A Redditor named doch_doch has a new blog she has just started and it is definitely worth a look. (This is one of the cleverer screen names I have seen. It means “though, though” or “yes, but….” in German.)
She has a very good early post, Why Not Feminism?
She starts with:
“Imagine you’re a man in the US in the time prior to women’s right activism.”
And winds up with this, which I have never seen anywhere else:
“So where we the men’s rights activist in all this upheaval? Well, with a few exceptions, there just weren’t any. While things were changing for women, things were not changing as quickly for men. In fact, men deviating from the norm of being the sole financial provider were dismissed, mocked, and ostracized.”
She summarizes:
“In the world I live in right now, I know that the gender binary is still screwing everyone. But for women’s issues there is a dialogue, there is movement and change. There is support from churches, government agencies, and individuals for “women’s” issues. Not only doesn’t this exist for men, it isn’t allowed to exist. Men’s rights is a dirty word for most feminists, with people throwing around accusations of misogyny, sexism, racism.
I’m not going to allow feminists to define this movement for me. There are some very, very angry men involved, it’s true. Anger can be destructive, but it can also breed change. Many men have just had enough of being told they don’t matter unless they’re rich and white.
I get it. “
Indeed she does. You need to read the whole post to see how thoroughly she gets it.
Something that just occurred to me because you asked where the MRAs were in the 1800s is that it would be interesting to compare the resistance from women that the women’s rights movement got, starting with the suffrage movement but not restricted to that, to the resistance the MRM is getting from men. People resist change because it threatens vested positions of power or security. That power may be real or simply the power of psychological comfort.
So let’s compare the two.
Male resistance to the MRM seems to fall into a few main categories:
There are the macho thumbheads who dismiss any discussion of men’s issues as un-masculine whining. These are the idiots who shout down male victims of rape(1), and who dismiss women raping boys by saying the boys got lucky.
Then there are the white knights, who downplay men’s issues because women and only women are the deserving targets of concern. These people believe in empathy apartheid. Basically it’s more macho posturing. A subset of these white knights are the guys who fancy themselves the protectors of sacred womanhood against all those other men, brutes all of them, with nothing between these fragile women and the horrors……
A special subset of these are the pedestalerasts. They love pedestalizing women, praising women to the heavens and calling them some higher form of life. Women are more nurturant, women are more intuitive, women are more insightful, if only women ran the world, all would be peaceful….
Then there are the complacent ones, who think things are fine the way they are. These are the guys who have yet to be sundered from their children by an ex-wife who the criminal and family court system privilege with every possible advantage. These are the guys who insist there can’t be anything wrong with circumcision because they were circumcised and they don’t know any better.
And then there are the guys who just benefit by keeping other men down. The word for that is kyriarchy.
Now let’s look at female resistance to the suffrage and larger women’s rights movements:
There were those who thought that all this agitation was unladylike. Real ladies didn’t want anything to do with politics, not even voting.
Then there were the complacent ones, the ones who knew a good deal when they saw it. The country had come through a devastating Civil War in which the war dead and maimed were overwhelmingly men and not women – women had almost completely been spared that. Further down the social scale men labored and died in mines and factories in unspeakable conditions – if you haven’t read the Jungle, this is the time to remedy that gap in your education – and their women knew that however hard their lot at home was, it was a damned sight safer and more comfortable than what their men went out to face.
And then there were those women at the top, hiding behind their front men running the world, keeping the women down.
So the question, and I am asking the commentariat, is to what degree these forms of resistance in the culture resemble each other, how they differ, and why.
Thank you.
1. It is worth your while to go read that whole sordid comment thread. A clear pattern emerges – most of the women support the male rape victim. Telling. And remember this was four years ago. Compare that with the state of the discussion on comment threads these days.
- The Woman Card - May 2, 2016
- Frat boy bachelorettes and the invasion of gay bars - April 15, 2016
- “Not my kid….” - February 22, 2016
by 
Men are conditioned to compete with each other so the idea of banding together is alien to many of us….
of course system’s like capitalism take advantage of this….
I was reading the “male rape” thread and the machismo by the men AND women was overwhelming….
anyways, I think men want to be seen as strong and would rather hide devastating trauma and the women want men to put on the “strong” persona because that want a protector who will “suck it up.”
….eh, I could only take so many of the comments though….
