Enter your email address here to receive updates from the team.
David Benatar's book has valid comments to make about the position of men.
Tags: feminism Let's talk about men
Sure, I don't mind addressing that one.
I'm a firm believer in gender equality. I believe women are fantastic, I enjoy their company, it goes without saying that they should have just as many rights as men do, and as many opportunities.
But I'm afraid feminism IS a hate movement. It's not about confusing misandry with feminism, it's about understanding the core driving impetus behind their views.
At the one end of feminism you've got your Julie Bindels, the RadFems. I think they're a bit cult-ish this lot. They just hate men. Men can't do anything good. Even if a man was to chop his bits off and become a woman, they'd still hate him - and in fact they do. They celebrate women - such as Kiranjit Ahluwalia - who burn men alive.
They're the ideological hard liners. They're aggressive from the off, but generally ignore MRAs. If they got the chance, they'd like to see them dead though.
Think of them like the SS - or Pot Pot's KPRP cadres - or Mao's Red Guard.
Right at the other end, you've got perfectly lovely young women, and a few men, who are outraged by FGM, or sexist violence, or media objectification, or any number of sensible issues. They don't like the Julie Bindels, but Julie doesn't care. You can always spot this lot, because if you ask them about equal rights for fathers, or about support for health programmes aimed at men, this lot are quick to mock and ridicule. They've been ridiculing boys since they were little, and they're good at it. Once they realise that's not working, because you don't actually want to get into their knickers, they become aggressive. They can't ignore MRAs, because fundamentally they're quite decent, and they can see that there's some real, justified issues there.
Think of this lot like the German housewife in 1933 who voted for the Nazis in the hope they'd deliver some order, but she got on quite well with the Jewish family across the way.
That's your spectrum. Don't get me wrong - I don't hate feminists, I don't hate people in the EDL or settlers in the West Bank either. I just think they're all misguided and that by following an ideology that prioritises the wishes and perceived needs of one group: zionists, white people or women; you will inevitably end up in a position of hate against 'the other/opposite' whether thats Arabs/non-white people/men.
I just felt a crushing sense of disappointment upon reading your words. You present your thoughts in a reasoned and ordered way, but your theories are devoid of realizm.
Julie Bindel categorically does not want to kill all men, most men, quite a few men or, as it happens, any men. That's just lazy and really quite puerile thinking. The Kiranjit Ahluwalia is sloppy and lazy - the verdict quashing her appeal was "celebrated". Aside from the tiresome repetition of RadFemHub, there exists no desire within feminism to burn/kill men. That's not to say that I agree with a lot of what Bindel says: I don't. Her thoughts on pornography and sex work, for a start, I think are very problematic - hers is a particular feminism that I don't find much to agree with. Many feminists and feminisms disagree with her passionately (pro-sex, pro-BDSM, for example).
You gave no other examples but did litter your comments with faintly veiled references to sexual agency (get in their knickers) and latent prejudice (mocked boys since they were young).
You finished up by describing MRAs as quite decent. Could you list some that you find decent? And their blogs?
And, also, where feminists actually meet MRAs? MRAs are notable by their total absence from any arena outwith the internet.
"Julie Bindel categorically does not want to kill all men, most men, quite a few men or, as it happens, any men. That's just lazy and really quite puerile thinking."
How do you know that? Are you a mind reader? Bindel openly writes columns like "Why I Hate Men" and gets them published in mainstream media outlets. She also regularly cites bogus rape and violence statistics to bolster her nonsense arguments.
Presumably, D.W. Griffith, 100 years ago, might have been quite disturbed had he ever had to witness first-hand, or participate, in the lynchings of hundreds of black men. Yet, the fact that we can reasonably doubt that he would've lynched a black man himself doesn't excuse the appalling and vicious stereotyping of black men he perpetrated. BIRTH OF A NATION helped revive the moribund Ku Klux Klan. Actions of consequences. Ideas have consequences. Griffith's racistvision of what black men were like is really no different from Bindel's misandrist vision of what men in general are like. EVERYTHING Griffith claimed was true about the "real nature" of black men is IDENTICAL to what Bindel claims is the "real nature" of men. There is no difference whatever, except for the fact that Griffith had far more technical skill as a director than Bindel ever manifested as a so-called writer.
If anyone is guilty of lazy and puerile thinking, it's you. And you seem quite oblivious that Griffiths' defenders made the exact same sort of statements about him in his day. Yet, the very real harm he caused cannot be ignored. Very real acts of violence were carried out against black men as a consequence of the schlock, soap-opera, mawkishly sentimental vision of reality he perpetrated, in which innocent, helpless white women were always at the mercy of the depraved lusts of bestial black rapists. Take out the racial dynamic, and Bindel's vision of reality is exactly the same as Griffiths'.
Let me ask you this: what do you spend your money on?
Compared to 1970, the average family today (and I'm using family, but might as well be an individual, or couple) spends less on food, clothing, holidays, and all other discretionary spending (discretionary is the important word there, keep it in mind) as a propotion of their income.
However, in 1970 the vast majority of families in the UK (and in most of the developed world) could have 10-15% of their income going into savings, just 5% on childcare and just 20-30% on housing costs. Just 10% went on utilities/bills. These are 'fixed' non-discretionary expenses.
Today, the proportion of household spending on 'fixed' expenses has massively increased - to the point where more than 60% of UK middle-class have no savings at all.
This means housing is vastly more expensive and unaffordable for many, and that families are much less able to withstand the pressures of a sudden unplanned event such as loss of a job, illness or disability or death.
What drove this change? Women going out to work.
The large-scale addition of women to the workplace meant that double-income households out-competed single-income households for housing, the best schools etc. The cost of childcare rocketed. The result was an 'arms race' where everyone had to work in order simply to keep up. Does this sound far-fetched? It's not - see Elizableth Warren's lecture 'The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class' for more details, or the work of Nobel Laureate Gary Becker. This is a close to a consensus in modern economic theory as you can get.
Does this mean I think women shouldn't work? Of course not, I absolutely believe women should be able to live fully independent lives of their own choosing. However I also have to acknowledge that the result has been a deeply unhappy, atomised, impoverished society.
To your specific points:
"Julie Bindel categorically does not want to kill all men, most men, quite a few men or, as it happens, any men."
No, and David Irving isn't an anti-semite who wants to kill the jews. He'd hold someone's coat while they were doing it though. Makes him just as bad IMHO.
"The Kiranjit Ahluwalia is sloppy and lazy - the verdict quashing her appeal was "celebrated". "
Yes that's rather my point. I don't see much to celebrate in that case, do you? Unless you really, really hate men perhaps, in which case you might think that burning one alive was a right good laugh.
Feminists are obsessed with sex.
"faintly veiled references to sexual agency (get in their knickers) and latent prejudice (mocked boys since they were young)."
Nothing 'faintly veiled' about that, but if you're going to come over all 'fainting spinster' about it, try replacing it with 'seeking approval'. And that's not prejudice, I'm just telling it like it is.
