Anyone who has ever taken to the streets as part of campaigns to stop violence against women (increasingly relevant after a new Alberta survey purports to reveal that one in 10 men think it's OK to hit a woman if she makes him angry), has probably come across the following argument: Where are all the campaigns to stop violence against men? For many who have yet to stumble upon the heated forums, blog rants, and protests that embellish the heart of this argument -- this may be your first foray into the men's rights movement.
You might then wonder what the movement wants and be compelled to do some research. Divorce settlement equality, better laws to stop violence against men by women, better custody laws... the list goes on. Some of these are very reasonable requests -- and in many cases, the MRM has been quite effective in achieving its goals. Some of the movement's more notable successes include "The Innocence Project," an organization that works to exonerate individuals who have been wrongly convicted of rape or otherwise, and "Just Detention International," an organization that works to end prison rape.
These emblems of progress represent all the good the MRM could accomplish if it wasn't stymied by one simple premise -- MRM doesn't want to work with feminist groups.
That the MRM began in the late 70s, primarily as a reaction to the successes of the feminist movement, should serve as the first flicker in the quest to determine why it exists in the first place. Though some of the more radical feminists of the era may have popularized the stereotype that this second-wave was "man-hating," this attitude towards feminists as oppressors seems to have sidelined the fact that the actual equality goals of feminism ought to be in the MRM's interest as well.
Ask any feminist and they'll be sure to tell you that the fight for equality includes men (or just ask anyone who knows what the word equality means). To reference a more recent example, one may turn to the successful "Rape is Rape" campaign. Led by the Feminist Majority Foundation and Ms. magazine, it managed to garner enough support to have the FBI change its archaic definition of "forcible rape" to one that includes women who have been raped by means other than physical force, and to one that now includes the rape of men.
Yet there are still those who believe that feminists are to blame for the so-called oppression of men. Famous men's rights activist, David Shackleton, once directly attributed feminism and its demasculinization of boys to the deepest evil in society. He even went so far as comparing feminism to the rise of Nazism in Germany. Fast forwarding to the social-networking age, one of the most popular MRM online spots is "A Voice for Men" -- a website that right off the bat lists categories such as "feminist lies" and "featured offenders" (who are all women). It even notes in its info section: "Men's organizing on their own behalf (successfully anyway) is, despite a century of feminist propaganda and claptrap, an extreme rarity."
This general mistrust of feminism, one that can be found throughout other popular MRM hotspots online (the subreddit /r/MensRights includes a thread in their information section entitled "brainwashing techniques of feminism") is why, in the 21st century, it's hard to take the movement seriously. Of note, both of these sites have recently been listed by Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups.
Whereas feminism has evolved to embrace the fight for the rights of all genders, races, and sexualities, the MRM loses traction when its members, as noted above, reinforce the worst stereotypes of masculinity rather than promote the issues it shares in common with feminism.
The spirit of such exclusive thinking can most prominently be seen in the headline dominating attacks on women's health care. Though right-wingers have been doing all they can for a while to close Planned Parenthoods and deny women necessary health coverage, Rush Limbaugh's remark of calling a student, who spoke in favour of Obama's policy on birth control, a "slut," seems to have awoken the nation to the fact that feminism isn't irrelevant (or a scheme for women to gain the upper hand in the "gender equality war") -- but that discrimination against women still very much exists.
To expand this point, don't forget about the Violence Against Women Act, which for the first time since it was originally signed in 1994, was not renewed. In 2008, MRM group RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting) actually succeeded at blocking an expansion of this bill which would have improved it internationally, providing foreign aid to help prevent worldwide abuse and exploitation.
Calling VAWA "one of the most harmful pieces of social legislation ever passed in the United States," RADAR's shortsighted actions seem to best sum up the worst of the MRM -- "If we can't have something that benefits us, then no one can."
The question then, that feminists are likely to ask about MRM, is whether the movement is even looking for equality or if the whole thing is simply a guise to facilitate misogynistic tendencies. Judging from the anti-woman/anti-feminist sentiments that seem to entrench the most popular MRM online hangouts, one would presume the latter. And Alberta's men in the aforementioned survey, 52 per cent of whom seem to believe that women are capable of leaving violent relationships if they really want to, seem to be an appropriate sample of this "Us vs. Them" mentality.