“A subset of these white knights are the guys who fancy themselves the protectors of sacred womanhood against all those other men, brutes all of them, with nothing between these fragile women and the horrors……”
I’m beginning to believe these guys see male sexuality as BAD….
Men are evil beasts that taint women. However, I’m sure that they probably see themselves as not dirty–a sort of reverse or inverse “Nice Guy” thing where they will protect the poor women and be worthy of the p*ssy….
Hugo Schwyzer seems to fit this mold-he also has shown himself to be an abuser AND didn’t see any problem with his ethical violations yet reprimands lower status men for “opting out.”
Many men support feminism for a clear and direct reason that’s hard to argue with:
http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=263
Okay, I nearly cried when I read this. Thanks so much for the shout out!
I\\’ve often thought that men are their own worst enemies when it comes to MR. And for all the reasons you stated.
I also feel like men often forget how powerful it is to be an attractive woman. It\\’s kind of like being a rich man, I guess. It seems to me that where women have no problem calling disrespectful behavior on the part of men (even to the point of exaggeration), men let attractive women get away with all kids of crazy shit.
Relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkoMbxHQmuM
Wake up guys!
For me, when I went looking for MRM stuff I found a lot of right wing ranting. Now, since then I’ve managed to find non-right wing stuff on MRM but IMO this is a problem. I’d like to see liberals, full on liberals, take on feminism from within liberalism. I sort of see this happening but only on places like youtube and stuff. Not in the media.
Just for the record, this person linked to in the OP links to TGMP as an example of MRM? For me, TGMP is an awful place.
“For more information on men’s rights issues than I could ever give you, please check out The Good Men Project. Totally worth your time.”
http://alliesofmen.blogspot.de/p/what-is-mens-rights.html
First off, doch_doch, thank you.
SWAB,
\\\\”Men are conditioned to compete with each other so the idea of banding together is alien to many of us….\\\\”
The competition thing is half the soptry. Men also band together quite effectiveley. On the street level it called gangs and on a larger scale it\\\\’s called battalions, divisions and armies. People used to joke that the 82nd Airborne Division was the largest street gang in the world.
The idea that all is compettiton is a notion you can entertain only when the social structure banding together provides is so secureluy in place that you can afford tot ignore it. Otherwise an individual is just meat on the hoof. You have to be kind of a bubble boy to be able to ignore that.
DB,
\\\\”For me, when I went looking for MRM stuff I found a lot of right wing ranting.\\\\”
Yeah, and it comes in two flavors. One, that has mostly fallen slilent in the MRM is the neo-patriarchalists. Paul Elam and his crew have prety much exposed the incoherence in that psotion and they have slunk away. Then there are the Ayn Randians who think men are natural lone wolves and women are natural herd animals, when the truth is right in the middle. That isn\\\\’t directed at you, SWAB.
One complaint I’ve heard people make is that a lot of the major MRM sites front arguing against feminists over directly discussing men’s issues. Like it or not, that definitely turns some people off. Not even necessarily people who like feminism, but people who are looking for a place to discuss their issues and don’t really care what feminists have to say about it.
I also have to second that the presence of some quite extreme conservative groups (white supremacists, etc.) in some MRM spaces makes a lot of people want to look elsewhere.
Personally, the average tone of the discourse just isn’t up to my standards and the communities don’t really interest me (of course, I don’t like large communities in the first place; that’s one of the reasons I come here). I tend not to trust large movements, in any case. Movements get in the way of people and ideals are not always congenial to understanding or practicality.
The attitudes you describe do form the backbone of it, though. I’m just talking about things that turn away people who are free enough of that muck to be interested in the first place.
“One complaint I’ve heard people make is that a lot of the major MRM sites front arguing against feminists over directly discussing men’s issues. Like it or not, that definitely turns some people off.”
That is a vlaid complaint for the reason you give below – there is a lot more to men’s issues than feminism. however feminism is a men’s isue.
This is the synthesis. The MRM is embarking on a thorough-going deconstruction or disassembly of Patriarchy TM, and sad to say, the feminism they are criticizing is part of Patrairchy TM, and bases itslef on patriarchal gender assumptions. that’s why the MRM should criticize feminism. It should criticize the failures of feminism to be what it set out to be.
This isi why when someone attacks the female sentencing discount, or the bias against fathers in the law and the courts, or sissue around false accusations, or DV, disparate educational outcomes, or you find feminist organizations like NOW and NARAL and individual commenters resisting. It’s because they are tradcons themselves.