"You finished up by describing MRAs as quite decent. Could you list some that you find decent? And their blogs? "
I was actually describing feminists as decent. I'm sure there are good MRA blogger though.
As for meeting MRAs. I don't know the answer to that one. Where do you think they should meet? Why would they?
Your points lack cohesion.
What does feminists alleged hatred of men have to do with the feminist movement successfully managing to create a society where women can and do pursue careers?
Re Julie Bindel - you've basically acknowledged, through ommission, that you can't find anything to back up your claim that she wants to kill all/most/some men.
Re Kiranjit Ahluwalia - should the over-turning of misscarriages of justice NOT be celebrated? MRAs claim that men suffer as much domestic violence as women. Shouldn't advances in law to protect those abused be welcomed by MRAs?
Can you not move beyond the rest of your cliches? Feminists obsessessed with sex, men being so basic that they strive for "female approval" - it's just really boring. People are people, with all the complication that that entails.
I'm sure some MRAs are decent - but I'm equally sure that the majority of their writings portray them as angry, intolerant people.
"Julie Bindel - you've basically acknowledged, through ommission, that you can't find anything to back up your claim that she wants to kill all/most/some men."
She openly celebrated Ahluwalia's despicable behaviour. Which means she does indeed openly celebrate the killing of "some men," since that's what Ahluwalia did. The notion that Ahluwalia was some pure victim is laughable. Her relationship with her husband was a textbook case of what domestic violence expert Erin Pizzey described as being very common in households with spousal abuse: that is, the violence went BOTH WAYS and it was a MUTUALLY dysfunctional, MUTUALLY unhealthy, MUTUALLY abusive relationship (the same goes for John and Lorena Bobbitt). (The immediate impetus seems to have been the sexual jealousy and rage of a woman scorned, since he had conducted various affairs and had vowed to leave her for good. If so - wouldn't you applaud and cheer if this monstrously abusive tyrant was finally going to be out of your life? Her story simply doesn't add up.)
The only thing the Ahluwalia verdict demonstrates is that in a battle between two abusers, the one who is the more ruthless and savage of the two can have the last laugh if they know how to manipulate the system.
But in Bindel's idiotic worldview, the despicable hypocrite Ahluwalia is a hero for committing a depraved act of violence. Many husbands and fathers who snap and go out and purchase a gun and kill their whole families have severely abusive wives too, you know. Does that mean we should applaud them when they snap and kill their families? Does that mean we give them a medal for "bravery"?
"What does feminists alleged hatred of men have to do with the feminist movement successfully managing to create a society where women can and do pursue careers? "
Let me be quite clear. Modern feminism is a hate movement.
Originally it wasn't - Betty Friedan for example was, despite being a curmudgeon, pretty fair-minded. She wasn't out to destroy the family, and she was concerned with equality. But fairly soon - sometime in the early 70's - feminism stopped being about equality and started becoming a corrosive, anti-family, hate-filled, anti-male rheoric. Now Friedan was responsible for resurrecting patriarchy theory' from the dead mind of Engels, which is where it should have stayed (as opposed to kyriarchal theory, which provides a basis to examine intersectionalism, and which thus is actually quite useful in understanding privilege and disadvantage).
So you will come across some feminists, such as Elisabeth Fiorenza who coined kyriarchy, who are pretty awesome. However I suspect that if Frieden was alive today she would despair of contemporary feminism. I suspect that Fiorenza would voice some concerns too. Modern feminism has degenerated into a divisive hate movement, and I have as little time for the fun-fems as I do for the rad-fems - wherever they are on the spectrum, they're just one step away from continuing to screw up society.
Julie 'why I hate men' Bindel (1) hates men. She hates all men. She hates men who rape, and men who have the potential to rape, which is all men. She even hates men who remove their genitals and become women - she thinks they're just men playing at dressing up. What do you think the world would look like if Julie Bindel ran it?
Kiranjit Ahluwalia - this was NOT a miscarriage of justice. Have you read about this case? She poured petrol over her husband while he was sleeping and BURNED HIM ALIVE.
We don't do that to serial killers, we don't do it to genocide merchants. Her argument was that she'd been beaten and controlled for years. Still, she wasn't so controlled that she could nip down to the local garage of an evening and fill a four-gallon can with 4-star was she? Anyway, how did he brutalise her? "He didn't like me cooking with hot chillies," well then - the bastard - deserved everything he got didn't he? The decision in this case to reduce murder to manslaughter was nothing less than an outrage, and a slur against a man who can no longer speak for himself.
As for the rest of it, yes I am angry.
I'm angry with women's groups who campaign for women to retain sole residence of children, while simultaneously bleating that it's stereotyping to be seen as child-carers.
I'm angry that every advert and programme portrays men as idiots and cretins, and women as 'special' and on a pedestal.
I'm angry that Helen Lewis can merrily commission two flighty young girls with little life experience beyong giggling about 'vajazzles' and TOWIE to write about issues facing men like myself with children, homes and responsibilities.
I'm angry that I will die younger than I should, in part because of the additional stresses placed on me by the need to work to support my family, and that I will never be thanked or acknowleded for this sacrifice.
I'm angry that at any moment, a woman can throw a husband out of his home, stop him seeing his children, and reduce him from being a loving day-to-day Dad, to a once-fortnightly visitor, and there's nothing one can do about it (yep, you guessed it).
I'm angry that my worth as a man, is defined by you and the NS authors as my utility to women. I have my own worth thank you.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't let my anger drive me into intolerance, nor do I emulate the hate of my enemies.
Nevertheless, I am clear they are my enemies.
I could go on, but needless to say
I'll deal with your points one by one. I respectfully challenge you to rebut them.
"Let me be quite clear. Modern feminism is a hate movement."
No, it isn't. It's an amalgamation of different political philosophies that challenge gender norms and strives for equality. You can wax lyrical about spectrums, dead "true" feminists turning in their graves and Julie Bindel all you like, until you produce credible evidence that "modern feminism is a hate movement" your words are meaningless.
Re Julie Bindel - did you read the strapline to her article "Why I hate men"? Rather sloppy if you didn't. Anyway, it said "At least those who perpetrate crimes against women and those who do nothing to stop it." That, obviously, voids the point that you made.
Re Kiranjit Ahluwalia - I haven't read the case notes or much about it. A court of law granted her appeal.
"I'm angry with women's groups who campaign for women to retain sole residence of children, while simultaneously bleating that it's stereotyping to be seen as child-carers."
Which women's groups campaign for these issues simultaneously? In fact, which women's groups campaign for women to retain sole residence of children?
"I'm angry that I will die younger than I should, in part because of the additional stresses placed on me by the need to work to support my family, and that I will never be thanked or acknowleded for this sacrifice."
Thanks to feminism, women having careers of their own means that you don't need to worry about supporting your family by yourself. And isn't Men's Rights Activism all about rejecting gender stereotypes? That's what a lot of feminism is about too. It seems adherent to both philosophies are wanting to challenge the gendered status quo.