Of course, there are concerns of the MRM that should rightfully be investigated. For the first time, women outnumber men in universities -- striving to figure out just why men are faring much more poorly in the education system should be high on the agenda. But searching for solutions to helping those men is not the same as creating barriers to stop the women who are succeeding. If this point is ignored then developments, like those in Hanna Rosen's TED video talk, which charts the rise of women in society, will only inspire anger, rather than applause.
Follow Kyle Bachan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@KyleBachan
I find this correlation odd. where ever do you make the connection between "this legislation is harmful (to everyone)" becoming equivalent of "it must benefit me"? Why isn't "it should hurt who it's claiming to help" the correlation you'd make... unless you are simply using the opposition to Violence against women as some excuse to jump into a men are selfish attack. RADAR gives 8 examples of who VAWA harms (to support their assertion it is harmful), of which only one of those 8 are specifically men (and we're talking about who it harms, which is not the same as who it fails to benefit... "not benefiting" and "harm" are not synonymous) and 1 is women, another children, etc).
Seems to me, especially given the recent feminist left's shame and guilt tactics of calling any opposition to increasing female privilege a "war on women", that if anyone wants it all about them, it's feminists. I've often said feminism is an exercise in mass psychological projection.
Men have no reproductive rights. A mans unborn child can be aborted against his wish.
If a woman divorces a man and the woman says he cannot have equal custody he is relegated to an ATM. His child is kidnapped, he is extorted and if he fails to pay the extortion fee he goes to debtors prison. Out of wedlock births a man has no rights.
Since everyone is protected by law from violence, VAWA is a hate bill where only a man is guilty of DV. Since women initiate the majority of DV, 70% of non-recipricol DV and 80% of child abuse, VAWA has it backwards.
The reason men are failing in school is the hate policies and the method/grading of teaching has been altered by feminist legislature. Roadblocks are set up to hobble boys/men at every turn.
Even in criminal cases women recieve an average of 40% less time for the same crime if they even get any time. Then the statistic of more men in prison is thrown in mens faces for being bad and women being good.
After half a century of men paying for women to be privileged above men in every realm of society, maybe men are a little sick of womens version of equality. Take away a womans privilege of having men pay for her contraception and it's laughably called the "war on women."
http://www.modernprimate.com/10-responses-to-the-phrase-man-up/
And MRAs in Germany recently got the European Court of Human Rights to intervene on behalf of unmarried fathers in Germany because they were given no rights over their kids. www.thelocal.de/society/20101221-31945.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8395456.stm
In India, MRAs are fighting to get the domestic violence and rape laws gender neutral to include men. And guess who is fighting AGAINST all the above changes? That's right, feminists. And in India, only men can be prosecuted for adultery, while women are immune. www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2687318.ece
It is MRAs, not feminists, who are fighting for equal rights, Kyle.
I volunteer as a sexual assault councilor at the local women’s center. I man the hot line and offer advice to rape survivors. I show up at the hospital and mediate between the victim, the police, and the sexual assault examiner nurse. My role is mostly prescribed in Penal Code 679.04 and Evidence Code 1035. (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
“Ask any feminist and they'll be sure to tell you that the fight for equality includes men.” Ask any non idiot if there is a difference between what people say and what people do. The women at the women’s center are not much interested in helping men. Men are offered vouchers to a cheap motel and some sexually segregated counseling rather than the 24/7 support and housing at our local multi-million dollar women’s shelter. Perhaps this grudging acceptance of male survivors is because most of the original cadre were trained or influenced by the folks at the Valley Oasis Shelter; perhaps the only domestic violence shelter in America that shelters men. Read what the director of that shelter went through because of her belief that men should be treated as well as women: http://www.ncfmla.org/pdf/overberg.pdf. And you wonder why MRAs distrust feminist?
http://www.ncfmla.org/pdf/overberg.pdf
As far as I know it does not include forced envelopment (something most men have probably experienced), but certainly I could be wrong. I would love for HP to do their job and check these facts.
In the survey you note, in which it "purports to reveal that one in 10 men think it's OK to hit a woman if she makes him angry)"...How many women would say it's ok to slap a man if he makes her angry? My guess: more then 1 in 10. What are your Feminist Saviors of yours doing about it?