Debaser and Hiding From The Dinosaurs largely explain why I cannot personally support the MRM, at least in its current form: It is full of bigots (both sexist, racist, ableist, heterosupremacist and other forms) and right-wing extremists. I am not talking about the people who wind up on Manboobz, I know that David Futrelle picks the most egregious examples he can find, but about the people I see when I read MRM sites. I want absolutely nothing to do with them – and I would probably not personally last very long in a hypothetical world ruled by the In Mala Fide commentariat.
anyways, I think men want to be seen as strong and would rather hide devastating trauma and the women want men to put on the “strong” persona because that want a protector who will “suck it up.”(Stoner)
Its perfectly real to become strong (macho) when no one, not male or female comes to your aid when the beat down comes. It may not be the right thing to do but it definately is the survival thing to do. Unfortunately it is a two edged sword that cuts both ways.
RF, I don\\’t blame you. A lot of MRAs are bitter and angry, and usually for very good reasons, but that is not an environment you are ever going to feel at home in.
TFT,
\\”Its perfectly real to become strong (macho) when no one, not male or female comes to your aid when the beat down comes.\\”
And it isnteresting to see exactly that kind of accomdoation in girls and women who don\\’t have the advantage of being able to call for protection.
@debaser, if you can give me a good reason to change my opinion on AVFM, I’m happy to hear what you have to say. I’m relatively new to this and there’s a LOT of information to sift through.
Woops, you\’re talking about TGMP.
@ doch_doch
Why should you change your opinion on AVFM? Because they’re the only men’s rights site that is successfully challenging the socon agenda and extricating the dialog from that mire of occult misandry.
What drove me away from the Men\’s Rights Movement is partially what was described above: Too many extreme, hard-core right wingers who believe anything feminism is Liberal and if we only voted republican or conservative, men\’s rights would be given a proper place on government agendas. I don\’t lean in any particular direction but still, that kind of absolutism doesn\’t sit well with me.
Another thing that drove me out of it was their insistence that kids from Single-Mother households are more likely to abuse drugs, cause trouble and never become successes. When I challenged that one time, I was labeled a \”Flat-earth denier\” by one of them at Feminist Critics.
I still respect Glenn Sacks and Warren Farrell and their brand of Male advocacy. But those who called me a \”Flat-earth denier\”, those who just bash liberals constantly while peddling their right-wing neo-con bullshit, well you can handle your problems on your own.
Oh yeah, another thing that bothered me about certain Men\’s Rights Advocates: Always assuming every man is a plumber, soldier, etc. Never realizing there are men who are artists, actors, writers, musicians, poets, who also believe in Men\’s Rights as well. Still more gender essentialism crap in the guise of male concerns.
Like I said, I respect only what Glenn Sacks and Warren Farrell brought to the table.
@ Eagle
“Another thing that drove me out of it was their insistence that kids from Single-Mother households are more likely to abuse drugs, cause trouble and never become successes.”
The fact that children from single mother homes face greater problems(even controlled for by socioeconomic factors) is well established scientifically.
A child is not an accessory. No one has the (moral)right to add one to their life just because.
Typhoneblue: “The fact that children from single mother homes face greater problems(even controlled for by socioeconomic factors) is well established scientifically.
A child is not an accessory. No one has the (moral)right to add one to their life just because.”
Doesn’t always equal causality, Typhoneblue. That’s where we part ways. Respectfully I might add. Besides, the “Flat-Earth Supporter” (not denier, I got that wrong) cinched it for me. These hard-core Men’s Rights Advocates are no different than those gynocentic feminists who minised my experiences.
You’re right, a child is not an accessory and I have a serious problem with Single Mothers By Choice. But that’s all I’ll agree on.
@ Eagle
Due to ethics no one can really untangle causality in human behaviour. However the correlation between single-mother households and poor outcomes for children is one of the strongest and most consistent in the social sciences.
http://stonerwithaboner.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/niether-a-feminist-nor-an-mra-ever-shall-i-be/
“For me, when I went looking for MRM stuff I found a lot of right wing ranting. Now, since then I’ve managed to find non-right wing stuff on MRM but IMO this is a problem. I’d like to see liberals, full on liberals, take on feminism from within liberalism. I sort of see this happening but only on places like youtube and stuff. Not in the media.”