"I'm angry that at any moment, a woman can throw a husband out of his home, stop him seeing his children, and reduce him from being a loving day-to-day Dad, to a once-fortnightly visitor, and there's nothing one can do about it (yep, you guessed it)."
This is standard MRA orthodoxy. Here's what really happens:
"A study by the Oxford Centre for Family Law and Policy was set up by the Ministry of Justice to look into non-resident parents being awarded little or no contact with their children for the flimsiest of reasons. Last week, the study concluded that the vast majority of separated fathers enjoy access to their children. Only one in 10 cases ends up in court, the rest having been agreed between the parents. When the cases do go to court, more than three-quarters of the applicants, mainly fathers, are able to resolve contact issues, with only a small percentage denied contact altogether, in the interests of the children involved." (1)
"I'm angry that my worth as a man, is defined by you and the NS authors as my utility to women. I have my own worth thank you."
I don't wish to lower the tone of a reasoned and sensible debate, but this is cliched nonsense.
1. Feminism is a hate movement. You clearly disagree, well that's OK. I'm not sure why you disagree, as so much of feminism is clearly about hating men. However we'll have to agree to disagree I guess.
2. Julie Bindel. Yes I read the strapline to her article. It does not void the point I made. The point you're missing is that when Julie says 'men who rape' she means rapists, and when she says 'and the men who do nothing to stop it' she means ALL OTHER MEN i.e. all men are either rapists or complicit in rape. There's no point arguing about this - I can assure you if Julie reads this she'll be nodding her head in agreement.
3. "Which women's groups campaign for these issues simultaneously? In fact, which women's groups campaign for women to retain sole residence of children?"
Answer: As far as I can tell, all of them. Every single major established feminist lobbying group in the English-speaking world.
National Organisation for Women
Key quote: "The National Organization for Women-New York State has always favored a primary caregiver (usually the mother) presumption to ensure stability and continuity of care for children. If the father has not been involved in a major way in the lives of the children during the marriage, why would that involvement increase after divorce?"
Australia, UK etc. etc. you get the picture. I can't be bothered posting more links - there all much the same.
4. "...you don't need to worry about supporting your family by yourself. And isn't Men's Rights Activism all about rejecting gender stereotypes? That's what a lot of feminism is about too."
BS. As you can see from the links above, feminists are quite happy to reinforce gender stereotypes when it suits them to do so.
Consider yourself thoroughly rebutted.
Feminists think the following: "Men are vile creatures, except when they're cash machines, then they can work till they drop for my benefit. At any point if they look like they're not focusing sufficiently on being prodcutive for my benefit i.e. if they go to comic conventions and live with their parents; we must mock them mercilessly until they conform.
I'm special, oh so special, and fully deserve to have all the organs of the state produce special laws and freedoms for my benefit. I want to be free, like in the song by Queen, to either stay home or go to work - it's my choice. If I make that choice, it'll mean my partner has to work harder. That's his duty. His duty is to provide for me. Why? Because I'm special. If I get bored with him I'll just chuck him out, and the courts will tell him to keep giving me money. I deserve this money because I have a vagina, and I'm special.
By the way, I'm oppressed too, did you know that? I'm oppressed by the patriarchy. That's an invisible force that permeates society. You can't see it, but it's there. A bit like radiation, or the freemasons. The patriarchy puts cosmetic surgery ads all over the place that make me feel a bit under pressure to make myself look nice. They should ban those ads you know, because although I'm special, I'm not quite bright enough to resist advertisers' pressure, so I should be shielded from them like kids are from sweetie ads."
I'm expected to shave my legs and wear make-up - that's oppressing too. Apparently I have to look nice so I can land a fella who'll give me his money. I should just get money anyway. After all, no-one expects men to shave and brush their teeth do they?
Did I tell you I'm special? What do you mean I'm not special? Bastard. You must be a rapist."
5. "Oxford Centre for Family Law and Policy says blah, blah..."
Yeah that's right MRAWatch, there's no problem at all with family law. All those nutters dressed up as Spiderman in Fathers 4 Justice? Just making it up. Familes Need Fathers? Bob Geldof? Louis de Bernieres? Fatherhood Institute? Completely deluded - there's nothing to see here, it's all working great.
If you believe that, you're a fool. Look up Payne vs Payne and tell me there isn't an issue.
Shove it MRAWatch. As you can see from the comments on this topic, men are increasingly not buying it. There's no reason to support women's privilege, God knows we get little enough in return.
Women are great, but they're not worth the price or the risks. If you want kids it's easy enough to have them, and you certainly don't need to get mixed up in marriage to do so.
Men should not support women, period. It infantilises them and makes them entitled.
"1. Feminism is a hate movement. You clearly disagree, well that's OK. I'm not sure why you disagree, as so much of feminism is clearly about hating men. However we'll have to agree to disagree I guess."
You haven't produced any evidence whatsoever that he broad church of political groupings that constitute feminism is a hate movement. It's a not a case of agreeing to disagree, it's a case of you not being able to substantiate your claim. Which is understandable, as your premise is completely lacking in truth.
2. Julie Bindel
From one of the most reactionary and prominent feminist writers today, you are absolutely unable to produce a single piece of evidence that supported your claim that she wanted to kill all men (or even some/most men). Further, you have been completely unable to find a single piece of evidence (that isn't easily rebutted, like this piece) supporting your notion that she hates all men. She hates a specific, statistically tiny, percentile of men. I'll help you out on this one, have a look at what she says about vegetarians (one of the many reasons I dislike her, along with her views (though oft misquoted) on trans people.
3. "As far as I can tell, all of them. Every single major established feminist lobbying group in the English-speaking world."
You're basing that on what exactly? In making these sweeping and bold claims, you set yourself up to look silly.
But let's deal with what you have claimed, which is again totally incorrect.
You claimed that all feminist groups want to retain sole residence of children and offer by way of proof a feminist group, from Michigan, who "opposes forced joint custody" and then give sensible suggestions on why they do (violence, unsuitability of the other parent etc). Opposing forced joint custody is not the same as wanting to retain sole residancy of children. This is really very, very basic stuff. I can only assume that you're being wilfully ignorant.
""The National Organization for Women-New York State has always favored a primary caregiver (usually the mother) presumption to ensure stability and continuity of care for children. If the father has not been involved in a major way in the lives of the children during the marriage, why would that involvement increase after divorce?"
What is wrong with this statement (aside from the gendered presumption)? Remove the gendered terms mother and father and it is sensible, indeed desirable. Why would an absentee parent, mother or father, suddenly be given greater parental responsibility upon separation? the overwhelming majority of separating couple resolve these disputes amicably.
