Men's Rights & Anti-Feminism; Counterproductive?

liah · 06-04-2011 4:35pm #1

Alright. This has the potential to go pretty badly, so I'm going to clarify a few things off the bat:

1) I am supportive of men's rights, particularly in relation to child custody, paternal leave, legal abortion, divorce settlements/pre-nups, etc.
2) I am not trying to make any statements against anything to do with Men's Rights, simply a certain subset of people who use a certain style of argument. Please read everything in an entirely neutral tone.
3) I do not want this to turn into a massive argument. I just want people to consider using a different tactic in their arguments.
4) Please take the gender of myself and any other posters COMPLETELY out of the equation, and focus on the words rather than who's saying them.

A common theme I've noticed not only here on boards, but on other large social communities (reddit, for example), is a rather worrying undercurrent of vitriol among some men when claiming to stand for Men's Rights. In any discussion regarding men's or women's rights, "feminism" is commonly thrown about as an insult, and instead of simply speaking about Men's Rights themselves, many adopt the tactic of explaining what is wrong with feminism.. and unfortunately, not much else.

This strikes me as counterproductive, for two reasons:
1) The issue of human rights, be they men's or women's, is very serious, and ideally should require some level of solidarity and positive communication. Tearing apart the "other side" by way of generalizations about feminists and women serves no purpose other than to be divisive and lose you any female support you would have had that you sorely need.
2) It's ignoring the actual rights themselves. If every statement made about Men's Rights is surrounded by anti-feminist rhetoric, people aren't going to be focusing on improving Men's Rights, they're going to be focusing on the offensive rhetoric. In doing so, their opinion of Men's Rights advocates goes down, and then, subsequently, so too does their opinion of Men's Rights themselves.

I understand the basic tenents of the anti-feminism argument. Genuinely. I am not a feminist myself and have never identified myself as anything other than an advocate of equal rights. I can understand the argument for why it's dangerous to promote one gender over the other. I am empathetic when I hear of men who have been messed up by certain sections and aspects of the feminist movement. But I am equally disconcerted when what was originally a force for equal rights is now being bandied about as an insult by those claiming to want equal rights themselves. Fighting fire with fire is never a productive solution to the very real concerns these human rights issues present.

Something seems to have been lost in these debates, and that is simple human solidarity. Sympathize with someone's story of lost human rights, don't default immediately to "well, my group has it worse because..". Everyone else can have their turn, too. It's not either or. Human rights aren't a competition, but there has been an observable trend of people with an agenda in the wake of the new Men's Rights movement trying to turn it into such. There's a very real subtext of, for lack of better phrase, "stickin' it to the man," a sort of sneering, jibing revenge for all the things they were made to suffer as a result of some subset of feminism. Does this really seem like the most mature way of handling things and does it do anything to further their cause? I don't think it does.

Obviously my criticism is centered around the current Men's Rights movement, but please do not make the mistake of thinking that I believe that it is only Men's Rights advocates who behave this way, or that I believe all of them do - certainly, it is a minority, albeit an unfortunately loud one. I recognize it is a subset, and I recognize this subset exists equally in the feminism movement. The reason I am not addressing the feminism movement in this post is simply because I'm seeing more of the Men's Rights ones than the reverse, and would like men's thoughts on the matter as I'm already aware of how many women feel about it.

It does a disservice to anyone's movement when it is reduced to mud-slinging from one side to another, reduced to competition about who has it worse. It solves absolutely nothing. So why has it become so common? Why has it been turned into a war? Where is the satisfaction in that, and where is the progress?

Can we not extend an olive branch to one another and try to achieve one goal - equality? And can we not recognize that neither Men's Rights or feminists are trying to destroy the other gender, but simply make sure they have the same rights as the other?

Can't we all just have a little solidarity?

For any men who have thrown about the word feminist or feminazi intended in a derogatory manner while discussing rights, can you please explain what you feel this accomplishes for your movement?

Galvasean · 06-04-2011 4:48pm

liah wrote: »

For any men who have thrown about the word feminist or feminazi intended in a derogatory manner while discussing rights, can you please explain what you feel this accomplishes for your movement?