The reason why I like this genderratic site is because it seems to be a more liberal crowd. I’d like to see it grow.
“One complaint I’ve heard people make is that a lot of the major MRM sites front arguing against feminists over directly discussing men’s issues. Like it or not, that definitely turns some people off. Not even necessarily people who like feminism, but people who are looking for a place to discuss their issues and don’t really care what feminists have to say about it.”
Arguing against feminists is good. Though I think we spend too much time lamenting how awful the things feminists say about men are. I feel like that kind of gives feminists what they want, to make us feel angry and upset. Maybe there should be more discussion on strategies to protect men’s rights from feminists? Are there men’s rights organizations that combat feminism out in the field, or is it just an internet catharsis?
“I tend not to trust large movements, in any case.”
The larger a movement gets, the more out of your control it becomes, and the less powerful your voice becomes when you try to shout “you’re doing it wrong.” Unfortunately, movements have to become big in order for any change to happen.
OO & Ginko:
I understand why MRM sites spend so much time arguing against feminism, I am merely relaying to you criticisms I have heard voiced by several people on gaming forums. These were people who were actively looking for places to discuss men’s issues, so I think it’s worth examining why they didn’t feel the MRM sites would serve that purpose. A brief look at the headlines on most major MRM sites will give you the impression that they are groups that fight against feminism and occasionally deal with men’s issues on the side, rather than groups that deal with men’s issues and fight against feminism when it gets in the way of doing that (which is often). They need to be the latter and they need to LOOK like the latter at a glance if the MRM wants to attract more people and establish an identity independent of feminist discourse.
OO:
That’s not why I dislike large groups. I generally feel extremely uncomfortable around large numbers of people, even online, and I feel much more relaxed and comfortable in smaller groups where it is possible to remember and recognize everyone and to carry on a more personal conversation.
The perception that MRM fixate on feminisjts did not come out of the air. But Typhon is right – criticizing it is part of criticizing the socon matrix, becauee in the end, it is a socom ideology, or has become that. And that, doch_doch, is why oyu shoudl go back andl ook again. I think you wil;l be surprised to find how much you agree with what they have to say.
At the same time, go in ready. Think of those places as burn wards. People go there in a lot of pain. Some of the most caustically misogynist guys are the ones raised by feminist mothers. Others have had the powoer of the Patriarchal state oppress them and privilege their wives in taking their children away and forcing them to finance that – that\’s where a lot of the libertarian talk comes from. Someone posted something to r/Men\’s Rights pointing out that the difference between most on-line feminists and MRAs is that the feminists are primarily young, college-aged women who are regurgitating a catechism and defend it like young jihadis defend Islam, whereas MRAs on-line are typically older and are speaking from their own personal experience. There is energy on both sides, but the energies are different.
A note on the political slant here. Part of ur proect is to expose the anti-male character of the socon consensus. Part of the socon agenda is to be all big government in fact and portray itself as small government to the public, so it fools a lot of people. Myself, I\’m a military veteran so I see the need for government to prevent Hobbesian chaos, and I also understasnd exaclty how deathly totalitarian it can be, all at the same time.
A large part of why I personally read (and post) on gendersphere sites has to do with why Ginkgo calls some of these sites \”burn wards\”.
I was raised by a feminist mother, although she jettisoned most of her more extreme views when I was still very young – she has later explained to me that raising boys taught her that her former views on male nature were mistaken (and today, her actual opinions on gender are more closely aligned with the MRM than with feminism – she regards it as a disaster that young men do so poorly in the educational system, that they so often develop mental disorders and that so many of them commit suicide). Her friends, however, did not (and neither did the largely female staff of child care institutions I grew up in), and I spent most of my childhood absorbing various nasty views about men, served to me before I really had the critical faculties to understand that I was only hearing one side. I knew that rape was a horrible thing men did to women before I even knew what sex was. I knew that all the things I liked about myself – such as being smart and kind – were considered \”girlish\”; these women would often comment that I was so smart that one should think I was a girl. I knew that men were stupid, grunting ogres who watched soccer and liked violence – and I remember vividly how horrified I was to discover that I was going to grow up into such a creature. (It needs to be said that I was hyperlexic, and would sometimes grab random literature from my parents\’ bookshelves and read through – my word decoding ability far outstripped my actual comprehension). My father was a quite kind, but also quite troubled man, who I lost contact with when I was very young. My stepfather spent most of his time demonstrating that men could be exactly as horrible as all those women said they were.
