Warren Farrell at the U of T.
I am glad that this article will foster the ability for people to reflect on their own potential for sexism.
Whilst I disagree with much of what you’ve said here(seems like most of it) I have to express my appreciation for the fact that you haven’t filtered the responses. So many do, and I think it honorable that you have allowed for comments that don’t necessarily hold to your view point. So, on that note, thank you.
As a British writer and campaigner, and someone of 50% Canadian extraction, it pleases me to see the fuss at UoT. The screeching harpies and their male collaborators at the UoT have done more damage to the scourge of feminism than you can possibly imagine. The year is ending well for the MRM. It will really kick off in 2013, I believe. 30 years later than it should have, but better late than never. Have a nice day.
Mike Buchanan
ANTI-FEMINISM LEAGUE
http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com
CAMPAIGN FOR MERIT IN BUSINESS
http://c4mb.wordpress.com
Yeah, dude. Doxxing college students and threatening them with rape and murder is sure to advance the MRM.
I love the MRM. They’re a self-discrediting machine.
Interesting. The source of strength of feminism – and, more widely, socialism – is fantasies, lies, delusions and myths (and a number of conspiracy theories, e.g. the ‘patriarchy’). And the censorship which will keep this comment from your site’s visitors, Nineteen Eighty-Four style. By contrast, the source of strength of the MRM is facts, and truth. Good luck with that battle haha.
Mike Buchanan
ANTI-FEMINISM LEAGUE
http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com
If we didn’t let women read, they would never find out about our clubs.
lolz…sooooo many trolllolololols.. how do you find the time? Don’t you have better things to do than oppress and bully people online with your “facts”? Laughable, the lot of ya. So stuck in patriarchy that not only do you not want to acknowledge it exist’s, but you also probably want to see women back to barefoot in the kitchen making babies.
Hi CN. Left a reply to your comment earlier, but not published. What are the chances?
MIke Buchanan
ANTI-FEMINISM LEAGUE
http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com
The writer of this article is trying way too hard to get laid by fat, histrionic, shrill, irrational legbeards. Lol