'Feminazi' is a word is use for those who are simply sexist women posing as feminists as a means of shielding themselves from criticism. I tend not to use the word 'feminist' at all as a large portion of so called 'feminists' are simply what I define as being 'feminazis'.
'Feminist' has become something of a dirty word thanks to the 'feminazis' ruining it for everyone and taking credibility away from actual feminism.

liah · 06-04-2011 4:51pm

Galvasean wrote: »

'Feminazi' is a word is use for those who are simply sexist women posing as feminists as a means of shielding themselves from criticism. I tend not to use the word 'feminist' at all as a large portion of so called 'feminists' are simply what I define as being 'feminazis'.
'Feminist' has become something of a dirty word thanks to the 'feminazis' ruining it for everyone and taking credibility away from actual feminism.

The thing is, it's often used against anyone who's female and has an opinion, nevermind whether or not the person's actually a feminist. I've been called a feminist and a feminazi countless times here on boards, despite never having related to the concept or been apart of it, or anything other than an equal rights advocate.

I just don't understand the value in denouncing one rights movement while trying to gain support for another rights movement. Particularly when it's, factually, only a small subset of feminists that any of their comments legitimately apply to (and vice versa).

Delirium · 06-04-2011 5:13pm

I don't get the whole feminists are to blame for 'x' (usually something relating to a negative situation for men.)

For example, this story broke last week in the UK, David Willetts blames feminism over lack of jobs for working men.

At first glance, I thought it was an April Fools, as it read to me as something along the lines of 'damn women taking jobs from men'.

This does nothing to answer why is it that women were 'taking' the jobs from working class men. No tackling of the subject as to why more men than women drop out of education earlier. Or that women seem to perform better in exams.

Much easier to say, 'Hey men of the UK, it's the womens fault you don't have a job.'

I definitely agree with the comment that mud-slinging on either side generally gains nothing for both parties, as it can, for example, alienate people that might be sitting on the fence as to whether to join one of the groups.

Sonics2k · 06-04-2011 6:29pm

I live and breathe on a single idea.

People are equal through and through. I have never thought of someone differently based on Gender/Religion/Sexuality/Race and so on.

As it stands for the last 5 years I have been an active supporter of Unmarried Fathers Rights, and spoke at a conference in 2007 at Croke Park on the matter, have been in direct contact with the likes of Eamonn Gilmore on the issue.

The idea that an Unmarried Father has virtually no rights to their own child sickens me, and after 5 years I have finally won joint-guardianship of my own children, but will continue to fight for a change to the law.
For this reason I have actively taken a huge interest in Family Law and will hopefully be attending UCC in September.

As for "Feminazi's", I honestly find them to be nothing more than Sexist females or women who feel the need to blame men for every single issue that crops up in life.

On a personal note, over the years I've found that more women do damage to the ideals of Feminism than a lot of men do.

Count Duckula · 06-04-2011 6:46pm

I may be wrong, but I thought that gender equality was feminism. Women who ask for equal rights but distance themselves from the term "feminist" are doing a disservice to the feminist of the past who put a lot on the line to get them that far.

metrovelvet · 06-04-2011 6:47pm

Liah,

I don't think there is a MENS rights group in Ireland is there? Is there a Mens movement other than the GAA? Wasnt the GAA used to establish IRish masculinity in the post colonial Marian mother Ireland to ammend the castrated feeling the men had as having been conquored by the Brits and then by the Virgin Mary?

There are father's rights groups but when I think of them I think of that guy out of Conrad's "Secret Agent" who tried to blow up the prime meridian and are fighting griffins in the air.

liah · 06-04-2011 6:50pm

Count Duckula wrote: »

I may be wrong, but I thought that gender equality was feminism. Women who ask for equal rights but distance themselves from the term "feminist" are doing a disservice to the feminist of the past who put a lot on the line to get them that far.

I don't like the term "feminist" because it is, by its nature, exclusive, regardless of the inherent qualities of the movement itself. Which is probably why it's been (wrongly) picked up as an insult and railed against as a movement. I'm a humanist, not a feminist. Though I do understand what you're saying, and believe me, I have endless amounts of respect for what feminists have done for me and all women in the past. I just think humanism is more fitting now, in the interests of equality.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Liah,

I don't think there is a MENS rights group in Ireland is there? Is there a Mens movement other than the GAA? Wasnt the GAA used to establish IRish masculinity in the post colonial Marian mother Ireland to ammend the castrated feeling the men had as having been conquored by the Brits and then by the Virgin Mary?