I am convinced that many other boys have gone through similar childhoods, and emerged healthy on the other side. The issue of \”all things good are associated with the other gender, all things bad are associated with me\” is probably also an experience I share with girls who grew up in patriarchal environments. Perhaps the reason that I grew into what I did is just that I have a naturally weak and fragile psychological disposition (which I probably do; things others consider trivial can freak me out completely, as is unfortunately common for autistic people). But at any rate, by the time I was a young adult, I so thoroughly hated everything male that I wished to be castrated or nullified to take myself out of the role of the inadvertent suppressor. I have spent time living in self-imposed \”solitary confinement\” because I thought that my mere presence in public spaces contributed to oppression of women. The combination of radfem rhetoric and a very literal, some might say gullible, mind, did not help.
I did not grow into a caustic misogynist; I grew into a hateful, self-loathing misandrist. I still am, even though I try my best not to be. I wasted what should have been the best years of my life sitting around hating myself due to my gender. I still struggle to not immediately associate everything male with evil; it is my \”backbone\” reaction by now. I still view sex as a consensual kind of rape (rather than rape as a nonconsensual kind of sex) unless I take time to think things through and remind myself that this is just because I learned these things in the wrong order. I am practically unable to interact with women in any way but in either a professional or purely platonic context (which is a bit of a bummer, since I am unfortunately heterosexual).
The feminists I grew up with were a very different bunch from most of those I see now, writing on the Internet. Perhaps it is a generational issue. Most of the feminists I grew up with were *extremely* essentialist, they believed that men and women were so radically different that they were practically different species (with men being naturally prone to violence and oppression, and women being naturally peaceful and cooperative). Most of the feminists I see writing online have a different core view, namely that gender is socially constructed, and that the social constructs we currently have for gender are broken and lead to broken human beings. And that is actually a view I can \”naturally\” sympathize with, because I think I am a broken human being, and gender enforcement was one of the things that contributed to turning my life to shit. It is just that the most militant gender enforcers I have ever met also called themselves feminists.
Some of the voices from the MRM – the more misogynist ones – remind me of a sort of mirror image of the women I grew up with. They are saying exactly the same kind of thing, except that instead of saying that men are violent and brutish and nasty, they are saying that women are deceitful and evil and nasty. They are focusing on negative human traits and making them negative female traits – which I think is not only counterproductive and stupid, it is also wrong (men cannot be deceitful? Male politicians seem to be just as good at manipulating and lying as any woman). This is the personal side of why I do not call myself an MRA or support the MRM – their misogyny reminds me so much of the misandry I experienced as a child; I cannot support people who remind me of that. The less personal and more overtly political aspect is that I will not support a movement that willingly includes white supremacists, heterosupremacists and misogynists – if the MRM criticizes feminists for not denouncing Mary Daly\’s genocidal fantasies, all the anti-trans sentiment or the use of racist imagery in Amanda Marcotte\’s books, then it is a bunch of hypocrites if it does not denounce its own extremist hatemongers.
I want to heal myself, and many of the wounds I have in my mind are gender-related. By discussing these things in public, I hope that other people with similar wounds might have a slightly less difficult time healing themselves (if it is possible, which I am not sure of for myself). I do not want to hurt women as revenge. Some MRAs seem to want revenge; that is a motivation I do not have (not because I am particularly good, but simply because it will not help anything at all).
Wow, what a powerful comment, RF. And I have huge respect for your mother and her intellectual honesty and moral courage. She must have come in for a lot of shit form those \\”friends\\”. The rest of the comment is so rich that I can hardly respsond right now.
IMO AVFM is ok, but they are a little rough around the edges. Personally I have no issues with this but I don\\’t feel right in directing people to check out that site unless they are already on board with the stuff we talk about here. To me, and maybe I am wrong, AVFM seems to preach to the choir (which IMO has great value too) but they aren\\’t going to make converts or help people into a mindset that promotes change.
TGMP, on the other hand, has too many articles about how terrible men are. About how women should be scared of men. Never mind the awful title, as in men are bad, and we are starting a project to make them good! Also, the manner in which TGMP talks about men\\’s issues simply seems to take feminist language, change it up a bit, and viola apply it to men! Because feminism is just ohh so awesome that it applies universally to everyone! In my mind, TGMP is exactly what NOT to do if you want to talk with men about issues. Granted maybe I just keep getting linked to bad articles, but the \\”good\\” ones too, still leave a bad taste in my mouth.
