Very fair opinion piece on the MRM

Ekekekeptangyazingni · 2013-07-31T18:18:13+00:00

For those who can't access the article

NEVER MIND the “war on women:” According to growing numbers of bloggers, activists, and authors — some of them women — it’s males in modern Western society who are under siege and whose rights need defending. Is this the next frontier for gender justice, or a woman-hating backlash? Men’s advocacy raises important and worthy issues that often draw unfair ridicule. Unfortunately, it is also prone to toxic rhetoric that subverts its valid points and alienates potential supporters.

To many, the very notion of “men’s issues” or men’s rights seems laughable. But consider: If women were dying in 90 percent of workplace fatalities and three out of four suicides, would we not see such numbers as troubling—and as legitimate women’s issues? Yet, reversed, the disparities go unnoticed.

Unlike racial profiling of minorities, the disproportionate targeting of males by law enforcement gets no attention (women account for more than a third of illegal drug use but fewer than 15 percent of arrests). And, while men are often presumed dangerous to children, actual female molesters tend to get lenient treatment.

Attempts to restrict abortion are decried as patriarchal control over female reproduction, yet there is virtually no recognition of ways in which current policies treat paternity as a public resource. Men coerced into unwilling fatherhood (through deception about birth control or even, however rarely, such extreme methods as use of stored semen from a condom) must still pay child support. Even those tricked into supporting children they didn’t father find little recourse. On the flip side, divorced fathers often feel they are treated more as wallets than as parents.

Even when imbalances that disadvantage men or boys — such as male academic underachievement — become the subject of concern, such concerns are often viewed with suspicion as potential attacks on women.

Men’s advocacy raises important issues that often draw unfair ridicule.

Many feminists (of both sexes) claim the answer to men’s issues is feminism. Male adversities, they argue, stem from patriarchal norms, which feminism opposes, including the stereotype that women are better parents or the stigma against men showing weakness. Feminist battles against sex discrimination have sometimes focused on the rights of males, from equal parental leave to benefits for husbands of female veterans.

Yet, with a few exceptions, feminists have balked at any pro-equality advocacy that would support men in male-female disputes, acknowledge that women can mistreat men, or undermine female advantage. Supporting paternity leave is one thing; supporting equal parental rights after divorce is another. While the feminist push for gender-neutral laws in the 1970s helped dismantle the formal presumption of maternal custody, actual efforts by fathers to get sole or joint custody brought on a swift backlash from the women’s movement. Likewise, when the campaign for tough domestic violence policies netted more female perpetrators, women’s groups pressed for anti-male double standards, promoting the myth that nearly all female violence is in self-defense. Meanwhile, laudable feminist efforts to secure justice for rape victims have often turned into calls for a presumption of male guilt.

Is a men’s rights movement the answer? Advocates of men’s causes such as author Warren Farrell have made needed contributions to the understanding of gender issues. Unfortunately, any movement championing one gender seems doomed to devolve into victim politics and demonization of the other sex. Some leading men’s rights websites such as A Voice for Men offer a steady diet of vulgar woman-bashing that discredits any valid points they may make.

A new book on men’s issues, “Men on Strike” by psychologist and blogger Helen Smith, discusses real male concerns in such areas as divorce, fatherhood, and male-bashing in colleges, and offers good insights into how traditional chivalry toward women leads to neglect of male disadvantage. But these points, too, are undercut by Smith’s embrace of extreme “war on men” rhetoric — including the dubious thesis that men are shunning marriage as a rebellion against their disenfranchisement — and her tendency to quote bitter men obsessed with female treachery.

Perhaps what the 21st century needs is not a women’s movement (which was once essential to secure basic rights) or a men’s movement, but a gender equality movement. The problem today is not a “war” on anyone, but rather biases that limit and hurt both sexes in different ways, and the challenges of adapting to new rules and new roles. Men and women, we’re all in this together. Let’s act like we know that.

ManUpManDown · 2013-07-31T19:30:25+00:00

Exciting times, folks. More and more people in the mainstream are starting to realize that being "progressive" and "on the right side of history" may mean rejecting feminism rather than embracing it. These people are finally starting to see that feminism should be defined not by what it abstractly claims to be, but by what it manifestly does. Actions speak louder than words; imagine that.

rogersmith25 · 2013-07-31T18:46:42+00:00

This article was excellent. I particularly liked the fact that she preemptively undercut the feminist argument that what men need is more feminism:

"Yet, with a few exceptions, feminists have balked at any pro-equality advocacy that would support men in male-female disputes, acknowledge that women can mistreat men, or undermine female advantage."

notnotnotfred · 2013-07-31T19:44:36+00:00

I'm unsurprised to see Cathy Young's name attached to this. She's written a number of very even-handed criticisms of feminism and advocacy pieces for men.

avantvernacular · 2013-07-31T18:37:30+00:00

So it begins.

theozoph · 2013-08-01T10:43:36+00:00

WTF has happened to this sub?

Seriously, an article which conclusion says "the MRM isn't needed", is considered "fair", and fucking upvoted 82 times at this hour?

Where have the MRA's gone? 'Cause all I see is a bunch of feminists busy cutting the branch on which they're seated. This sub is going to shit, and will soon cease to be a valid source for MRM-related topics.