There are father's rights groups but when I think of them I think of that guy out of Conrad's "Secret Agent" who tried to blow up the prime meridian and are fighting griffins in the air.

I'm not talking about specific groups, just men who support Men's Rights. Also, as I'm not in Ireland I'm thinking more internationally than simply Ireland - the issues mentioned in my OP are not restricted to Ireland, but North America and parts of Europe, too.

Nhead · 06-04-2011 7:25pm

metrovelvet wrote: »

Liah,

I don't think there is a MENS rights group in Ireland is there? Is there a Mens movement other than the GAA? Wasnt the GAA used to establish IRish masculinity in the post colonial Marian mother Ireland to ammend the castrated feeling the men had as having been conquored by the Brits and then by the Virgin Mary?

There are father's rights groups but when I think of them I think of that guy out of Conrad's "Secret Agent" who tried to blow up the prime meridian and are fighting griffins in the air.

That is a brilliant take on the GAA, Declan Kiberd would be proud:D but the GAA was established when we were part of the UKoGB&I and its aim was to promote a distinctive Irish culture which, they believed was being undermined by the baser elements of British culture such as the penny-dreadful etc. As for the anti-feminism point, having studied English I feel that feminist cultural theory and criticism is vital for an understanding of our society and that a lot of people blame feminism, wrongly imo, for x,y and z problem. I thought the term feminazi was used to describe someone that stuck rigidly to man bashing.

metrovelvet · 06-04-2011 7:42pm

liah wrote: »

I don't like the term "feminist" because it is, by its nature, exclusive, regardless of the inherent qualities of the movement itself. Which is probably why it's been (wrongly) picked up as an insult and railed against as a movement. I'm a humanist, not a feminist. Though I do understand what you're saying, and believe me, I have endless amounts of respect for what feminists have done for me and all women in the past. I just think humanism is more fitting now, in the interests of equality.

Its an exlcusive term because women were excluded and arguably still are.

liah wrote: »

I'm not talking about specific groups, just men who support Men's Rights. Also, as I'm not in Ireland I'm thinking more internationally than simply Ireland - the issues mentioned in my OP are not restricted to Ireland, but North America and parts of Europe, too.

Do you mean rights like the right not to pay child support for kids you dont want?

Paternity leave? [Maternity leave isnt a right in the US. New mothers have to save up their vacation days so this is a moot point in terms of US equality.]

If people want to dismiss your opinion by labelling it feminist clap trap they are going to do that anyway with or without feminism in existence and just find another way to demote your point of view.

metrovelvet · 06-04-2011 8:36pm

koth wrote: »

I don't get the whole feminists are to blame for 'x' (usually something relating to a negative situation for men.)

For example, this story broke last week in the UK, David Willetts blames feminism over lack of jobs for working men.

At first glance, I thought it was an April Fools, as it read to me as something along the lines of 'damn women taking jobs from men'.

This does nothing to answer why is it that women were 'taking' the jobs from working class men. No tackling of the subject as to why more men than women drop out of education earlier. Or that women seem to perform better in exams.

Much easier to say, 'Hey men of the UK, it's the womens fault you don't have a job.'

I definitely agree with the comment that mud-slinging on either side generally gains nothing for both parties, as it can, for example, alienate people that might be sitting on the fence as to whether to join one of the groups.

Feminism paved the way for women to enter the workforce. That doubled the supply of the potential employees so employers could be pickier. It also doubled consumers, it also made women less dependant on marriage so they could divorce easier, which then of course increases demand on housing and utilities, so more room for profit that way too.

SugarHigh · 06-04-2011 9:05pm

metrovelvet wrote: »

Do you mean rights like the right not to pay child support for kids you dont want?

Probably an issue for another thread but would this be so wrong? If women have the option of abortion(unofficially) why shouldn't the man? Now obviously I'm not suggesting he makes a woman have an abortion but if we wants to disown the child why shouldn't he have the option?

If he does disown the child he forfeits any rights to that child and cuts off any responsibility. I suppose maybe they do have this option unofficially but I don't really know.

Paternity leave? [Maternity leave isnt a right in the US. New mothers have to save up their vacation days so this is a moot point in terms of US equality.]