I will not go out of my way to find examples that are just going to irritate me. Fair enough? But, if TGMP helps feminists get their shit together and not be so \\”radfemmy\\” then I can place value on TGMP even though I think their content mostly sucks and rarely applicable to me. But, like I said, so much of that site seems to revolve around men (as a group) being bad, it only reinforces the radfem mindset. \\”See, see HS says men want to cum in your face because men are evil jerks!\\”
/rant off (feeling very ranty today) maybe it\\’s the heat.
And it isnteresting to see exactly that kind of accomdoation in girls and women who don\\’t have the advantage of being able to call for protection.(Ginkgo)
I personally think the adjustment for many women is sexual in nature and for men it is more by force. They are both expressions for gaining control in an area that they obviously lacked control. These are obviously generalities as each gender has individuals who express it in the same way.
I think one of the reasons that men are resistant to MRM is human preference for familiar.I heard stories about slaves(especially the one who were born as such) ,don\\\’t wanting to leave their masters.Most people will pretend that everything is ok,until it becomes extremely unbearable.In other words people will go to extreme lengths to prevent there \\\”realety buble\\\” from bursting.
It is very hard to look outside of the box,it is even harder training to live outside one.
I dont have problem with right wing people ,in general.I do have problem when they think(and not just them anyone who thinks that way as well),that here way of life is the only right one.And that people who do not fit are either:evil socialist,socialist apologist ore unnatural.Because humans are all the same,as if we came straight from assembly line.
Live and let other people live.
I do have big problem with extremist.Mostly because I don\\\’t let my past take over me,and neither should other people.But I try to focus on the message,arthur then the messenger.Which does not mind that I condone some MRA\\\’s being hypocrites or dismissing other people experience.
Valkina:
Well, how welcome do you think a man feels in the MRM if he happens to be a socialist?
While I realize that the term is often used more or less as a curse word in the US, many European countries have large numbers of self-identifying socialist citizens.
The MRM does not seem so inviting when its members accuses people it does not like of being like you – and also, it ceases to meaningfully be able to call itself a \\\”men\\\’s rights movement\\\”, since socialist men are also men (as are anarchist, liberal, conservative, fascist and fundamentalist men, for that matter).
In this particular case I was talking about right wing conservatives.
But it seems there is a big disagreement going on on Youtube,between several MRA’s.Who leftist man can’t be MRA.
We have does as well.Some people who are nostalgic about good old days.When Tito was still alive.
And that is precisely the problem. If only right-wing conservative men are accepted in the MRM, then it is no MRM at all, it is just a right-wing conservative group for men (with women as allies).
My own “resistance to the MRM” is as I have outlined above: Not because I enjoy living in a society with current gender standards (I do not), nor because I think men’s issues should be viewed from a purely feminist viewpoint (I do not, inasmuch as feminism is first and foremost a women’s movement), nor because I stand to gain anything at all from maintaining the status quo (I do not; the status quo has not exactly been kind to me).
I resist the MRM because it is full of people who say all kinds of things I disagree with on many levels and on a lot of issues. I do not wish to live in the kind of society many MRMs seem to be advocating. I do not wish to associate with people who call me weak and write long screeds about how people like me need to be bullied.
To paraphrase Gandhi, I like men’s rights, it is the men’s rights activists I do not like – they are so unlike men’s rights. Something similar can be said about feminism, actually. I like the idea of getting rid of harmful and mistaken gender standards, which is the purported goal of feminism, but I dislike how many feminists can be the most militant gender enforcers around.
RocketFrog:
For what it\\\\’s worth I understand.I myself was greatly hurt bue current \\\\”status quo\\\\” as well.One of the reasons why I was interested in MRA in the first place,where event in my past.And things I hate to endure,because I was an inconvenient anomaly in air current \\\\”gender statu quo\\\\”.And I wanted to help men who went thru the same thing.But what I found,where group of people who were claiming things that happen to me can only happen to men.\\\\”This cold never hapen to women\\\\”.\\\\”If this was a woman,this won\\\\’t
\\\\”This cold never hapen to women\\\\”.etc.It seems I am an inconvenient anomaly even there.So I want to help men,but I think it can be done without having to sacrificing women like me,ore man like you.This way I support MRA,but I dont call my self one.They bring some good points about the way we trite man.
