Enter your email address here to receive updates from the team.
Don't buy into this pretend battle of the sexes.
Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12
Tags: feminism Let's talk about men
It is Bash a *violent* bitch - but still, a vile thing to write.
I'm aware of that Jezebel article you quoted - it's disgraceful and wrong.
MRA blogs are uniformly extreme - in fact, they are mirror images of the most extreme, most bitter and most deluded lunatic fringe of feminism. The problem with MRAs is this - there is no lunatic fringe - the entire organization is, broadly, the same.
Translation: I was hoping no one was going to bring up the jezebel article.
Shove your "feminists over there" crap. Extremenist feminists have been heralded by mainstream organizations like NOW. Valerie Solanas,the founder of SCUM=Society for Cutting Up Men,shot Andy Warhol and has been championed by NOW. Lorena Bobbitt,who sexually mutilated her husband,was championed by NOW. The Talk glorified what Katherine Kieu Becker did to her husband: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP4VeMJp9pE
Feel free to refute the above.
That mirror image is the point of the blogs, it holds up a mirror to things like the Jezebel article's description of real 'acceptable' violence complete with Facebook 'likes'. It's a debating technique.
That emotion you felt when you red the MRA article should be as strong when you read the Jezebel article, was it? It would seem not given that you think 'the problem' is the MRA's response, not the accounts of violence that prompted it.
Yes the MRA article was designed to shock and produce a 'what the fck' moment, but you're mis-using it and propagating lies.
I assume you also read this in the same MRA article "The better option is to kick her to the curb, figuratively speaking, and hopefully move on to some better choices. "
and they saw you comming with this comment;
"...this will be "preserved" in order to be taken out of context against you later."
"Designed to shock and produce a 'what the fck" moment'"
That's an interesting use of words. Some drama students from Sweden did just that: shot a deliberately shocking film advertising their theatrical production of The Scum Manifesto. MRAs, led my avoiceformen, decided that artistic freedom of expression didn't apply and deemed it a "murder party video".
Here's their reaction below:
MRAs are willfully stupid when it suits them. It;'s obvious to anyone with a modicum of critical thinking ability that they did not produce a video to encourage of promote murder - yet that's what MRAs claim.
Some of the Swedish drama students tried to explain, using your exact words, what they had done and why. They were ignored in the hysteria that followed. Actually, they didn't seem remotely bothered that a group of US MRAs were cyber-stalking them.
I'm well aware that MRAs will claim yet another victory for the attention that this thread and comments give them - it's what they do. It's quite sad.
Yeah, but I'm not the one being " willfully stupid " and claiming these shock debating tactics are expressions of actual violence, you are....but only when it's men doing it. And your sexist world view is so deeply ingrained I'm not even sure you realize your doing it.
"It is Bash a *violent* bitch - but still, a vile thing to write."
Are you trying to make false accusations relating to violence?
"I'm aware of that Jezebel article you quoted - it's disgraceful and wrong."
Yes is was, is was a celebration of real domestic violence. However the article of Paul Elams you mention that is in response to the feminists on Jezebele celebrating real violence, is a tongue in cheek article that contains an anti-bullying, anti-domestic violence and anti-sexist double standards message.
You are telling lies and applying sexist double standards.
For the other readers, here is the article that MRA WATCH is trying to mislead you about, even though the piece is question is anti-violence, the owner of the feminist web site MRA WATCH is recommending you visit, changed the original context in order to make a false accusation relating to violence against the author of the article.
No, no lies and no libel. Just presenting MRA theories and then watching all of you try to justify the misogyny and pseudo-violent imagery prevalent.
Another typical MRA tactic is to announce imminent victory or, as has been done here, to "thank" anyone who criticizes them for "helping" them. This is painfully embarrassing, but still they do it.
And all the MRAs have remained quiet about their celebrated modus operandi of publishing personal details of anyone who criticizes MRAs/MRA theories.
"And all the MRAs have remained quiet about their celebrated modus operandi of publishing personal details of anyone who criticizes MRAs/MRA theories."
I have to call you out as the liar you are.
When someone calls for the extermination of another group based on genetics what is that?
A Hate Crime, is the correct response.