Considering the VAWA, it is for WOMEN and therefore it is sexist. Even women are waking up to this form of female privilege. Google "W.A.V.E. Women Against VAWA Excess" for more. What are your Feminists Saviors doing to recognize male victims?
If pointing out the sexism in feminism makes me anti-feminist, then that probably says more about feminism that it does me. As long as they continue to blame men for all society's ills, to refuse to recognize the fact that women are just as violent as men in intimate relationships, and to refuse to fight for the rights of men, then I have very little interest in working with them.
It's up to them to grow some and realize they are dinosaurs.
Three years ago the New York Times ran a screed that blamed the problem of domestic violence on "every man and in every class of society." (All the research shows women are as likely to abuse as men -- Click HERE -- but goodness gracious, let's not allow the facts to stand in the way of female empowerment!)
Americans pride ourselves as being open-minded and tolerant. So where did the feminist movement get sidetracked?
Professor Murray Straus, a courageous man who refuses to back down in the face of feminist efforts to squelch his research, explains it this way: "History is full of atrocities carried out in the service of a moral agenda."
Is that description a little over-the-top? Read on, decide for yourself.
Federal domestic violence laws funnel millions in taxpayer money to sponsor public awareness programs such as the Dallas bus ads, as well as training for judges and law enforcement personnel.
Former police officer George Sperry of La Mesa, Calif. described the training he attended as "so dripping with male hatred that everyone in the class felt uncomfortable, male and female officers alike."
But the most virulent anti-male ethos is found at the 1,800 abuse shelters scattered across the country.
A former worker at Bethany House in Falls Church, Va. revealed the facility was "largely used as a free hostel for women with emotional problems if they were willing to hate their husbands enough."
One woman, hired to work for a network of shelters in the St. Louis area, quit in disgust after only a few months because the residents "were subjected to a constant barrage of man-hating lesbian propaganda."
Erin Pizzey, founder of the first domestic violence shelter in England, let the cat out of the bag when she revealed many of the women in her shelter were as abusive as the men they had left. In retaliation, feminists issued death threats and eventually forced her to flee the country.
In the United States, Dr. Suzanne Steinmetz' research on the Battered Husband Syndrome triggered a whispering campaign designed to torpedo her impending promotion, as well as a bomb threat at her daughter's wedding.
Family violence researcher Murray Straus at the University of New Hampshire has been similarly slandered, harassed, and threatened by radicals who all claim to be against violence.
Now with that in mind, it's pretty understandable quite a lot of men and those that advocate for men are annoyed with such gendered views on domestic violence and rape, it's described as violence against women instead of just violence.
"Ask any feminist and they'll be sure *snipped paragraph*."
So why didn't the feminists start the violence against men campaigns? Obviously there are male feminists so what happened? The FBI definition update STILL FAILED to include envelopment/forced penetration, so please clarify when you say rape of men as meaning forcibly penetration of a man because it confuses too many people. Rape definitions by the FBI and the CDC DO NOT include men who are forced to penetrate someone else, such as when a woman rapes a man by envelopment.
"Right-wingers" would party hearty if only PP would quit taking taxpayer-subsidies. They're a profitable business (million$ per year). What happened to no-corporate-welfare?
The MRM from the 70's? Come on. Today's movement is NOT your "grandfather's MRM." Back then men were mostly distracted and then annoyed by all the bra-less women bouncing around. But today, just as the Women's Movement has gone beyond jiggling body parts, the MRM has also evolved. Why would they even pay lip-service to "the actual equality goals of feminism" when Feminists themselves left that in the dust of the 70's?
"General mistrust of feminism" by the MRM is a DISGUST at specific people and their writings, actions, comment-threads on feminist websites, etc. It's not bigotry when it's based upon countless happenstances.
The pendulum has swung so far towards Women in our society - the Family Courts and medical research (brea$t cancer!) just to name two - that I suspect the MRM will have its proverbial hands full for some time simply trying to reveal those and other biases-favoring-women to misinformed males out there. So I'd say don't look for that movement to crusade for specific Women's Issues. No problemo, though, cuz the majority of media outlets, not to mention the majority of politicos, will continue to rush to the aid of Women regardless their cause du jour.
--
There Is No Male-Female Wage Gap. A recent studys of single, childless urban workers between the ages of 22 and 30 found that women earned 8% more than men..
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048.html