I actually believe neither parent should be entitled to any leave. They should be able to claim unemployment benefit but I don't think a company should have to pay you to stay home and raise your kid.

If people want to dismiss your opinion by labelling it feminist clap trap they are going to do that anyway with or without feminism in existence and just find another way to demote your point of view.

This is true. If someone doesn't want to listen to a certain opinion then they won't. Does it really matter what excuse they use?

metrovelvet · 06-04-2011 9:42pm

SugarHigh wrote: »

Probably an issue for another thread but would this be so wrong? If women have the option of abortion(unofficially) why shouldn't the man? Now obviously I'm not suggesting he makes a woman have an abortion but if we wants to disown the child why shouldn't he have the option?

If he does disown the child he forfeits any rights to that child and cuts off any responsibility. I suppose maybe they do have this option unofficially but I don't really know.

It's very much an issue for this thread if you are talking men's rights and in terms of consolidation with women's rights.

The other side of the equality argument mightn't be if a woman has the right to an abortion and adoption,, then why shouldnt a man, but also if a man doesnt have the right to them, why should a woman?

[Im not advocating either, just pointing out what the blind pursuit of equality can lead to.]

Mrmoe · 06-04-2011 10:04pm

In your agrument you make a claim that Mens rights groups attack feminism, however, you believe that this is the wrong attitude to have and that solidarity and unity is the productive avenue to take. This is an entirely rational approach to take.

My main problem with this, is that "mens rights groups" are not an exact but opposite enitity to feminism or feminist groups. I see them more as being about equality , a level playing field regardless of gender. From my point of view feminism in my mind has always been more about rights for women than equal rights for everybody. I have never heard or come across a feminist group campaigning for mens rights. As long as this is the case I would always be hostile towards feminism as I see it in my eyes.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 06-04-2011 11:08pm

I think specific issue groups can be a force for good, eg groups against domestic violence against men, father's for justice etc

Groups for general men's rights - terrible divisive idea. They'll become just like typical feminists and become hypersensitive over anything. Like that f*cking manflu thread for example.

What's needed is an egalitarian group to rationally criticise discrimination against either gender and challenge baseless gender roles.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 06-04-2011 11:24pm

liah wrote: »

For any men who have thrown about the word feminist or feminazi intended in a derogatory manner while discussing rights, can you please explain what you feel this accomplishes for your movement?

I don't use feminazi because I hate all things Godwin

I oft criticise those who describe feminism as striving for equality of genders because it is such a loaded term.

If women were treated really badly compared to men then I could accept it. The reality however is that some things are sh*t for men, some for women. Overall it would be pretty difficult to decide who has it better.

So when I hear people coming out and saying they are a feminist because they want equality whilst rarely (if ever) speaking out against injustices toward men I cannot take them seriously

Wolfe Tone · 06-04-2011 11:25pm

Men and women arent equal so treating them as such is foolish.

Fremen · 06-04-2011 11:36pm

Liah, do you think you could provide some examples of what you're talking about? I'd like to make things a little clearer in my head.

One issue is that the internet is a double-edged sword. On a site like Boards, everyone has a more or less equal say. to change the emphasis, everyone has a more or less equal say. Even ill-informed people who routinely use conversational terrorism without realising it.

On sites that have a voting system like reddit, as long as you can express a sentiment that has mob appeal in a snappy way, people will listen.

The interplay between men's rights and women's rights is a politically charged issue. Most other arenas of politics fall foul of similar problems. Lowbrow American news outlets use tactics like the ones you described all the time - look at Fox news when they mention athiests or democrats. You certainly see the same kind of thing happening in the "law and order" vs. "personal freedom" threads in AH.

What you wrote about is something to aspire to, but I suspect an inevitable side effect of the democracy of the internet is that we have to listen to ill-founded arguments from Joe Average, who never learned to debate properly.

milehip1 · 07-04-2011 12:09am

liah wrote: »

A common theme I've noticed not only here on boards, but on other large social communities (reddit, for example), is a rather worrying undercurrent of vitriol among some men when claiming to stand for Men's Rights. In any discussion regarding men's or women's rights, "feminism" is commonly thrown about as an insult, and instead of simply speaking about Men's Rights themselves, many adopt the tactic of explaining what is wrong with feminism.. and unfortunately, not much else.

