Struggle against "masculinistes" / "mens' rights" activists

116 posts / 0 new
Last post
lagatta
Struggle against "masculinistes" / "mens' rights" activists

I think we could do with a new topic about the feminist combat against this reactionary, patriarchal movement (which includes rightwing women as well as men).

Most of the references I have are from here in Québec, and in French, but I'm sure we can turn up others.

I want to make it clear that this is not an opposition to or denial of real issues men face as a gender, such as a higher rate of "successful" suicides in some cohorts, or a higher occupational death rate, or what can be a real (and stereotyped) preference to award custody of minor children to the mother rather than the father. There are aspects of patriarchy, and patriarchal capitalism, that harm men "old soldiers never die ... young ones do"... And patriarchy, as well as stereotyped gender roles, can be harmful to people of all genders.

Feminists have said the above for a very long time, and expressed that a view that a more equitable society would benefit everyone, even though men would have to abandon privileges (one can say something similar in terms of racism and other systemic discriminations).

No, this is a fight against a backlash that seeks to discredit feminist spokespersons and movement as "feminazis" and to reground male privileges and entitlements.

http://stop-masculinisme.org/

https://www.ababord.org/Des-hommes-contre-le-feminisme

Here is an article in English: http://www.academia.edu/2399678/Masculinism_and_the_Antifeminist_Counter...

The terms Masculist and Masculinist have also been used in English, in part to underline that this movement is not merely about the (legitimate) rights of men.

Also see my post on cyclofeminism vs the persistance of patriarchal harassment...

 

Issues Pages: 
kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

lagatta wrote:

The terms Masculist and Masculinist have also been used in English, in part to underline that this movement is not merely about the (legitimate) rights of men.

I had never heard the terms before I read your post but a quick google opened my eyes. The Green's take on divorce was likely drafted by men who ascribe to the misogynist drivel on the websites I found.

6079_Smith_W

They (really, it might just be one person) regularly poster here in Saskatoon. Always heavily taped and dated. Not being the sort to rip down posters - though some do - I respond in sharpie.

The propaganda ranges from the petulant (why do you not trust men?) to the downright hateful (don't be that woman who fakes rape charges and throws babies into garbage bins). And feminazi posters, which you can download from AVFM. In fact almost all of them come from that site.

They are organized, and getting moreso. Not surprising since our federal government gives them charitable status while it defunds women's organizations.

I didn't want to bother getting into the debate in that other  thread, but A Voice For Men has been identified by the Southern Poverty Law Centre as a hate group. There is another more benign "men's rights" site that I can't remember the name of which some facebook friends of mine like. Frankly I find it still far too obsessed with claiming victimhood and wondering why women don't like them.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Manosphere

 

lagatta

Yes, I wanted to remove this argument from the other two threads; I want to respect the sex workers' site's space and not post there, but don't want unchallenged "sniping" against feminists continue there, and conversely, not all feminists and feminist allies fighting this reactionary movement speak with a single voice about sex trade issues by any means.

I don't know enough about child custody issues to know how legitimate male complaints might be, but if there are legitimate complaints, those are based on SEXIST STEREOTYPING, which is hardly feminists' fault. The stereotyping sounds more like the kind of crap "Real Women" would advocate.

Here in Québec, these groups have been very threatening to feminists and feminist conferences, including some that have made approving "jokes" (ha, ha, very funny) about Marc Lépine...

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

The custody issue is one that is still trotted out regularly, but the reality is that custody arrangements have changed dramatically over the last 20 years.  Joint custody is the norm, with equal time split between parents.  Where equal time is not the arrangement, it's either voluntary or because of demonstrated factors that work against the child's interest. Basically, you really have to be a fuck up if you don't get joint custody, because it's the default position in family court.

I know a few women who paid spousal support after a split, fewer who've received spousal support, and some men who became better fathers under the joint custody arrangement than when they were married (they HAD to be involved parents instead of sloughing the chores off to their spouse).  Women being more commonly in the work force - a feminist gain! - has actually benefitted men's equal access to their children after a divorce, rather than the scenario usually painted by MRAs using the medium of male tears. 

ETA:  Here's a link to David Futrelle's blog, We Hunted the Mammoth, which is a round up of MRA issues and the antics of antifeminist misogynists involved in them:

http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/

 

6079_Smith_W

@ TB

That's a blast from the past.