And I don\\\\’t know if this matters.As far as I am concerned man like you,are just as important as everyone else.And it is said that this people don\\\\’t consider you as such.
It is official.Anti-spam hates me. : /
This is off-topic, but FUCK THE GOOD MEN PROJECT AND FUCK EVERY SINGLE ONE INVOLVED THERE!
I recently posted a comment again relating to being hurt by girls and women in an article commentary section and low and behold, not only was it put into moderation it was deleted altogether.
FUCK THEM! Especially Lisa and her “Pushing agenda” accusation. If I can’t feel free to talk about it or even mention it, then fuck them all!
Good evening.
I enjoy this site and I read it very often. I want to ask for permission to translate all the articles I can find into spanish and to translate them into my blog.
I wont do anything without the permission of the writers.
I will wait for your reply.
I have told you to stick around here.
I go back and forth with them, but I have very low expectations of that place. Any place whose project is to deal with men\\\’s issues through feminism is just not serious and should be taken as serious.
Daniel, you may take every word here and translate and use it as you see fit, and spread it as widely as oyu like. Y muchisimas gracias por todos sus esfuerzos.
“I like men’s rights, it is the men’s rights activists I do not like – they are so unlike men’s rights.”
Here are some things to keep in mind. Feminism is not only an element of the left, but it has a lot of power within it, and it is probably the most powerful constituent within the left. So when feminism throws its weight around, bullying leftist men into not caring about their own issues, well who does that leave left to care about men’s issues? Right wing extremists, white supremacists (innately divisive towards men), religious conservatives, and then the feminists will say “oh look, it’s just a bunch of conservatives and libertarians in the MRA”, a self fulfilling prophecy.
So what should we do about the right wing extremists? Fight back? No. Ignore them, don’t associate with them, and instead keep telling left wing men why they should care about their own issues. That’s the only way to do it.
as far as TGMP….
they have a nazi sympathizer as a contributor…..
oooops, that’s an ad hominem….
He just “rubs elbows with them”
Jack Donovan….
No thanks TGMP-I don’t want your brand of masculinity…..
I take it with pride if pissing of Amanda Marcotte and some white nationalists doesn’t match your definition of a good man….
http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/the-good-life-the-way-of-men-interview-with-jack-donovan/#comments
OO: I am not sure I would agree that feminism is “the most” powerful constituent in the left, but it is a powerful force on the left. And this does leave some left-wing men stuck in a situation where they are sort of gender politically homeless.
At least in my culture, feminism transcends left and right; there are lots of self-identified right-wing feminists. I think that for the MRM to gain any traction (in fact, for it to gain any legitimacy as a “movement for men”), then it has to be able to do something similar.
But to be perfectly honest, I do not think it is particularly productive to frame gender politics in terms of a men’s movement fighting against a women’s movement (or vice versa). At the moment it might be unfortunately inevitable. Hopefully our descendants will laugh at us.
“I do not think it is particularly productive to frame gender politics in terms of a men’s movement fighting against a women’s movement”
I prefer to frame it as a rights movement against an “ism.” We shouldn’t think of the MRA as reverse feminism, with some theory that gets turned into a dogma. We just care about mens issues and would like to improve their situation.