Quite clearly the RadFemHub is a group promoting hate crimes. If you look at the AgentOrange files this is not even open for debate.
Yet, you have your underwear in a knot over MRA's "outing" and "doxing" admitted bigots that promote violence and hate crimes along with drugging the entire populous as acceptable means to the end(of men specifically).
Sorry buddy but they did the world a large public service.
You criticize the MRM regularly(if ineffectively) yet, I have never seen your personal information. And, we know you really aren't bright enough to hide if we wanted to find you. Is this yet another of your lies?
Here you claim to take offense to Jezebel's article.
To that I must ask, "How is your website WomanWang doing?" You know the one where you call out the hatred inherent in radical feminism and gender feminism? What is that you don't have any such site? So, you sit around cackling with a bunch of man-haters denying that men have very real grievances that must be dealt with if society is to improve and prosper. That several feminist movements actually encourage not only not addressing those grievances but seek to exacerbate them?
You sir, are worse than a Quisling. You are a morally bankrupt hypocrite.
I will say, yet again, that I am NOT David Futrelle.
I criticize the MRM because I think it damages the men involved in it, probably more so than it damages women, and because it poisons the debates that should be happening.
For the record, far from viewing all men as "bad" or "potential abusers", I view all people as having a great capacity for good. And, as it happens, I don't even think that all MRAs are bad - I think that MRAs have a right to be angry - but that that anger is totally misdirected.
I agree with MRAs on marriage (it's just a bad idea), on the draft (it should be dropped), on circumcizion (it's just plan wrong, for boys and girls) and also on the concept of chivalry. But instead of complaining about doors being held open for women, I suggest that doors are held open for everyone. In much of the western world there is a system that (sometimes, not always) seeks to understand why women commit crime and offer help and compassion with punishment, whilst that same system (usually, with some exceptions) jumps straight to the punishment part with men. As a liberal, I want the men treated with the same compassion - not women to be treated with equal harshness.
MRAs are right to point out that 21st century employment is increasingly more suited to women - which will cause inequality in future years. But they are wrong to blame this on feminism - market forces are at play. An effective pro-male lobby would jealously guard affirmative action as I think, in some areas, men will be under-represented in the coming years. Unemployment, and under-employment, is going to be a massive problem for men. MRAs got it right that men should reject the notion that they should be providers - but they are wrong, totally and completely wrong, to blame this on feminism.
You see where I'm going with this? Men are in trouble - but MRAs are blaming the wrong people.
Look at the feminist running a false accusation, double standards and smear campaign.
Also, I've pasted link to a website that has collated a lot of the really extreme stuff coming out of that, and other, websites.
I stumbled onto MRAs not too long ago and was really shocked.
It's really easy to be shocked when you don't actually read any of the articles but just read the titles.
And how can you be shocked that men are the majority of rape victims? Two words: Prison. Rape.
Or the war rapes in the DRC?
And which gender is doing the awful rapes of men in prison?
Yoyo - what a thuggish and offensive thing to write. Truly appalling.
The suffering of prisoners sexually abused, by staff and other prisoners, is a perpetual crisis - one that shames the US. The sex of the abuser is irrelevant. I Googled the refernce to war and was deeply shocked.
Others on this page have rightfully objected to your words and your tone.
Are you really mentally deficient?
That possibility is the only thing preventing me from going verbally medieval on you right now.
95% of faculty that sexually abuse juveniles in detention are female!
Despite females not making up anywhere near 95% of the staff.
Victims of this abuse by percentage are roughly the same but, we put 10 boys in detention for every girl so they are infact 10 times the number of juvenile prison rape victims.
And, the DOJ has known that females can and do sexually abuse both male and female charges for the last 5 years and not done a thing about it...... But, the majority of the victims are male so don't really count.
Or now are we going to admit that rapists of either gender are NOT representative of the entire gender and your whole argument is utter BS? And, that mine still begs the answer to why we are not helping these boys and girls?
I really hope you are not now or, are never a parent. Your views can only damage a developing mind.
"And which gender is doing the awful rapes of men in prison?"
Can you explain your logic here, are you suggesting that rape victims that have been raped by someone of the same sex do not count?
Is it any wonder there are problems in this debate, with feminists all too often bringing comments that - misandric and devoid of rationality and compassion to the table when very serious things like violent prison rape are being discussed.