Those people who use those term over the net probably wouldnt be so quick in real life,
you make some very valid points OP and seem to have noble intentions,

Only recently I was thinking the same about how womens groups can ailenate men and therefore lose their support,
perhaps someone should doctor your post to a mans point of view and post in The ladies lounge(I would but I'm lazy).

I've read several posts there from somewhat irate female posters angry at men who had dared to basically suggest what you suggested.

''For any men who have thrown about the word feminist or feminazi intended in a derogatory manner while discussing rights, can you please explain what you feel this accomplishes for your movement?'

Obviously its serves as much as calling a man sexist or chauvinist,it exposes the users lack of anything constructive or intresting to say, so they restort to name calling and jibes, signaling that its time to back away, safe in the knowledge you've won.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Liah

I don't think there is a MENS rights group in Ireland is there? Is there a Mens movement other than the GAA? Wasnt the GAA used to establish IRish masculinity in the post colonial Marian mother Ireland to ammend the castrated feeling the men had as having been conquored by the Brits and then by the Virgin Mary?

There are father's rights groups but when I think of them I think of that guy out of Conrad's "Secret Agent" who tried to blow up the prime meridian and are fighting griffins in the air.

There is a group called AMEN which supports male victim of domestic violence.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Feminism paved the way for women to enter the workforce. That doubled the supply of the potential employees so employers could be pickier. It also doubled consumers, it also made women less dependant on marriage so they could divorce easier, which then of course increases demand on housing and utilities, so more room for profit that way too.

WWII did more for paving the way for women entering the workplace.

Dravokivich · 07-04-2011 12:12am

Sonics2k wrote: »

I live and breathe on a single idea.

People are equal through and through. I have never thought of someone differently based on Gender/Religion/Sexuality/Race and so on.

This is my opinion also. I can't comprehend the idea of branding (for lack of another way of putting it) an entire group of people based on trivial labels with regards to their gender/opinion/race.

With regards to Koth's post above, I find attitude being brought forward in that quite discomforting. It's taking a prod at social classes as much as it is gender. Even with that, the comments being made are generalisations with no clear idea of figures or verified reports put forward to show any trends. Then again if they had the figures, how would it make "women" the villain they are being painted as?

Right, now to OP. no intention of digging into ya here meself by the way.

liah wrote: »

This strikes me as counterproductive, for two reasons:
1) The issue of human rights, be they men's or women's, is very serious, and ideally should require some level of solidarity and positive communication. Tearing apart the "other side" by way of generalizations about feminists and women serves no purpose other than to be divisive and lose you any female support you would have had that you sorely need.
2) It's ignoring the actual rights themselves. If every statement made about Men's Rights is surrounded by anti-feminist rhetoric, people aren't going to be focusing on improving Men's Rights, they're going to be focusing on the offensive rhetoric. In doing so, their opinion of Men's Rights advocates goes down, and then, subsequently, so too does their opinion of Men's Rights themselves.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights wrote: »

Article2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

The idea of Human Rights should be as simple as pen pushing bureaucracy and should not be swayed because someone is a man, or someone is a woman. The fact that we have an idea set as "pro mens rights" and "pro womens rights" itself is counterproductive to the idea of Human Rights which doesn't take gender into account.

liah wrote: »

I understand the basic tenents of the anti-feminism argument. Genuinely. I am not a feminist myself and have never identified myself as anything other than an advocate of equal rights. I can understand the argument for why it's dangerous to promote one gender over the other. I am empathetic when I hear of men who have been messed up by certain sections and aspects of the feminist movement. But I am equally disconcerted when what was originally a force for equal rights is now being bandied about as an insult by those claiming to want equal rights themselves. Fighting fire with fire is never a productive solution to the very real concerns these human rights issues present.

There's quite a lot in this particular paragraph, but to me, the main issue being highlighted here is, "What is equality and what does it mean for him/her?"

As far as I'm aware (and I'm not aware of much), there were two key issues with womens rights when the idea of gender equality was first being brought out. 1) Right to vote. 2) Equality in the workplace.

From what I can see, in most of society this is the norm now.