Actually the first encounter I had with anti-women groups (20 years ago now) was with a fellow running an organization dedicated to fighting what he saw as women's unfair advantage in custody and divorce. Kind of flew in the face of what I saw as reality at the time, and when, some years later I was in a position to garnishee someone's wages for child support it was my pleasure to opt for the maximum.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

It's an interesting conundrum, to say the least.  On the one hand, you've got men who want men to reclaim the stereotypical masculine role, keep women inferior and in their place, eschew tasks that have been traditionally considered women's work like caring for children and keeping house.  On the other hand, you've got the same guys whining about not getting equal custody of children that they have never really looked after and resent having to pay for the food and clothing of.  Dissonance much?

And that's aside from the fact that men do, by and large, get equal custody - 42% of divorced families according to this http://www.ontariofamilylawblog.com/2010/09/articles/divorce-2/what-is-t... law blog from 5 years ago.  That's down from about 80% sole custody going to women in the mid-'90s.  That's a tremendous rate of change over 15 years and appears to be continuing.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ TB

That's a blast from the past.

Actually the first encounter I had with anti-women groups (20 years ago now) was with a fellow running an organization dedicated to fighting what he saw as women's unfair advantage in custody and divorce. Kind of flew in the face of what I saw as reality at the time, and when, some years later I was in a position to garnishee someone's wages for child support it was my pleasure to opt for the maximum.

Yeah, although sometimes the garnishee arrangement is something that both parties find beneficial - you can opt for the Maintenance Enforcement office to garnishee so that there is less dispute between acrimonious parties.  I had a few WCB clients ask for it when I was in that job.

My niece is currently struggling with an ex who is largely unwilling to contribute to things like daycare and extracurriculars for their daughters.  He makes her go to court for everything, refuses to even speak to her when he picks up the kids.  And they have joint custody where he gets nearly equal time (she gets 4 days a week due to work schedules).  I have no respect for people, male or female, who balk at looking after their kids financially.

lagatta

I have certainly seen an incredibly deep and rapid change in parenting roles over the last generation - nowadays in my neighbourhood I see as many young fathers as mothers pushing around carrying and walking hand in hand with small children. These young men were raised by feminists and we can be very proud of that.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I agree, lagatta!

I hope the blond guy and I have modeled equal parenting for the wild girls.  It's my hope they won't accept anything less! 

I think there really is a cultural change happening.

lagatta

We have witnessed an equal change in cross-cultural partnerships, and of course, a far greater first tolerance, then appreciation of people of different sexual and gender orientatoins.

There are things changing for the better, despite Harperites, masculinists, religious fundies of all faiths and the rest of the retrograde set. But some of the angry "alienated" from these changes can be threatening. I'm trying not to centre this on the shadow of Polytechnique which weighs so heavily on me (and on everyone else writing an exam at Université de Montréal that evening). Sadly, there have been many incidents of femicide here in the Montréal area this past summer, including one of an Indigenous woman, the Inuk Nellie Angutiguluk, allegedly strangled by her boyfriend...

6079_Smith_W

There are two steps to it, IMO. The fellow whose wages I garnisheed seemed like a sensitive enough guy, honestly seemed to love his kids, and didn't have any bitterness. Thing is, if you aren't the one directly supporting the kids you can claim poverty and not have to make the difficult decisions and sacrifices single parents have to.

Of course there are guys who, once they have a good job and partner-slash-babysitter all of a sudden it is the mother who is the one who can't provide proper support, so the kid should come live with them. I had a good friend who had to put up with that indignity, and fortunately the kids saw through it.

It is those kinds of hard realities that some of these groups conveniently ignore.

 

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Well, you've provided me with this morning's procrastination!  Here's another family law blog posts (didn't know until now that family law blogs were a thing) about how custody arrangements where equal parent time in joint custody is more about fairness for parents than necessarily in the best interests of kids:

Quote:
As an initial step, I think it is important to appreciate the vacuity of the arguments in favour of shared parenting used by most men's groups. In essence, the argument usually goes like this. Equal parenting is in the best interests of children because it is fair, and it is fair because it is equal. The problems with this logic, apart from its circularity, are that it is really the interests of the parents which are served by mathematical fairness in the division of a child's time, and that it presupposes that an equal division of the child's time is prima facie in the child's best interests. Most of my male clients who have held this view have been unable to articulate any concrete reasons why their children's best interests would be best served by an equal division of time other than that the division of time would be equal.

Next, men's groups usually point to the fact — and it is a fact — that most separated mothers have their children for most of the time, and claim that this is evidence of an institutionalized judicial bias against men. There are a number of problems with this argument. Firstly, a statistical distribution of parenting time is not evidence of anything other than the distribution of parenting time. You have to go a fair bit further to prove motive in order to conclude that bias actually exists, and so far this is where the men's rights groups have fallen short. (65.6% of the Justices and Masters of the British Columbia Supreme Court are men, by the way.) Secondly, there are social and economic factors that provide a far more compelling explanation of this statistical distribution other than the existence of a secret judicial pact against men.

http://bcfamilylawresource.blogspot.ca/2013/12/why-there-is-no-place-for...