[…] Yo lo entiendo.” Ciertamente ella lo entiende. Necesitas leer todo el post para ver que tan profundamente lo entiende. Algo que se me ocurrió ya que preguntaste donde estaban los ADHs en los 1800s es que sería interesante comparar la resistencia de las mujeres al movimiento de los derechos de las mujeres, empezando con el movimiento por el sufragio pero no está restringido a eso, la resistencia al Movimiento por los Derechos de los Hombres viene por parte de los hombres. La gente se resiste al cambio porque amenaza posiciones establecidas de poder o de seguridad. El poder puede que sea real o simplemente el poder del confort psicológico. Así que comparemos ambos. La resistencia de los hombres parece caer en dos categorías: Los machos-cabezas huecas quienes tratan con desdén cualquier discusión de problemas de los hombres como lloriqueo no-masculino. Estos son los idiotas quienes acallan a las víctimas masculinas de violación (1) y quienes tratan con desdén a las mujeres que violan niños al decir que los niños tuvieron suerte. http://pjmedia.com/blog/ask-dr-helen-can-a-man-be-raped-by-a-woman/ Entonces están los caballeros blancos, quienes minimizan los problemas de los hombres porque sólo las mujeres son las merecedoras de preocupación. Esta gente cree en el apartheid de empatía. Básicamente hacerse los machos. El subconjunto de estos caballeros son chicos quienes se enorgullecen de ser protectores de la sagrada feminidad en contra de todos los otros hombres, todos son unos brutos, con nada entre esas mujeres frágiles y los horrores… Un subconjunto especial de estos son los pedestalistas. Ellos aman poner a mujeres en pedestales, alabando a las mujeres a los cielos como si fueran una forma más alta de vida. Las mujeres son más cuidadoras, más intuitivas, más profundas, si sólo las mujeres gobernasen el mundo todo sería pacífico… Entonces están los complacientes, quienes piensan que las cosas están bien tal y cual como están. Estos son los que todavía no han sido removidos de la vida de sus hijos por una ex esposa a quien el sistema criminal y el sistema de las cortes de familia las privilegian con cada ventaja posible. Estos son los tipos quienes insisten que no hay nada mal con la circuncisión porque ellos fueron circuncidados y no conocen nada mejor. Y entonces están los tipos quienes se benefician de mantener a los otros hombres en mala situación. Esto es el kyriarcado. Ahora miremos a la resistencia femenina al sufragio y al movimiento por los derechos de las mujeres. Hay aquellas quienes pensaron que toda esta agitación no era digna de damas. Las damas verdaderas no querían nada que se relacione con la política, ni siquiera el votar. También están ahí las complacientes, las que sabían que tenían un buen trato cuando lo veían. El país había sido devastado por la Guerra Civil en la cual los muertos por la guerra y los amputados eran mayormente hombres y no mujeres – las mujeres habían sido casi completamente exentas de eso. Además hay que considerar la escala de labores masculinas en la cual, los hombres morían en las minas y trabajaban en fabricas en condiciones innombrables – si no has leído “La Jungla”, es hora de remediar la brecha en tu educación – y sus mujeres sabían que a pesar que su lugar era duro en el hogar, era mucho más seguro y más cómodo que lo que sus hombres tenían que enfrentar. Y entonces estaban esas mujeres en la cima, escondiéndose detrás de sus hombres gobernando el mundo, oprimiendo a las mujeres. Entonces la pregunta y le pregunto a los comentaristas, hasta qué grado estas formas de resistencia en la cultura se parecen la una a la otra y en qué manera difieren y porqué. Gracias por sus comentarios. http://www.genderratic.com/p/1701/misandry-%E2%80%93male-resistance-to-the-mrm/#comment-9406 […]
“I prefer to frame it as a rights movement against an “ism.” We shouldn’t think of the MRA as reverse feminism, with some theory that gets turned into a dogma. We just care about mens issues and would like to improve their situation.”
Except that contemporary feminism is a lead proponent of male oppression. From family courts to domestic violence law to “if you have consensual sex with your wife when the two of you are drunk you’re a rapist…”
Feminist ideology is dedicated to assembling an apartheid state of punishing men for a system that younger men, especially, had nothing to do with. At it’s core, it’s been conquered by upperclass population control groups with an interest of controlling labor and profiting from prisons. Feminism abolishes love and creates business deals out of relationships. Instead of affectionate relationships, women are taught to think about relationships solely in terms of power relationships.
Feminism is misandry as it is today. They used to have serious issues to contend with. I firmly believe women should be allowed to pursue their own goals and futures as they please, but they’ve taken on such a dedicated philosophy of hating men that it’s pretty hard to want to be generous to their interests.
“Except that contemporary feminism is a lead proponent of male oppression.”
Exactly. It is the the most active form of traditionalism today, the one with the broadest appeal.
” At it’s core, it’s been conquered by upperclass population control groups with an interest of controlling labor and profiting from prisons.”
At its birth it is an upperclass movement. There is absolutley no inconsistency between the pankhurst’s agiation for upper-class female suffrage and their eagerness to hand out white feathers.
” with some theory that gets turned into a dogma. We just care about mens issues and would like to improve their situation.”
Sorry, but it never works that way. Some kind of theoretical frameowrk is necessary to organzie people’s efforts if only to prevent them from working against their own aims. Who can you tell if yoyu are getting where you wnat to go unless you identify what that place is?