"Feminists think the following: "Men are vile creatures, except when they're cash machines, then they can work till they drop for my benefit. At any point if they look like they're not focusing sufficiently on being prodcutive for my benefit i.e. if they go to comic conventions and live with their parents; we must mock them mercilessly until they conform. "
This is standard, paranoid, MRA urban myths. It totally lacks any intellectual substance. You're also being disengenous - you mean women, don't you? But that would be unacceptable to say on this site, so you say "feminists" instead.
I have no doubt that you *have* indeed been oppressed by patriarchy. Judging by the quote from you two paragraphs up, you feel, or have felt, a sense of inadequecy at some point in your life. Guess what? It wasn't women that did that to you - it's society's standards you were judging yourself against. Feminism rejects these standards: they damage men and women.
Every single feminist that I know is opposed to marriage. Where do you get this nonsense from? The same place you find your urban myths about feminists taking your money and laughing at you? It's nonsense, utter nonsense. And it's why the MRM does nothing to actually help men.
AllyF is right - the MRM is obsessed by feminism. Here's the thing, men are facing unprecedented challenges, now, and in the near future. The MRM is doing less than nothing to help. And therein lies the problem.
PMURHPHY - would you be happy with your mother/sister/daughter/niece etc dating an MRA? An MRA who writes on Mala Fide, or The Spearhead?
1. Feminism is a hate movement. I don't really know what else to add to this MRAWatch, I could tell you that feminists over the last 40 years have said hateful stuff:
“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” – Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor
“To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.” -– Valerie Solanas
“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” — Andrea Dworkin
“Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear” — Susan Brownmiller
“The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men.” — Sharon Stone
“In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.” — Catherine MacKinnon
“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” — Sally Miller Gearhart
“Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.” – Catherine Comins
“Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release.” — Germaine Greer.
I could tell you that they inflate and twist statistics to serve their goals, I could tell you that they work to influence public policy to make it easier to kill men etc. and you'd just find ways to excuse it or deflect it.
2. Julie Bindel - It's clear as the nose on your face that she hates men, I'm pretty confident she'd see us all shoved off the edge of a cliff, so I'm sorry, are you being deliberately thick. Did you read what I wrote?
She says she hates men, well not ALL men, just rapists and - this is the important bit so pay attention - MEN WHO DO NOTHING TO STOP RAPE. It's that last bit that's important.
You think she means men who happen to be standing next to a rapist, but that's not what she means. She means any man who's ever watched a porn film, any man who's learned another man has seen a porn film and not challenged him about it, any man who...you get the picture - the list is so inclusive that it woulld include nearly every man on the planet.
3. Feminist groups who oppose shared parenting. Did I just quote the one? Jeez, sorry about that, but for f**ks sake MRAWatch, ALL feminist groups oppose shared parenting. They just do, in the same way they oppose rape, or page 3 girls, it's just obvious they do. The examples I gave you were amongst the most blatant, but I can honestly, hand on heart say that it is pretty much the definition of a feminist group to oppose shared parenting. If you've got hours to google and make phone calls then be my guest, but take my word on this one - feminists and women's groups oppose shared parenting. You can take that one to the bank.
4. "Why would an absentee parent, mother or father, suddenly be given greater parental responsibility upon separation?" Good God almighty, give me strength, they're not talking about ABSENTEE fathers you berk, they're talking about fathers who GO OUT TO WORK while the mothers stay at home with the kids.
Is that what we're down to now is it? The poor bloke slaves away at work, so he can't be with his kids even though he'd want to, but he has to to pay the bills, then when his wife chucks him he finds she gets the kids because she's always had the kids, and he'll have to carry on paying but now he'll see his kids even less.
Did you know the suicide rate for separated and divorced men is 10x higher than for other men, for whom it's already sky-high? No wonder is it?
5. No, I mean 'some' women, but pretty much all feminists and that includes feminist men. Some women are great, but most all feminists are horrible creatures, utterly vile.
6. I'm sure everyone has had feelings of inadequacy at some point. Having said that, I've got a lovely young family, great job etc. so I don't feel TOO bad ;-) No-ones 'laughing at me' I can assure you.
7. 'obsessed by feminism' - to some extent, I think you're correct. The MRM is very oriented towards feminism, because feminism is partisan in a similar way, although it seems supremacy, which the MRM doesn't. The MRM's aim is to remove male disadvantage: we're not fighting for equality because equality is a myth. Most of us are just after a level playing field.
At the same time, it's important young men are educated about hypergamy, lack of fathers rights etc. so that they can make educated and informed decisions about relationships i.e. keep finances separate, don't support women financially, don't get married etc. etc. That is all common sense and should be quite uncontroversial - look at George Clooney for example. In years gone by Hollywood actors would have been forced into marriage - even if they were gay - to maintain public appeal. Today, stars like George show we've moved on. Good stuff.
8. "Every feminist I know is opposed to marriage". Did I say that? Don't think I did you know. Certainly I think pretty much every feminist writer, with the exception of Frieden funnily enough, oh and Schussler, seems to attack marriage. They've certainly spent enough time destroying it. I don't mind too much about that one, this is one of those areas where I agree with Bindel - it's time to abolish marriage and remove the state from interfering with people's relationships. After all, the state doesn't regulate baptisms does it?
9. "would you be happy with your mother/sister/daughter/niece etc dating an MRA? An MRA who writes on Mala Fide, or The Spearhead?
Well it depends, honestly? If she was gay and she got the chance to go out with girlwriteswhat - one of the leading female writers on A Voice For Men, I'd be a touch jealous because she's hot. Don't think GWW's gay though.
On the other hand, I assume you're thinking MRAs are all men, which they're not. So you are suggesting that a man should be judged by how he treats my mother/sister/niece etc.? Do you see that you are evaluating a man's worth by his utility to women?
For instance, would you say to a RadFem 'you should be a bit more demure and lady-like, that way you might please men better. All this hairy, doc marten-wearing, shouty stuff is stoping you getting a nice husband love."
Love to be in the room when you say that btw.
1. I searched for the context of the quotes that you gave - couldn't find the source and you didn't offer it. I did, however, the list you provided copy & pasted on various forums. For the sake of this discussion, however, I will accept that what you quoted was said and meant (except where I have prior knowledge).
Robin Morgan - a disgusting comment. Every bit as disgusting as the MRAs who despise "western women" and want to breed them out of existance, claim that most of them are narcissistic and entitled and are only interested in leeching off men. If you disagree with Robin Morgan, presumably you disagree with the proudly, self identifying misogynistic MRAs?
Here's a feminist criticizing her (and others) for her views:
Valerie Solonas - she's no more a feminist than Sharon Osbourne is. The only people that view her as a feminist are other nutters (RadFemHub) and MRAs. I think that tells it's own story. And please, don't trot out the idiot "real Scotsman" argument - it's pathetic.