6079_Smith_W

On that note, I had a good friend who was given to her mother because she was the only one of six kids too young to speak and state her preference, and the judge didn't want to leave the mother childless. All the other kids chose their father. My friend wound up terribly abused.

Back in the day when the assumption was that mothers were the natural caregivers.

We are kind of drifting, but I expect we'll get back to the main theme soon enough.

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I think so.

There's no question that there was bias, but I think that has long gone by the wayside - except in the fevered imaginations of MRAs (see, back on topic!!). 

The problem is that unless you support changing gender roles, you can't change the child custody hobbyhorse they're so fond of riding.  Who is or is not (and to what extent) the primary caregiver is counts in the calculus the judge uses to work out an arrangement.  You want equal time?  Make sure you do it before you split from your spouse.

Which more and more men are doing, now. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The system in BC is designed to try and take into account the best interests of the child. That is a varible depending on the individual parents involvement. The vast majority of separations and divorces are solved between the parties without resorting to the courts. It is usually when the parents see their children as chattel that the problems arise. In my life experience I have seen that trait far more often in men than in women but it is not exclusively gender related. However equivalency arguments are absurd because not all men are created equal when it comes to their desire to care for others and do their share.

quizzical

i don't know personally i didn't get the chance to share custody for long my daughter's dad died when she was young.

but i've 2 friends with shared custody agreements.

one's child who is now 10 is going to counselling because he can't deal with moving homes and changing rules every 5 days.

my other friend's 2 boys 8 and 6 don't talk. one doesn't more than the other. no learning disabilities. i believe they've silenced themselves because they don't get a choice on changing homes every 4 days.

this whole men's rights movement and feminism has long been my grrrrrr. i still don't know where i'm at with it because patriarchy has done so much damage to men too. and i've argued with my mom over it 100's of times. but now i'm getting on in life towards "middle age" my views and thoughts are changing and leaning more towards, "if men thought it was bad enough for them they'd change it" too.

 

quizzical

huh, i was just reading in the decrim thread and want to thank Smith for indicating how feminists were and still are being called nazis in the thread.

i had no idea who the man was being referred to. i'm sickened.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I think a lot goes on in the subtext of the post-marriage relationship that kids pick up on.  If there's ongoing conflict, it makes it really tough on the kids going from one environment to the other.

I have some friends that have made the shared custody arrangement work really well - there was a lot of patience and goodwill on both sides to make it work, though.  And my daughter has a friend whose parents chose to live within 3 blocks of each other to make it easier on their son - no issues with walking to school, proximity to friends or the ability to pop in on the other parent whenever.  I really admire people who can make those kinds of choices for their kids.

PS - quizzical, I know you don't claim the label "feminist", but you sure sound like one! ;)

 

quizzical

oh ya there's always subtexts going on....

in the case of the 10 year old (they live like 3 mins by car apart and maybe 4 by pedal bike) his dad is a red neck 'you need to be out firing up a chain saw son' and i really mean he said it and means it. and his mom is not a feminist, but....a professional woman raised entirely by her mom another educated woman.

the rules and views of the world are so different between the homes he can't seem to align the validity of either in his mind. he just knows he doesn't want to fire up a chainsaw - ever.

on the feminist "front" ;) think it's just generations of strong women in my blood.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

My second wife, the mother of my children, and I separated and divorced and we had no problems. We both had only our boys in mind and all decisions were made on that basis. Now a decade later she and her spouse come to my and my spouse's home for holidays. Our adult sons also come and we all have a good time. 

My boys lived with me most of the time snce I could afford a bigger place and I didn't need any monetary child support. They went to their Mom's, which was in the neighbourhood, on Thursday evenings after school ansd stayed overnight and every second week they would stay until Sunday evening. Of course that arrangement was flexible depending on what came up for either of us. If the two people want to make it work it will work if one or both of the parties is an asshole then the kids suffer.

The first while I was astounded by the concept of having a whole weekend to myself without any family obligations after being married for over 15 years.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

quizzical wrote:

oh ya there's always subtexts going on....

in the case of the 10 year old (they live like 3 mins by car apart and maybe 4 by pedal bike) his dad is a red neck 'you need to be out firing up a chain saw son' and i really mean he said it and means it. and his mom is not a feminist, but....a professional woman raised entirely by her mom another educated woman.

the rules and views of the world are so different between the homes he can't seem to align the validity of either in his mind. he just knows he doesn't want to fire up a chainsaw - ever.

on the feminist "front" ;) think it's just generations of strong women in my blood.