Hmm, I might have to agree with the MRA below. Prison rape is a real and truly horrifying problem. One that MRAs are doing nothing about, except rant about "feminists".
Their statistics don't stack up though. And, of course, MRAs claim that 80% of rape claims are false - so how could they actually offer help to people they think are liars? Unless, of course, they only believe women lie about these things?
Here's avoiceformen's opinion on how some women "damn near demand" to be raped:
I just want to correct this lying, false accusing feminist.
The stats that mras commonly cite for false rape are a UK gov study that conforms a 10% rate found during the course of rape investigation.
And a smaller one that actually looks for false accusations that shows a 41% rate.
Readers, note how often these feminists make false accusations relating to rape.
So if I decide to shoot a bunch of women, or sexually assault them, we shouldn't consider those women victims because a woman was the perpetrator?
We only care about victims if the person who harmed them was the opposite gender now?
Your comment is so devoid of intellect that I don't know how to start addressing it. It has nothing to do with anything I wrote. I'm ignoring you.
Look at the feminist with nothing to contribute but bile.
Louise I think you aptly resolve the intentions of the authors, to simply mock issues men are facing. If you are representative of feminist thought and social discourse I for one can do without a sermon from the pedestal. Such a display of intelligence and thought is simply irrelevant to the discussion and to the times. Men are choosing to ignore the narcissism of your offering. The authors along with yourself are simply not qualified to address men's issues and as a result you embarrass yourself, your ideology and this magazine.
Well Louise, 'idiotic', 'hateful', 'thick as mud', 'idiots' dear oh dear, you are in a bit of a state aren't you?
Interesting that you shout in UPPER CASE, but accuse men of 'whining' and 'winging'.
"presume a position of authority..." No, that's called 'knowing what you're talking about' and my lived experience as a man trumps your half-baked assertions any day of he week.
"call women hysterical for using facts," - no, there are no facts in the OP, only cherry-picked quotes piled upon groundless assertions and witless insults. Like most young women, Rhiannon and Holly are expert in withering put-downs and scathing abuse, but that power and influence is based only on their gender, and so they react with fury to any men who aren't grovelling. Increasingly though, men are just seeing them for the entitled princesses they are, with nothing to say of any value.
It might help you, Rhiannon, Holly and Helen Lewis if you understand the following: most MRAs are quite capable of believing that women should have equal rights with men in all ways, but what you're seeing in these comments is men refusing to be blamed, shamed, stereotyped, humiliated, ignored and sidelined when women demand privilege and special status.
Indeed it says everything that Rhiannon and Holly - two young, white, lightweight, middle-class feminist women - are considered by Helen Lewis to be the best-qualified writers to kick-off a week-long series of NS blog posts on 'issues facing men', can you imagine the furore if thoese positions were reversed?
As usual, men are defined by how well we please women. Well, an increasing number of us aren't having it anymore - you can mock all you like - many of the comments here are far more thoughtful, provocative and insightful than the dross of an article they're attached to.
"As usual, men are defined by how well we please women."
this is very well crafted, most thought provoking. for me anyways...
not sure though how far back "as usual" started?
Since Lucy, the australopithecus.
So your cherry picking some posts to support your postion, and ignoring the more thoughtful ones. The corner stone of lazy thinking the world over.
Louise - you seem to be forgetting that there were no comments before the article? So in fact what you are saying is that the 'mocking in tone' article was written in anticipation of antagonising males into responding in kind rather than being any serious attempt to discuss male problems in society?
Yep sounds about right .
Show me a woman who doesn't enjoy a bit of patriarchy now and again and I'll show you a dried up prune.
...........really? You read that article and you felt 'that' comment would be an appropriate response?
The response is far more intelligent than the article, so I guess it might be considered inappropriate insofar as it gives feminists too much credit.
Er point well made. I think.
(Your point was presumably how often criticisms of feminism are just misogyny right?)
Louise I do believe that some attacks on feminsm are mysoginistic. I also believe that some militant feminism is misandrist.
What I do know is that many women like a man to be gently dominating when she feels like it. That's called life, not sexual politics.
