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
Only Humpty Dumpty is allowed to make words mean anything he wants.
I'm just going to point out a lie here.
Alpha and beta are to do with some PUA discourses, not mens rights.
David Futrelle conflates the two in order to try to attack and delegitimize mens rights.
OMG... I'm getting bored of this.
Check out avoiceformen and see what they have written about alpha/beta males
Im just going to correct this liar again.
A voice for men recommends dropping out of the alpha/beta system and ignoring PUA's.
OK... One last time.
So, you have claimed that avoiceformen don't use the terms alpha/beta but have just stated that they recognize that the terms exist in reality and recommend that men drop out of them?
OK... That means, then, that they are rejecting the patriarchal norms that present some men as "good" (alphas) and some men as "non good" (betas).
Where avoiceformen and I differ is that they blame women/feminists for the existence of these ideal gender types, I blame the women and men that constitute society.
This is basic stuff. I won't be responding to you again.
Go away you pretentious pathological liar and stop pretending that you are an authority here and that you know what you're talking about, when your only source is gender warriour david futrelles yellow journalism and manboobz - the fox news of the gender debate.
This may be a problem, as I have conceded. I'm not denying some instances men face discrimination. I'm just saying if you look at the positioning of the genders as a whole, women face a much more forceful and systemic form of discrimination -- it's a wide, deep, structural oppression. Whereas men's gender discrimination can be better defined in terms of specific cases that do little to swap them with women as the overall victims of sexism in society.
There's no doubt that men face discrimination and social conditioning that's detrimental and unfair - but the MRM does nothing about it because it's looking for enemies in the wrong place.
And therein lies the problem. MRAs hate more than they help.
just saying the words 'wide deep structural oppression' does not provide evidence of that oppression. It merely reveals your bias towards feminism.
You're right. Luckily I backed up my claims with examples in the above comments. And FWIW I'm very happy to be pro-feminist -- last time I checked equality was a good thing.
You might want to go back and look at some of the rebuttals to what you contributed as back up for your claims.
Feminism is not about equality the 'fem' prefix gives that away.
why don't you check out the #radfem2012 hashtag on twitter see what feminism is about.
You do realise there are several different types of feminism? You can't look at one group's interpretation of one strain of thought in a tradition and say that it's characteristic of the whole. It's like using Chairman Mao to discredit the Labour Party.
Yet you talk about MRA's as if they are a monolith and then use Chairman Mao to discredit the Labor party.
Do we have to do this again?
I challenge you, as an MRA supporter, to find any feminists who supported RadFemHub on what they said. I challenge you to be brave and list the feminists that DID condemn what was written.
I really must get to bed...
You are indulging in the "No True Scotsman Fallacy"
If an MRA, is an MRA, is an MRA. Then a Feminist, is a Feminist, is a Feminist. Whether you put Radical in front of it or not. A red apple is still an apple.
Make up your mind.
No, I'm not doing that. What's more, it's blatantly obvious that I'm not doing that.
The English Defence League claim to be a non-racist group of people concerned with the erosion of gay rights and women's rights due to "Islamification". That's not true and it is quite obviously not true.
A tiny lunatic fringe, unsupported by the mainstream, is that: a tiny lunatic fringe. You can't demonstrate instances of this RadFemHub's diatribe being supported because it isn't supported. As has been said elsewhere today, there is no lunatic fringe of the MRM because the mainstream is so extreme.
MRAs trot out these accusations of "ad hominem", "fallacys" et al - it's idiotic. MRAs are defined by the written word of their manstream. MRAs define feminism by the written words of a tiny percentage of the movements that constitute it.
A sensible argument would be that the MRM is so tiny that splits haven't happened yet, or that the MRM is unconcerned with PR. But to try and defend and justify the wanton extremism of the MRM by trying to paint "feminism" as the same is so stupid that it defies belief.
RE: "No, I'm not doing that. What's more, it's blatantly obvious that I'm not doing that"
then below you the following post
Wed, 2012-05-23 16:54 — MRA Watch (not verified)
The mrm does nothing that feminism doesn't too, but to greater extremes.
You are just a dishonest, sexist hypocrite with an agenda to libel and gender war.
I disagree that MRAs are fuelled by misogyny as a general comment. They are a wide range of people they do not subscribe to a set 'dogma' as feminists do. Yes some of them are hateful to women but by no means all.
And feminism is full of misandry. This is a tumblr set up by a feminist to intimidate and insult a woman who writes on gender issues from a non-feminist perspective:
and we only have to look at the #radfem2012 hashtag on twitter to see the hatred coming from feminism there!