Andrea Dworkin - the same Andrea Dworkin that lived with a man for 20 years? When she died, Julie Bindel assumed her mantle as the public face of (alleged) man hating feminism. The reality is more complex than that. Like Bindel, feminists are amongst her most vehement critics. Have a read of this:
For the record, the feminist theories propogated by Dworkin & Bindel are theories that I have no time for. I think they're stupid, frankly, and only serve to provide MRAs/misogynists/bemused men & women ammunition to regard feminism as a negative force. Their views on porn and sex work are primitive and outdated. On a personal level, I think they enjoy/enjoyed the level of reaction received.
Sharon Stone - um, she's a feminist? I had no idea... Are you confusing women with feminists again? I haven't bothered to look this one up, you can tell me if you like.
The rest of your quotes mostly date from the 60s/70s and are standard MRA fare - they're well known because they're controversial. And, to be honest, they embarrass me. But, as I have said to you over and over again, having studied, worked and socialiszed with feminists, these views are marginal. RadFemHubs views are to extreme that literally nobody knew about them, except the dozen or so who dreamed them up, and avoiceformen who, rightfully, exposed them.
We could go back and forth on this. There is, literally, lists of quotes from feminists that betray prejudice. The body of work that constitutes feminist theory is massive - what impact do the theorists you mentioned have on the realpolitik of feminism?
Compare and contrast with the MRM - can you do it honestly?
Accepting that we live in a patriarchal society and challenging traditional and stereotypical views does not a misandrist make. This is basic, basic stuff.
The dictionary definition of feminist:
1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
2. an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.
A definition of patriarchal theory:
"Patriarchal theory is not always defined as a belief that all men always benefit from the oppression of all women. Patriarchal theory maintains that the primary element of patriarchy is a relationship of dominance, where one party is dominant and exploits the other party for the benefit of the former. Radical feminists believe that men use social systems and other methods of control to keep non-dominant men and women suppressed"
You'll note that "radical feminists" believe that MEN use this - the majority of feminists believe that SOCIETY, men and women, do this.
2. Julie Bindel - again, you have no proof beyond cliche and have started with your imaginary musings again. Let's drop this - you won't admit you have no evidence, because none exists.
3. "ALL feminist groups oppose shared parenting. They just do, in the same way they oppose rape, or page 3 girls, it's just obvious they do"
Actually, a substantial number of feminist groups are just fine with page 3 "girls". Google sex positive feminism - and you'll notice what they have to say about Dworkin et al.
Are you incapable of understanding the difference between shared parenting and "forced shared custody"? Again, once you grasp the basics, and drop the wilful ignorance, understanding gender studies is a lot easier. "it's just obvious they do" - this is where you have veered so far off course - you have set beliefs about women/feminism, and therefore are unable to see/accept and evidence to the contrary.
4. Where do they say that? Or is "just obvious they do"?
5. "Most all feminists" want you to work for them whilst they do nothing? Any evidence for this? Or is it "just obvious they do"? It's obvious to you - no-one else that I can think of.
6. I'm glad. And yes, everyone has their off days.
7. "feminism is partisan in a similar way, although it seems supremacy, which the MRM doesn't" See the definitions and points raised previously. I'm happy to accept that some strands of feminism do indeed view women as superior. MRAs, in general, constantly go on about how men created civilisation, have been betrayed by women, who are semi-human, narcissistic, child-like etc. To deny this is to look the other way when the truth hurts.
8. So you accept that feminists ARE (generally) against marriage? How do these self same feminists intend to get you to work for them until you can no longer? Didn't you go on at some length about how marriage is all a ploy to exploit men? You're very inconsistent.
9. I'd say to RadFemHub - you're embarrassing. You don't represent me. You're armchair revolutionaries, you're vile, you're miserable and I'd like to see you on trial.
I'm enjoying our exchanges. Have a nice day.
"I'm angry that every advert and programme portrays men as idiots and cretins, and women as 'special' and on a pedestal."
Missed this one.
You'll need to provide some examples - I don't want a lot of television, but I can't say I've noticed what you're talking about here. I have, however, read feminist research documents along the same lines, except citing examples of women being portrayed as crafty, evil, shrews etc
@AllF and anyone else who can discuss gender rationally
" It was actually feminism that opened up this discussion about gender roles and all the rest of it."
Exactly right. Opened up a discussion - one that continues to this day. I've often wondered just what it is about feminism that causes such visceral reactions - and I am absolutely positive that it's the visceral reaction first and then a search about for reasons to justify it.
MRAs on the one hand claim that women want to "trap" a man in a marriage to take his money/sperm and state that feminism caused this yet on the other hand claim that women steal jobs meant for men, want to destroy the family and want to leech off of men anyway. The incoherance and confusion is just incredible.
There is no gender war.
I just want to correct this gender warring liar. There are a some people connected with a small site called MGTOW and a small group of them are paranoiac separatists, the poster MRAWATCH is describing this minority's least astute, and falsely accusing everyone in men's rights of agreeing with them.
Reproductive abuse is a real thing too, its domestic abuse - its not a joke as feminists like that make it out to be, 4% of women and 8% of men report catching thing partner attempting it, according to the CDC 2010 data.
I believe the title is more of a play on the classic feminist book "The Second Sex" by Beauvoir than it is a deep meaning behind his views.
At last, after three days and five articles, The New Statesmen's "lets talk about men" theme week finally mentions a few of the core men's issues.
Of course, the article has to be written by a feminist and a woman, from a feminist viewpoint. We must make sure that feminists control the discourse about men - can't let those dangerous beasties speak for themselves!
But at least it's a slight improvement on the dismal performance so far.
I'm not a woman (last time I checked) and I don't identify as a feminist.
But glad you liked the article.
You have my apologies. The name "Ally" led me to make a false assumption.
No time to comment in detail, but this is a welcome corrective to the coverage of the book elsewhere.
''Despite what you’ve probably read in the Observer, the Guardian, the Independent or even here in the New Statesman, Benatar is not a Backlash merchant''
Blimey so did they even read the book or was it that feminist knee-jerk defensive reaction you spoke of? If it is there seems to be a lot of it and well organised.
It's a little depressing though somehow not unexpected that what could have been an interesting series of articles surrounding men's problems in society has pretty much been set up as actually nothing more than an opportunity for the feminist lobby to attack the notion of pariarchy and slanging matches between MRA's and feminists. Starting with Helen Lewis's introduction and those numpties at Vagenda as the first contributors.
Heck even the article on the pay gap finishes by blaming men and patriarchy for the fact that the pay gap is largely because women are forced to have kids! Hey, give me a uterus and I'll leave work tomorrow.
Men do have gender specific problems - people shouting patriarchy is to blame for everything are coming at them from the wrong angle.
First of all, thanks for the piece which is a welcome relief from the last two NS piece on Monday and Tuesday - you deserve credit for addressing the issues in a serious and considered way.
I agree with most of what you have to say, but I'm afraid I just can't bring myself to agree with the tone you adopt when it comes to feminism.