"Stand by your man" was Tammy Wynette, not Pasty Cline.
As the law stands in the UK at present it is legal to name a man accused of rape - a woman is granted anonymity. The folly of this is seen in the recent Ched Evans debacle and the false allegations that put David Carrington-Jones in jail.
Hope I am not subconsciously phallocentrically oppressing you.
it isn't feminism that's harming men. it's patriarchy. feminists don't promote national service for men, control the prison system or decide that women must always be primary caregivers. It's patriarchy doing those things.
I'm so bored of MRA types not understanding this and blaming all this crap at women's door.
Feminists are lobbying for incarcerated women to be released on house arrest. They're not doing the same for men, are they?
So don't give me this horsecrap that feminazis aren't responsible.
So, it's your opinion that the reason that women win custody in divorces is that the judges insist on it and impose the kids on them? That the women don't fight for custody and/or don't want it?
As for women and national service, please do go google "white feather brigade".
"it isn't feminism that's harming men. it's patriarchy."
Show me the difference. They have all the same assumptions - that men are disposable when it comes to taking care of women and thus men's concenrs are secondary to womens - and this article drips with that particular attitude - that women need to be defended and protected from men, and that men's activities such as work outside the home are somehow mre important, so when women should naturally aspire to them and should be accomodated in entering them, but women's activities in the home are lesser and men should have no real interest in them, they are women's preserve anyway, and men should be kept out (and spare the remonstrations about how feminists are all about men tending children, when the concrete institutional advocacy of feminist groups like NOW put the lie to that.)
The truth is there is not a dime's worth of difference between the two. Feminism is far too often really just the Ladies' Auxiliary of the Patriarchy, patriarchy in fashionable progressive drag.
So yes, it is the patriarchy that oppresses men, and no, that does not mena that feminism is somehow absolved of inflicting some of that oppression.
Please provide citations for mras "blaming all this crap at women's door."
Please provide citations for issues that the men's movement incorrectly blames feminism for.
Lets see just from these comments we have a) the number of men in prison and b) the number of men that get raped by other men in prison.
If that's what you think, you misunderstand. Nobody here is blaming feminism for the number of men in prison, or prison rape.
Some might point out that feminist activism has rolled back civil rights the US which has contributed to the mass incarceration of men and the idea of "rape culture" was co-opted by feminists from men in prison and excluded the men that started the conversation  and that historically in the gender debate feminists have responded to people trying to get issues like prison rape and the men at the bottom of society into the conversation and so on on to the table with mockery and derision - "what about teh menz lol" - that's clearly the result of the gynocentric and misandrist mentality that exists within feminism, and feminism and feminist are criticized for it, and rightly so, but there is no blaming feminism for the fact that men are imprisoned disproportionately or prison rape, that would be irrational as these things exist with or without feminism.
The gender disparity in prison sentencing is well documented, larger than any disparity based on race, and is something feminism has advocated to widen through official edicts recommending more lenient sentencing for women in the UK. Women getting away with crimes (the harsher the crime, the greater the gender disparity in conviction rates and sentencing, in fact), is a patriarchal construct that feminism has only exacerbated.
Rape of men in prison isn't something any MRA has laid at feminism's door (that I know of). It IS, however, a men's issue, and one that is routinely sidelined and dismissed as unimportant. Most men in prison are there for non-violent offences, and in the US, at least 50,000 of them every year are there for being unable to pay child support, and 78% of all male prisoners were raised in single mother households.
Any idea that feminist values--female reproductive freedom without full accountability, for instance, which encourages the creation of single-mother households while chaining biological fathers to obligations they never chose and which arise from the unilateral decisions of women--helps men and boys is ridiculous on its face. No one is saying men in prison rape men at feminism's behest, but considering how many men in prison right now are there as a result of feminist values, I'm kind of wondering what your point is.
I wonder, are you also tired of feminist activist types blaming all their crap at men's door?
"feminists don't...decide that women must always be primary caregivers."
Yes they do, here, go and look for yourself: http://www.nownys.com/leg_memos/oppose_s1349.htm
Dear Rhiannon, Holly (and Helen)
Would it help you, and all the other correspondents, to have an example of clear anti-male bias to work from? One that isn't open to argument, fudged statistics, or alternative opinions? One which, I hope, might help put the debate back on track?