With this, there's only 1 real issue I can see with mens equality and that's as Sonics2k mentioned above. Access to their children defaulting to the mother. This is an inequality as blatant as the 2 key issues previously for womens equality. Access should be based on proven suitability more so then the stereotypical idea that the mother knows what's best for their children.

liah wrote: »

It does a disservice to anyone's movement when it is reduced to mud-slinging from one side to another, reduced to competition about who has it worse. It solves absolutely nothing. So why has it become so common? Why has it been turned into a war? Where is the satisfaction in that, and where is the progress?

The competition and trying to show who has it worse I recon is more so due to nature, but would have very little in a way of showing it... If does seem odd to me that be instinct we are meant to show ourselves as superior, but in turn it seems Men/Women are advertising their portrayed weaknesses overall. The only way there can be progress is if we make our gender irrelevant as per the excerpt from the Declaration of Human Rights I quoted above.

I believe gender is only relevant for the physicality of it. By that I mean the body parts and our traditional mating rituals...

(Sidenote: I've no issue with homosexuality)

liah wrote: »

For any men who have thrown about the word feminist or feminazi intended in a derogatory manner while discussing rights, can you please explain what you feel this accomplishes for your movement?

I've never been one to throw out the "feminazi," remark. To be honest I think adding "nazi" onto to something and trying to make a point about how stupid it is, is pretty lame in itself.

With regards to using the phrase "feminist." If there is an equality issue as blatant as right to vote or equality in the workplace, I've no issue with it.
With that though, I've often said "feminists are sexist too." I take issue with "feminists" who push forward stereotypical ideas of men, or stereotypical ideas of women stereotypically held by men...

And "feminists" who's goal isn't equality, but in turn to oppress men as a form of vengance...

The Corinthian · 07-04-2011 10:11am

When viewing the question of men's rights, it is important to identify the problems before one can explain the vitriol that many men express in this area.

To begin with Ireland is particularly bad where it comes to men's rights. Compared to other EU, or even Western, countries, men have significantly fewer legal rights and protection compared to women. Probably as a result of history, where women had significantly fewer legal rights and protection compared to men up until the last twenty or so years, you have a situation whereby there is an almost exclusive political emphasis on servicing women's rights and protection and practically none for men that has led to a plethora of laws geared towards women, either explicitly or in practice, while men end up getting the short end of the stick.

Secondly, again in the Irish context, those 'traditional privileges' that women 'enjoy' remain untouched - constitutionally women are protected if they choose to remain at home, for example, men are not. Now, while many Feminists may claim that such 'traditional privileges' are offensive to women, in practice they have made no effort to reverse them.

Thirdly, few men (or women) accept that women are really being discriminated against any more. More correctly, where it exists it comes down to the above 'traditional privileges' rather than discrimination of men against women. An example of this is the salary gap, which is trotted out by the Irish Times and other sectors of the media on a regular basis with the implication that it is down to discrimination. Problem with that is that it does not take long to figure out that it's not as simple as that; women in their twenties out-earn men and the gap forms as a result of women sacrificing their careers in favour of family.

And that sacrifice cannot really be put on the shoulders of the patriarchy, because 'feminism' has made no effort to encourage equality in family roles - largely because this would mean sacrificing some of those aforementioned 'traditional privileges'. Give a man paternity leave to help out the mother, sure, but give him rights to his children, that he is looking after, and you'll suddenly get silence from the feminist camp.

However, the emphasis on feminism above is also down to the fact that there is very little on the other side of the argument and this is really a failing on men ourselves. Men's rights appears to be largely treated in the same way as men's health is - we don't bother until it affects us. Even where we might rant online about it, once we step away from the PC, we're going to forget about it. Much of the reason for this is we simply do not like the idea of being victims.

This is not altogether our fault. There's practically no education on these issues for men. We have expensive marketing campaigns on diseases for women or for their 'options' in the event of a crisis pregnancy, and little or nothing for men. Men are additionally bombarded with increasingly dubious propaganda about how we're still oppressing women and this further conditions us not to 'complain'.

As a result, 99% of those involved in men's rights are those directly affected by it. The guys dressing up as batman outside the courts or even licking envelopes for fathers rights campaigns are the ones who are not only fathers, but those who are adversely affected. If childless or if we have no problems with the mother, we just don't care. I'm all right Jack.