You blithely assert that feminism's dark side is merely 'kneejerk defensiveness', poor things, and one of its 'less constructive features'
It's nothing of the kind. All feminism is a hate ideology, and all feminists are somewhere on the spectrum of hate, from passive enabler to outright abuser. Saying feminists aren't anti-men but just pro-women is like saying the Nazis were just pro German or the KKK just dead keen on white people. Feminists obsession with categorising people, even inventing new terms such as 'cismen' or 'heteronormative' is worryingly redolent of some of the nastier movements which caused utter chaos in early 20th centry Europe, the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia.
The fact that the only organised opposition to shared parenting legislation comes from feminists demonstrates that it is nothing more than a supremacist ideology. When men are committing suicide in droves, dying years before their time, having their children torn away from them and impoverished, you can't blame them when some of the language gets quite hyperbolic. It would be surprising if it didn't.
In short, you may be able to curry acceptance from women and feminists because you adopt an appeasing stance, but it won't get you anywhere because it will simply enable feminists to pat you on the head, agree it's 'very serious yes - we should look at that sometime' and then completely ignore you.
Much though you may dislike Tom Martin or Paul Elam or Fathers 4 Justice, the fact is that they've done more to increase awareness of the issues facing men than any of the hundreds of hand-wringing moderates like you have ever done.
"It's nothing of the kind. All feminism is a hate ideology, and all feminists are somewhere on the spectrum of hate, from passive enabler to outright abuser. Saying feminists aren't anti-men but just pro-women is like saying the Nazis were just pro German or the KKK just dead keen on white people."
This is the kind of ludicrous "hyperventilating hyperbole" that Benatar describes. It's just too far beyond the plane of reality to even begin to argue with.
"Much though you may dislike Tom Martin or Paul Elam or Fathers 4 Justice, the fact is that they've done more to increase awareness of the issues facing men than any of the hundreds of hand-wringing moderates like you have ever done."
F4J I do think have achieved something. I disagree with a lot of what O'Connor et al say but I will certainly credit them with having raised an important topic and started a constructive debate.
Paul Elam and Tom Martin have achieved precisely diddly squat between them, beyond perhaps putting a little bit more laughter (and a little bit more hate) into the world.
I'm sorry, but no, it's anything but 'ludicrous' or 'hyperventilating hyperbole', the problem is that you ascribe to feminism and feminists the benefit of the doubt, it's exactly the same mistake made by all the intellectuals in the 1930s and 40s who praised communist principles while closing their eyes to the gulags and Stalin's repression.
Feminism is responsible for the impoverishment of millions of families in the west.
Bollocks you say - that's just MRA 'hyperventilating hyperbole'.
Well, no - no it isn't - it's the view of Ms. Elizabeth Warren, distinguished law scholar, current U.S. democratic senatorial candidate for Massachusetts, professor of law at Harvard Law School. She believes that 40 years ago the feminist agenda shifted to a position that will shortly result in 'the coming collapse of the middle class'. You can view the lecture she gave at UofC Berkeley on the topic here:
Feminists believe all men are abusers or potential abusers.
No it isn't. It's what they bloody say - look here, watch:
I know, I know - believe me I know - you see these attractive young women who are all trendy and clever and it seems impossible to believe that they're proponents of a supremacist ideology rooted in hate. But they are, it's not that some of feminism is extreme, and some of it's cuddly, it's that sometimes the extremism is turned down a notch, and sometimes it's turned up. But all of it is rooted in cruelty and hate.
'the coming collapse of the middle class'
That's got nothing to do (if it is, in fact going to happen) with the banking crisis? Nothing to do with the rising economies outside of the western world? Nothing to do with global capitalism reaching breaking point? Nothing to do with the cyclical nature of capitalist economies? Nothing to do with stagflation? Nothing to do with the exploitation of workers, at home and abroad, male and female? Nothing to do with the toning down of union powers? Nothing to do with the decline in the manufacturing industries in the US?
"Feminists believe all men are abusers or potential abusers."
Where is the meta-analysis of feminist opinion? Oh, it hasn't been done... I wouldn't even baldly state that MRAs believe that all women are actual/potential "false rape accusers", despite there being some evidence for the veracity of this claim.
"Feminism is responsible for the impoverishment of millions of families in the west"
This is true if you accept the following. Every woman (or man) who has initiated a divorce is a feminist. These divorces led to the impovrishment of families. Neither of those statements is true, therefore the original statement is nonsense.
But let's pretend, for a moment, that it IS true. What's the alternative? Prevent divorce? Stop people from leaving unhappy marriages? Force them to stay together?
If this were true, I'm quite sure MRAs would claim it is "feminist governance" forcing men to stay in marriages with "women that are for the most part, shallow, self-serving wastes of human existence—parasites—semi-human black holes that suck resources and goodwill out of men and squander them on the mindless pursuit of vanity." In the interests of transparancy, he went to say "Is this all women? No, of course not", but the point still stands (full quote here: http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/meet-the-mens-rights-movement/).
This needs to be said, loudly and clearly, every time an MRA starts blaming feminism for everything wrong in a man's life: you've identified the wrong enemy, you're looking in the wrong place. Seriously guys, it isn't feminists who are continuing the draft, circumcising boys, laying off workers, starting wars and eroding civil liberties.
It very much IS feminism I'm afraid. It can't be said often enough - feminism is NOT a movement which seeks equality. It is a movement which is pro-women.
That sounds harmless enough, until you realise that almost all feminist thinking locates the source of womens INequality in the 'nuclear' or 'traditional' family.
As a result, for the last 40 years, feminists have mounted an all-out assault on the family - easier or no-fault divorce laws, supporting and defending a legal system that ensures mothers almost inevitably retain residence of children, portraying all men as abusers, or potential abusers, introducing laws to ensure women who have committed grievous acts of domestic violence get off scot-free.
Today a man who falls behind in child support goes to prison. 50 men a month in the UK are imprisoned for this. Total number of women imprisoned last month for not complying with access orders? None. Last year? None. Since 2008? None.
The result has been utter chaos. As Elizabeth Warren explains in her lecture 'the coming collapse of the middle class' families today are under enormous pressures, to the point where it is very difficult now to see how we can ever address them successfully, we have impoverished two generations, and there is no end in sight.
You ask what can be done about it. Well the straightforward answer is fairly obvious I would have thought: it's time to abolish marriage. We should remove the state completely from marriage, and allow it to be a contractual relationship between individuals, of any sex, of any number. The state should have nothing whatsoever to do with it. Religious bodies should be able to do what they like. After all, the state doesn't get involved in baptism does it? Or bar mitzvahs.
This would enable men to set out clearly what their financial obligations are (and if they've any sense, they'll go for none whatsoever, except to the children). it would totally free women (and gay people incidently). I can't see the downside at all.
Well, perhaps to one group. I think women who expect men to keep them would be royally screwed. But then they've been doing that to us for long enough.
A poster said
And you replied
"Where is the meta-analysis of feminist opinion? Oh, it hasn't been done... I wouldn't even baldly state that MRAs believe that all women are actual/potential "false rape accusers", despite there being some evidence for the veracity of this claim."