I am one of those nasty people who believes that there needs to be a 'backlash' against feminism.
I didn't say MRAs are "fuelled" by misogyny in general, but I did point out that it forms a nasty constant undertone to the movement.
To be fair, the fathers rights movement, including the likes of F4J (which I don't admire much) are very good at stamping on overt misogyny when it appears, blocking it from their forums and FB groups etc. If the broader MRM were similarly less tolerant of the constant hum of misogyny that infests their movement, I'd be a lot more enthusiastic in my support.
For that matter, I say the same about the (less common, less extreme, but no less problematic) outbreaks of rank misandry within feminism.
But is the misogyny the only problem? The rabid anti-feminism (which is, often, just crude misogyny) and the blaming of all men's problems on women/feminism is just as damaging.
The problem here is that the MRM has disdiagnosed. And, I suspect, the negative feelings towards women/feminists were in place before there were any theories to justify it.
Got you the first time. No worries.
You are basically right. The problelm is traditional gender roles and traditionalism. The other problem is that in general feminism has done a good job on the female side but despite lip service and some early good moves, has in fact releied on trasdtional male gender roles for some of its poltical power - see Vice President Biden's pronouncements, for example, or else has resisted men's efforts ot break down tradtional male roles - see NOW's resitance to equal parenting for example.
Thanks for the response - it's refreshing to be able to have a decent conversation.
I don't think feminsm has relied on traditional male gender roles - I think that some men embracing those roles find feminism has a place and a role within their belief system.
I think your second point is problematic and that MRAs are largely to blame, unfortunately. I'm not au fait with NOW, so you'll have to excuse me. However, many father's rights groups adopt positions similar to the MRM - feminist/women blaming.
"I don't think feminsm has relied on traditional male gender roles...'
It's not always obvious, but that is only because we take those norms so much for granted.
One way the norms informs feminism is a tendency to value female suffering over male. This comes out either as "woemen have it worse" when the harms are the same - rape is one example, where femlae rape of men and even boys is admitted to, but always with a disclaimer that it's worse for a woman to be raped - or else to erase male suffering by false equivalence - equating murder rates for men to rpae rates for women for example.
Another way is the way that ther eis an expectaition that men must protect women to be good men. this is part of the rael man discourse, and it is chicvlaropus to the bone. So when women are oppressed in some way, some way to make it men's job to fix that is going to be found. By the way, this is a good example of relapsing into traditonalism, since it was not this way at all in the 70s. not at all. Women were going to do it on their own, like real adults. But now we see op-eds saying that the US - Ameircan men mostly - must stay in Afghanistan to protect women's rights. It would be one thing if this was some cynical imperialist writing like this, but the first time I saw it, it was an Afghan woman.
And when feminsits rebel against this new orthodoxy, retreaded traditionalism, they get banned off of feminist blogs and just generally hereticated. Andit happens a lot. Lots of older feminists rebel against this.
There's more as you go deeper into it, but this will give you some idea.
Refreshing to have a decent conversation - you made the first move. Thanks.
"but I did point out that it forms a nasty constant undertone to the movement."
Please provide examples of a "nasty constant undertone [of misogny] to the movement" that is not far surpassed in terms of a nasty constant undertone of misandry in the women's movement.
I could not agree more as well. Misandric Feminists are merely dismissed with the "No real Scotsman argument" and passed off as Radical Feminist. No equivalent term exists for Men's Right Activists.
agreed, this is just rhetoric not evidence.
Or a revival of decent feminism, or a reclaiming of it, or a change in how we approach things feminists, or a tougher line of "RadFem" types, or...
Why a backlash "against feminism"? That doesn't make sense to me, sorry.
@Why a backlash "against feminism"? That doesn't make sense to me, sorry.
The deliberate suppression and covering up of family abuse data to propagate the lie that family abuse is patriarchal  and misandric ideology and policy being promoted on the strength of that lie, and the derision of men and mens issues, fathers rights and equal rights for abuse victims and so on creates bad blood.
"Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion
of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence"
A political movement cannot pile hate on another group in society, wothout there being a backlash from that group.
Just to second what QuietRiotGirl says about the movement feeling like a religion, this article beautifully and gentle explains why it feels that way:
Unfortunately I think the cult mentality within some people in the movement has bred the defensiveness you see on that other New Statesman article on this topic.
Feminists have difficulty acknowledging that anyone (any woman which I am) would be against feminism.
That is because it is a 'religion' it is not treated by feminists as an ideology that can be opposed. You have to 'believe'.
Well that was refreshing! Thanks for this. I am going to read the book Ally :)