It would be like the breast cancer movement being supported only by women with breast cancer - in reality, many women who have never and will never have breast cancer get actively involved. Or the pro-choice movement being composed solely of women who have had or want to have abortions. Men have failed to adopt the same form of "brothers are doing it for themselves" comradeship that women achieved.

A combination of the two sides of this problem has resulted in a lot of frustration and anger in men, who feel increasingly impotent against a system that is increasingly marginalizing and discriminating against them. Some of this anger is warranted; feminism is seen by many to really represent choice for women, rather than equality, and men are increasingly seen to have to pay for that choice, with people like Ivana Bacik representing the most disgusting examples of such gynocentric bias in Ireland today.

However, much of it is our own fault too and so to an extent lashing out at 'femnazis' is a means of avoiding the fact that we've allowed the situation to become so extreme.

liah · 07-04-2011 12:33pm

Fremen wrote: »

Liah, do you think you could provide some examples of what you're talking about? I'd like to make things a little clearer in my head.

On Boards all you have to do is go to any thread that has anything to do with gender in AH and it's bound to come out eventually. Doesn't happen as much here as thankfully the mods here clamp down on it pretty well.

On reddit, well, all you have to do is scan the first page: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/

Large amount of vitriol and bitterness, nothing much constructive actually going on. It's an absolute shame, as I would love to support them and discuss those topics, but it's such an incredibly hostile environment I (and probably many other women) just don't want to get involved.

The focus always seems to be on why whatever women are doing is bad, rather than how to actually change what needs to be changed. I just don't understand the point.

liah · 07-04-2011 12:49pm

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Men and women arent equal so treating them as such is foolish.

They are, insofar as they balance out. Men's strengths balance out women's weaknesses, and women's strengths balance out men's weaknesses. In that respect, genders are equal. Insofar as them being identical to one another in both mind and body, well, I don't believe anyone was trying to claim such.

Do you have anything more constructive to add about, perhaps, why it's foolish to pursue equality? And your theories as to which gender is "superior"?

Earthhorse · 07-04-2011 1:34pm

I'm not one of the men either involved in men's rights groups or in decrying feminists so I can't really speak for either but I would say it's down to a lot of what TC said.

Furthermore, I think that, compared to the inequalities that launched the feminist movement the inequalities effecting most men are trivial. To rehash what TC said, we only become involved when we're affected.

But I would also question whether such tactics are counterproductive. The idea that logic and rationality should be our companions on the road to equality is indeed a noble one, but is it true? Anger and outrage are often more powerful policitical forces than reason and debate. If you think about the feminist movement, who are the women that are quoted and debated most? Is it the reasonable, middle ground, hard to disagree with quarter? Or is the more emotional, radical, jaw-dropping statement quarter?

Saying things like "all sex is rape" may be patently untrue but it gets people talking and specifically it starts them rethinking what rape is because they need to do so in order to know what it's not. Such an exercise is wasted on many in this thread because we are already logical, rational thinkers, people interested in thinking (and dashingly handsome too) but it is useful to shock people who don't think about such issues out of their slumber and into the debate.

The Corinthian · 07-04-2011 2:02pm

Earthhorse wrote: »

But I would also question whether such tactics are counterproductive. The idea that logic and rationality should be our companions on the road to equality is indeed a noble one, but is it true? Anger and outrage are often more powerful policitical forces than reason and debate. If you think about the feminist movement, who are the women that are quoted and debated most? Is it the reasonable, middle ground, hard to disagree with quarter? Or is the more emotional, radical, jaw-dropping statement quarter?

I would broadly agree with this. As I mentioned in my previous post, one of the problems is that we are still force fed a diet of supposed patriarchal oppression on a regular basis, which other than being increasingly dubious is at this stage simply serving to socially censor any mention of discrimination against men. As a case in point of how little debate there still is, terms such as masculism and misandry are still unrecognized by most spell checkers - feminism and misogyny, on the other hand, have no such problem.

Ultimately, only by highlighting such inequities can one raise awareness and effectively kick-start debate - this thread being a case in point.