You aren't very intelligent or intellectually honest, you are lecturing someone for doing something that you have doing to far a greater extent all over this comments section with your false accusations, conflations and sweeping generalizations and citing Manboobz.
as for that persons claim, its more accurate to say that most feminists tell, believe and repeat lies because other feminists falsify and suppress data to falsely accuses men of being responsible for all or most abuse in society, and falsely claim that women are the primary recipients.
And then to back up that claim with legitimate sources.
"Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion
of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence
Murray A. Straus"
While I personally don't agree with Paul Elam on a number of issues (and quite frankly, don't personally like what I've seen of him in general), and believe he doesn't (or perhaps didn't, I haven't followed him in a while) take seriously the responsibility that comes with the influence he has on the movement, he has done a LOT of good for the movement. He has succeed in creating a central community for the men's rights movement, he has established a regular talk show to discuss issues in real time and he has gathered a great many resourceful, well spoken and inspirational contributors, like Dr P, GirlWritesWhat and John the Other, among many others. This is far from diddly squat.
Tom martin's contribution was far less valuble. He brought a lot of attention to the discussion of sexism in schools, but his live debate skills were not up to the task regretably. I commend the effort though.
Quite on the contary - Paul Elam/Tom Martin do nothing to actually help men who need help - or, even, to promote rational discussion about the issues that affect men. Instead the discussion ends up being about MRAs, their methods and their theories. MRAs are totally self-serving - their obsession with denigrating women in general, and feminists (or who they claim are feminists) in particular does nothing except offer an online refuge for the incoherently angry.
I just finished reading an article by Elam in which he discusses his strategy. He is aware that people will be turned off by the anger coming from his website but is confident that increased traffic will result in an ever expanding movement. This moves beyond wishful thinking into the delusional. An analogy was made with the English Defence League but this doesn't quite fit. Elam, in particular, makes sure that the rare instances of homophobia or racism in the MRM are robustly challenged - this is to his credit. But rampant misogyny is a permanent fixture, along with extreme paranoia, premature triumphalism. The EDL has a major media profile - about 50,000 supporters on Facebook, many inches of column space and, unlike the MRM, stages fairly large "demonstrations". Despite all of this, the anger, intolerance and confusion evident amongst the membership mean that they will never occupy anything outside of the extremes. So it will be with the MRM, as it currently stands.
They might get some press attention, but Paul Elam, Tom Martin, Robert O'Hara and others will never be the grand intellectual leaders of an emerging civil rights movement.
"Quite on the contary - Paul Elam/Tom Martin do nothing to actually help men who need help - or, even, to promote rational discussion about the issues that affect men."
Coming from someone who has made it their personal mission AND career to attack the entirety of the men's rights movement, who has a personal investment in ensuring the men's rights activists remain figures of infamy, you'll excuse me if I take your OPINION as the bias it so clearly contains.
" MRAs are totally self-serving - their obsession with denigrating women in general, "
He says, with not a hint of irony at the fact it is within the comments of an article pointing to a number of mainstream media feminists doing precisely what he accuses the MR of doing.
"I just finished reading an article by Elam in which he discusses his strategy. He is aware that people will be turned off by the anger coming from his website but is confident that increased traffic will result in an ever expanding movement."
Yes, His view on the value of the anger, and it's usage, within the MRM is the "issues we disagree on" and why I personally don't like him myself. But I am able to seperate my personal distaste for him and still acknowledge the positives he's contributed to the movement. For some reason, you seem to think the instant an MRA does something you feel is bad, he is entirely bad and is incappable of contributing anything of value. If you plan to disagree this is the case, I strongly suggest you scour manboobz and delete any reference to Glen Sacks before you do so.
"This moves beyond wishful thinking into the delusional."
You must be right, it's not like those bra burning rallies in the 70's, designed to stir up emotions, had any impact on the feminist movement. It's not like Andrea Dworkins constant hateful rhetoric, and the anger it stirred up, didn't make her a living legend within the movement, not to mention encourage the sale of enough books to justify 11 published works. Or are you arguing that feminisms own tactics are unacceptable when done by men?
" But rampant misogyny is a permanent fixture"
Disagreement, criticism and even hatred of feminism is not misogyny. And if pointing out the dangers inherent to hypergamy within women is misogynistic, what is Schroedinger's rapist in relation to misandry? Or are you, again, going to claim it's different for women, for no other reason that the gender of the claimant?
"They might get some press attention, but Paul Elam, Tom Martin, Robert O'Hara and others will never be the grand intellectual leaders of an emerging civil rights movement."
Was that the claim I made? Or a strawman to make yourself look better and help paint those people in a negative light. I said they have contributed, and some a fair bit. I never said they would be such influential figures as Gloria "ambulance chaser" Allred, or our lovely miss Dworkin.
"Paul Elam and Tom Martin have achieved precisely diddly squat between them, beyond perhaps putting a little bit more laughter (and a little bit more hate) into the world."
I think Vladek Filler and his kids might disagree with you, for a start.
I just checked this out. Kudos to P. Elam for doing this.
Credit where it is due. However, I think that this is generally the exception to the rule.
Good piece Ally.
However, I have issues with your characterisation of the MRM as unavoidably misogynistic.
If you're going to assert that, you need to take on board the advocacy of male gendercide by feminist lecturers, lawyers and childcare workers at Radfem hub.
If we must have a strawman for the goose, let's have a strawman for the gander too please.
Edit: I have now read your comments properly and see you have done pretty much just what I asked above - apologies.
"Despite what you’ve probably read in the Observer, the Guardian, the Independent or even here in the New Statesman, Benatar is not a Backlash merchant. He does not argue that men have a worse time than women; that feminism has gone too far; that men are now the oppressed sex; or that sexism against women does not exist. On the contrary, he repeatedly details the many forms of injustice faced by women across the world, and applauds efforts to address them. Indeed the clue is in the title: not “The New Sexism” or “The True Sexism” but “The Second Sexism.” Second, meaning in addition or secondary to the first sexism which is, of course, against women. Benatar does not blame feminism for anti-male discrimination, rightly noting that most such injustices long predate the women’s movement."
I'm commended you for calling these feminist "journalists" out on their dishonest argumentation and fearmongering.
I'm calling you out on your dishonest and manipulative implication that anyone that talks about feminist policies that discriminate or problems with feminism over reaching is automatically wrong.
"I'm calling you out on your dishonest and manipulative implication that anyone that talks about feminist policies that discriminate or problems with feminism over reaching is automatically wrong."
Eh? I've never said that, indeed I have myself often written about feminist policies that discriminate, and various problems I see within feminism.
I don't condemn anyone for criticising feminism or supporting men's welfare & rights.
I do condemn those who talk about women as wh0res, b1tches and s1uts, I do condemn those who claim women are, as a generalisation, liars, gold-diggers and cheats, I do condemn those who diminish, discount & mock physical & sexual violence against women. I do condemn those who erect a paranoid, fantastical vision of most feminism as a supremacist hate movement. And I condemn much more besides, all of those attitudes & behaviours are pretty much inescapable within the MRM.