In the UK, around 1,200 cases of 'international child relocation' are brought before the High Court in London each year.
In almost all these cases, it is the mother who wishes to relocate abroad with a child against the wishes of a father who is remaining in the UK.
The main UK case law in this area is Payne vs Payne (1) 2001.
Payne vs Payne is used today as the leading authority for child relocation decisions in the UK. Here are some highlights (and I attach below a link to the full decision, so you can read it for yourselves).
"S [the child] was born and raised in the UK....she is now almost nine..."
"She is greatly loved by the father..."
"If my calculations are correct, what all this means is that, in every cycle of 56 days, S (the child) spends 23 nights with the father."
"There can be only one resident parent... S spends marginally more time with the mother, [and so] we recognise that is she [the mother])."
"The way in which the parent who properly has custody of a child may choose in a reasonable manner to order his or her way of life is one of those things which the parent who has not been given custody may well have to bear, even though one has every sympathy with the latter on some of the results."
"The father, who has had a close and loving relationship with his daughter, earns around £40,000 per year, and would be able to afford to visit her or have her visit him two or three times a year which mitigates the loss to the child and to him. I can see no fault in the approach of the judge to this case and no grounds to set aside the order which he made."
"The mother and child may, in this case, relocate to New Zealand."
I'll just let that sit there for a moment.
Take your time.
Now, here's what feminists are going to say: they're going to argue this is NOT discrimination because; "actually the law is gender neutral, it just so happens that almost all non-resident parents are men, but this is the result of gender stereotyping and societal expectations which feminists are working to address".
To which I reply: bulls**t.
We know that is a lie, because feminists consistently oppose, and have opposed, any move towards shared parenting in legislation, in every country in which it has been introduced. In the U.S., Canada, Australia, UK and New Zealand, they have fought it tooth and nail, at all levels of government. Some of the largest feminist organisations in the world have campaigned, lobbyed and demonstrated to enforce the unequal status quo in family law.
Oh yes, feminists are quite satisfied with gender stereotyping thank you very much, when it suits them.
Feminists are hypocrites, pure and simple.
Feminism is pro-women to the point where they are quite happy to sacrifice men and childrens' interests.
It is a supremacist ideology, based on hatred and selfish self-interest.
1 - http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed24
>Healthcare is another one, with access to resources and outcomes massively biased towards women, even if childbirth related resources are discounted.
Now I was under the impression that 18th century feminist were the reason why being female became a sickness and being male a matter for the judge. We've got a whole culture of fixing females via medical technology and men via the penal code created by evil 18th century feminists. Truefax.
The only reason why women appear to have the upper hand nowadays in the field of medicine is because medicine has become a more scientific venture while the penal code still relys on extralegal anal rape, the capital punishment and a prison system that breeds crime and poverty in its inmates. But I'm certain that feminists are to blame for coming to profit from a creeping improvement that took some 100 years to actually start showing some noticably positive results.
And as an European, I find this whole discussion hilarious. We've got France in our Union, and their love for the delcaration of human rights just got laws limiting father's equal access to their children after divorce shot down.
Funnily, those laws were a remnant of Nazi legislation.
So to me, blaming the feminist movement for all the hardships men face in the social and legal sphere and lauding MRAsm as the solution appears to be a very pundit-like stance. One that fails to address root causes and attitudes neither sides had any part in creating... which were, in fact, created during a time when women were excluded from the socio-political sphere completely and men's suffrage was extremely limited to nonexistant too.
Putting the 18th Century to one side.
We currently have a situation were early death of men from illness, homelessness and general services to support those at the bottom of the heap are under resourced compared to those available for women.
There are a number of cultural reasons for this, one of which is feminists unending demand for larger slices of the public purse to be funnelled into female only services. I was grateful to the fantastic care my wife received for her breast cancer, but we where very aware aware we’d entered a parallel NHS with spotless rooms and plenty of staff, an NHS that was very much not available for my Grandfather being treated for cancer at the same time.
Those who proclaim themselves champions for equality should be arguing for equal provision of all citizens, based on need not gender.
Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett and Holly Baxter are co-founders and editors of online magazine, The Vagenda.