Of course, that is not to suggest that blatantly misogynistic propaganda is constructive - it's not and serves only to discredit masculism in much the same way that SCUM is used to discredit more rational feminism. However, I don't believe that this extreme represents any more than a tiny fraction of masculist thinking.

donfers · 07-04-2011 2:16pm

metrovelvet wrote: »

Is there a Mens movement other than the GAA? Wasnt the GAA used to establish IRish masculinity in the post colonial Marian mother Ireland to ammend the castrated feeling the men had as having been conquored by the Brits and then by the Virgin Mary?

are you for real or are you on a wind-up?

sensibleken · 07-04-2011 3:43pm

I remember my girfriend who used to be a teacher in leeds was telling me that the majority of girls thought it was a great idea to get pregnant because you get a council house, that people like jordan and the other one were good role models and looking for boob jobs for their 16th birthday.

I then realised Feminism should be a compulsory subject in schools to counteract the shíte the media is portraying as what is a 'successfull woman'.

That some men use the word feminism as an insult just shows what idiots some people can be in trying to raise any natural difference and portray it as some sort of natural advantage, be they racist, sexist or homophobe

SugarHigh · 07-04-2011 3:58pm

sensibleken wrote: »

I remember my girfriend who used to be a teacher in leeds was telling me that the majority of girls thought it was a great idea to get pregnant because you get a council house, that people like jordan and the other one were good role models and looking for boob jobs for their 16th birthday.

I then realised Feminism should be a compulsory subject in schools to counteract the shíte the media is portraying as what is a 'successfull woman'.

That some men use the word feminism as an insult just shows what idiots some people can be in trying to raise any natural difference and portray it as some sort of natural advantage, be they racist, sexist or homophobe

So feminism should decide what constitutes a successful woman?

If a young girl wants to grow up to be like Jordan who is a feminist to tell her she's wrong?

my girfriend who used to be a teacher in leeds was telling me that the majority of girls thought it was a great idea to get pregnant because you get a council house

How many of them actually do this? There was a discussion on this a while back and it was found to be pretty much bullsh1t because you really don't financially benefit by having kids in the vast majority of cases. It's along the same lines as claiming the government is giving foreigners free cars.

Dravokivich · 07-04-2011 4:04pm

sensibleken wrote: »

I remember my girfriend who used to be a teacher in leeds was telling me that the majority of girls thought it was a great idea to get pregnant because you get a council house, that people like jordan and the other one were good role models and looking for boob jobs for their 16th birthday.

I then realised Feminism should be a compulsory subject in schools to counteract the shíte the media is portraying as what is a 'successfull woman'.

That some men use the word feminism as an insult just shows what idiots some people can be in trying to raise any natural difference and portray it as some sort of natural advantage, be they racist, sexist or homophobe

I think what's there lacking is personal responsibility, nothing else.

sensibleken · 07-04-2011 4:06pm

SugarHigh wrote: »

So feminism should decide what constitutes a successful woman?

If a young girl wants to grow up to be like Jordan who is a feminist to tell her she's wrong?

How many of them actually do this? There was a discussion on this a while back and it was found to be pretty much bullsh1t because you really don't financially benefit by having kids in the vast majority of cases. It's along the same lines as claiming the government is giving foreigners free cars.

This was England I should point out. I have no idea if its true or not and whether it is or not is not the point, it is the sentiment expressed.

Feminism doesnt decide anything like that, its not a code of conduct or a set of definitions. A feminist has no right to tell another as in dictate if thats what you mean, the point is that these girls saw an extremely limited set of options for themselves. The idea of a strong independant woman, competing on the same level as a man seemed alien to them

The Corinthian · 07-04-2011 4:16pm

sensibleken wrote: »

Feminism doesnt decide anything like that, its not a code of conduct or a set of definitions. A feminist has no right to tell another as in dictate if thats what you mean, the point is that these girls saw an extremely limited set of options for themselves. The idea of a strong independant woman, competing on the same level as a man seemed alien to them

I think you're jumping to a number of conclusions based upon limited hearsay.

To begin with that "these girls saw an extremely limited set of options for themselves" probably had very little to do with their gender and far more with the socioeconomic background they found themselves in. And if so, boys would not have options either and the idea of 'competing' within the framework of civil society would be just as alien to them too - or did your ex tell you how all the boys went on to college?

On that basis, I would reject what you're saying as presumptuous.

Men's Rights & Anti-Feminism; Counterproductive?

Comments