Good piece Ally, I enjoyed it.
Question for you - do you think that a moderate, rational movement acting in the interests of men is possible whilst MRAs behave as they currently do?
Observing the MRM, as it stands, whilst they may gain some limited support, they will never move beyond the lunatic fringe due to the incredibly unsavoury theorizing and praxis that they adopt.
It's a good question.
I've lost count of how many times I've been told by friends, online and off, that I shouldn't write about these kinds of issues because it only gives strength and ammunition to the wingnuts and misogynists.
I think that argument is wrong, obviously, but I also recognise it in just one way that the MRM is more part of the problem than the solution. They have created a climate where it becomes very difficult to have these issues taken seriously.
I should also say that there are some good people who are not misogynists or extremists who count themselves as supporters of the MRM, even as MRAs themselves. They're driven by genuine concern and compassion for issues like child access, male victims of DV or sexual assault, circumcision or whatever else.
My fundamental belief on gender issues is that I want to break down barriers, discrimination, prejudice, conservative gender stereotypes to the point that gender becomes an irrelevance.
On the wilder fringes of both the men's and women's movement there are many who seem determined to pit men and women into a perpetual gender war, and actually seem to quite like it that way. There are feminists and MRAs who seem consumed with hatred for the other gender. And I broadly condemn BOTH the rest of the feminist movement, and the rest of the MRM movement, for failing to confront those attitudes and distance themselves from them.
To aim my sights at feminism for a minute, I think it is quite telling that there is a sudden outburst of anti-radfem feeling on the Feminist blogosphere at the moment. Why? Because some radfems have excluded trans women from their conference, which has highlighted radfem intolerance of trans issues - which are close to the heart of 3rd wave feminism. However contrast that to mainstream feminism's tolerance of similar hatred, bigotry and bitterness towards cis men, which rarely warrants a peep of complaint.
But the difference is that, because feminism is so much bigger and more mainstream as a movement, the loony fringe of feminism is more marginalised, more diluted as an influence within it. On the MRM side, the loony fringe pretty much IS the mainstream, or is at least seen to be so.
“I do condemn those who erect a paranoid, fantastical vision of most feminism as a supremacist hate movement.”
“However contrast that to mainstream feminism's tolerance of similar hatred, bigotry and bitterness towards cis men, which rarely warrants a peep of complaint.”
Eh? A movement that tolerates hatred is a hate movement, and you call mainstream feminism that, but you condemn yourself for that?
"They have created a climate where it becomes very difficult to have these issues taken seriously."
That's not what happened, feminism created a climate where men's issues and male abuse victims were excluded, derided and mocked "what about teh menz lol", now that feminist hegemony in the gender debate is threatened by the understandable blow back from an angry mens movement from that, its now putting on the appearance of addressing some men's issues, but that's more of an exercise in damage limitation and taking cheap shots at the men's movement than it is a genuine interest in addressing these issues.
"That's not what happened, feminism created a climate where men's issues and male abuse victims were excluded, derided and mocked "what about teh menz lol", now that feminist hegemony in the gender debate is threatened ..."
Ironically, that is pretty much what this article is about, feminists creating a climate where discussion of men's issues is not allowed and jumped on. Same thing is happening at Simon Fraser University regarding the proposed men's center. Yet, despite this very vocal, and moreover, influential opposition, making use of victim staus and shaming tactics and meme's like "misogynist" and "war on women" for any kind of opposing viewpoint, men are still expected to get the message out? It takes a certain kind of personality to stand up to that kind of opposition, and it is because of that tenacity, that determination, the stubornness, that men's issues are starting to be heard. So really, the Ally is effectively blaming the MRM for standing up to the very opposition it denounces in the article, and them blames again the MRM for creating a conflict in the first place, despite admitting in the article the feminist role in that conflict.
Thanks for the response and I tend to agree. The MRM as it presently stands is far more anti-women (they would say "anti-feminist") than it is pro-men.
The MRM views the US (and, I think, the UK) as having "feminist governance", that is, a government comprised of pro-feminists who wage a war against men. It's hard to know how to start taking this seriously, so most people don't.
Mainstream feminism is, by and large, completely unaware of the MRM. Where they are aware of them, all that MRAs do it confirm to feminists the misogny prevelant in society and the need for the continued existence of feminisms that are relevant to the world today.
If MRAs were truly commited to helping men, they would do that: help men. Not wage an imaginary war on forums and blogs. It's really quite tragic.
Your gender war agenda here is counterproductive, your contributions here are best characterized as repetitive libel, false accusations, misrepresentations, manipulations and out right lies as part of a deliberate smear campaign.
"I do condemn those who talk about women as wh0res, b1tches and s1uts, I do condemn those who claim women are, as a generalisation, liars, gold-diggers and cheats, I do condemn those who diminish, discount & mock physical & sexual violence against women. I do condemn those who erect a paranoid, fantastical vision of most feminism as a supremacist hate movement. And I condemn much more besides, all of those attitudes & behaviours are pretty much inescapable within the MRM."
Please provide evidence to back up that accusation, using an example of what you describe being common, not policed by the others, and not planted by a troll, that is not equaled and far surpassed in the feminist movement.
Particularly this false accusation relating to rape , "I do condemn those who diminish, discount & mock physical & sexual violence against women".
Show the readers how that is " pretty much inescapable within the MRM." and not just a malicious false accusation relating to rape on your part.
Also, if you condemn that,sort of talk, where do you stand of feminists lies about abuse being mainly gendered and the ritual "what about teh menz lol" treatment of male abuse victims from feminists, which unlike your false accusation, is real.
"Please provide evidence to back up that accusation, using an example of what you describe being common, not policed by the others, and not planted by a troll, that is not equaled and far surpassed in the feminist movement."
Here's a particularly charming example. The comments beneath are even better.
You'll probably say that's not typical, or that the blog is not a "true" MRM site or whatever else, but just take a look at AVfM or Spearhead or countless others and tell me how long it takes you to find a comment about b1tches or wh0res or whatever.
We've even got the UK's resident MRA celebrity, Tom Martin, and his charming habit of referring to any woman he disagrees with as a "wh0re" and who says we live in a "wh0reocracy"
"Particularly this false accusation relating to rape , "I do condemn those who diminish, discount & mock physical & sexual violence against women"."
Well there's the famous Angry Harry who argues that the vast majority of reported rapes are false allegations. Or Paul Elam's charming 'beat a violent bitch' month or whatever he called it. (and yes, I quite recognise and similarly condemn the Jezebel piece that inspired it. But that was 5 years ago FFS and MRAs still go on about it, as it is pretty much the only example they can find of violent misandry from a feminist site)
Seriously, I couldn't begin to catalogue all the examples of gross mysogyny within the MRM. If you don't see it yourself, I suspect it is because you don't recognise it for what it is.