Delete this bullshit, or downvote it into oblivion. Cathy Yound is a piece of shit trying to hijack the MRM by giving it lip service, and you're all falling for it.

Here's what really matters : she attacks MRA's for woman bashing (a lie) and attacks AfVM, despite the fact that Paul Elam, JtO and consors have been at the forefront of the MRM efforts, and are almost single-handedly responsible for its new visibility. It would be like acknowledging during the 60s that, "yes, blacks have it rough, but the rhetoric is too extreme and what we need is racial equality for both caucasians and african-americans. Oh, and that NAACP thing is really too racist."

W.T.F?

Disorderly-Conduct · 2013-07-31T18:23:59+00:00

Some leading men’s rights websites such as A Voice for Men offer a steady diet of vulgar woman-bashing that discredits any valid points they may make.

It was going great till that point.

Sasha_ · 2013-08-01T10:22:00+00:00

Meh.

Kind of alright, except for the 'oh but ONLY if these nasty men weren't so NASTY in what they said in such a NASTY angry way and if they were peaceful and polite and didn't DEMAND stuff, and oh my the THINGS they SAY! I do declahr it makes me feel all faint.'

Oh fuck off Cathy. We've got a fucking right to be pissed.

CasivalDeikun · 2013-08-01T02:10:43+00:00

A very nice article indeed although I disagree with the claim that AVfM is a woman hating website. Us it critical of women, and those that either practice or defend toxic behavior? Yes it is. Is it misogynistc? No, I don't believe so.

I also found an issue with this line: " including the dubious thesis that men are shunning marriage as a rebellion against their disenfranchisement"

Dubious my ass. Maybe she hasn't noticed, but marriage isn't a safe place for men right now. Hell, even dating can be dangerous. The constant male bashing and hatred gives a distinct message to not bother. Why try if you're going to be insulted and put down no matter how well you perform?

rodvanmechelen · 2013-08-01T01:42:28+00:00

A few years after Christina Hoff Sommers' splendid book, Who Stole Feminism? came out, Cathy Young's Ceasefire! was published. Sommers' book was well received, but Ceasefire languished for some reason. It's an excellent book (I had the privilege of receiving an advance copy from Cathy), and I strongly encourage everybody to read it.

Deansdale · 2013-08-01T07:22:41+00:00

Was fairly fair until this:

A Voice for Men offer a steady diet of vulgar woman-bashing

Come on, GTFO. If AVFM is too radical for you you must be having heart attacks every time you see what feminists are doing. This is just another thinly veiled attempt at women controlling both sides of the argument. Fighting for men's rights is okay as long as women can dictate the terms, right? Warren Farrell is fine because he is meek and polcorrect... If you think Helen Smith or Paul Elam are radicals you don't know anything about what the word means.

2013-08-01T06:42:02+00:00

The piece didn't really do anything for me. It pointed out that there are extremists in the movement which should come as a surprise to no one. made some points that we (those who follow and participate in MR discussions and issues) already know and finally came to a "Let's all get along conclusion." In a way in undercuts the MRM because to someone already indoctrinated in a feminist world view, which unfortunately is a vast majority, it just discounts our stance with a "oh well they have some good points but they are not really what we need."

cutcoguru · 2013-08-01T06:48:40+00:00

The thing which makes me slightly skeptical is when she criticises the MRM for engaging in "victim politics". The fact is that highlighting the plight of male victims is essentially addressing an imbalance. When the MRM highlights the existence of male victims, it is to shift society from a notion of "men cannot be victims" to "men are equally victims" - as opposed to the feminist progression of "women can be victims" to "women are perpetual victims [of men]".

Also the piece was slightly toothless. What would have really hit home would have been also addressing the issues raised in this article:

http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberthirtysix.htm

It's pretty hard to ignore the dismiss misandry in society when it's so bad that it has resulted in the US court system devolving into a glorified pedophile ring (and yes, it's entirely reasonable to call it that when it turns child rape victims into financial slaves to their female rapists).

GenderEqualityKing · 2013-08-03T22:06:58+00:00

This was an EXCELLENT article. We do need a gender equality movement.

YetAnotherCommenter · 2013-08-01T04:20:58+00:00

Another great article by Cathy Young. I don't think it is an attempt to discredit the MRM per se... she seems very put off by A Voice For Men, which is understandable honestly... AVFM is hardly a levelheaded, even-handed site. It has deliberately adopted a confrontational rhetorical style and I'm not surprised at how Young is put off by this.

Note how Young also criticizes Helen Smith principally for "extreme 'war on men' rhetoric."

Young strikes me as someone who is just fed up with all the mudslinging and acrimony (she did once write a book called Ceasefire! Why Men And Women Must Join Forces To Achieve True Equality), and she doesn't really care who is slinging the mud.

I'd think she'd have a far more positive response to Warren Farrell than she would to Paul Elam.

Title	Very fair opinion piece on the MRM
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	77
Comments	93
Date	July 31, 2013 6:17 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1jfq5y/very_fair_opinion_piece_on_the_mrm/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/very-fair-opinion-piece-on-the-mrm.1167489 https://theredarchive.com/post/1167489

Comments