Poor little guy.  I feel for him. 

And those strong women in your blood?  That's where a lot of feminists come from.  :)

I saw a trailer for a movie, "Suffragette", due for release this fall.  I'm going to take my daughters (who both define themselves as feminist) for a movie night.  :)

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

My second wife, the mother of my children, and I separated and divorced and we had no problems. We both had only our boys in mind and all decisions were made on that basis. Now a decade later she and her spouse come to my and my spouse's home for holidays. Our adult sons also come and we all have a good time. 

My boys lived with me most of the time snce I could afford a bigger place and I didn't need any monetary child support. They went to their Mom's, which was in the neighbourhood, on Thursday evenings after school ansd stayed overnight and every second week they would stay until Sunday evening. Of course that arrangement was flexible depending on what came up for either of us. If the two people want to make it work it will work if one or both of the parties is an asshole then the kids suffer.

The first while I was astounded by the concept of having a whole weekend to myself without any family obligations after being married for over 15 years.

It's great when everyone is on the right page with the kids' interests at heart.  My niece wishes things could be less acrimonious with her ex - she wants her kids to have a good relationship with their dad.  It's hard to accomplish that when he makes things harder for them to spite her. 

quizzical

Timebandit wrote:
 And those strong women in your blood?  That's where a lot of feminists come from.  :)

I saw a trailer for a movie, "Suffragette", due for release this fall.  I'm going to take my daughters (who both define themselves as feminist) for a movie night.  :)

i will watch for it coming to Jasper, if it does, and make a 3 gen movie night.

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture
quizzical

omg the trailer made me cry.....

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I know, right?

6079_Smith_W

Saw the trailer a few weeks ago on FB. Very timely (especially given the attacks on general suffrage in this election) and I am looking forward to seeing it.

To link women's suffrage back to these anti-women men's groups, here's Gamergate and Sad Puppies proponent (and open racist) Vox Day's completely unsubstantiated rant about why why he thinks women should not have the right to vote:

http://voxday.blogspot.ca/2005/08/why-dont-women-have-to-vote.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/04/08/_2015_hugo_awards_how_the...

Don't know why it surprises me that some of these fools go after such a basic right, but it does.

 

 

 

lagatta

Well, racists are still trying to disenfranchise Black people, and the Con electoral reforms will disproportionally affect Indigenous people. No surprise. I can't help but think of the notorious Bernie Ecclestone...

Paladin1

I can't add anything thoughful to this thread other than saying thanks for posting it, it's very interesting to read and think about.

Brachina

  I concider myself to be an MRA and a feminist and I know of others who do too, such as my newest personal hero Jennie Bharaj, founder of basedgamer.com, a video game review site. Not all MRAs are antifemist, although most, including those who concider themselves feminists as well are very critical of the Elites within feminism, and corruption within.

 I will grant that they're are elites in society that have harmed both genders, and in fact many MRAs will agree with that, but they resent the term parcharchy.

 I'm a lefty, I think I've establish that by now on rabble, from wanting key internet/phone/hydro infostructure nationalized, to supporting gay rights, super prochoice, ect... so the stereotype of MRAs is bullshit. 

 I also believe that consent can be withdrawn during a sex act, safety word means no, I like having and giving explicit consent (but I don't expect everyone to adhere to my personal standards), that they're is a wage gap, but only in specific industries, and it can go both ways (male model and porn actors apparently make less money then they're female coworkers for example), and so on.

 

 Just trying reminding people I'm not a women belong in the kitchen, women hating (or men hating) charicture.

 I support the Men's Rights Movement because they talk about issues I care about, thinks like a society that seems to have more compassion for women then men, because I think some Elite Feminist intellictuals, and organizations (not all) promote poor quality ideas and research, hypocracy, and corruption and that the greater feminist community deserves better then that, but sadly there is far too little internal accountiblity.

 As for parents taking responsiblity fincially, I think they're are 2 key exceptions, 1 if the father opts out at birth, in which case he should not be concidered the father (this idea I believe actually has its origins in feminism, but its been taken up MRAs), and secondly you can't expect blood from a stone, the state should take over financially in the case of low income parents, in fact this is one of the last forms of debtor prisons, parents who can't afford to pay child support can be put in jail in some states, although how the fuck they're supposed to make money to pay it  in jail, I don't know. 

 

lagatta

By the way, the man who pushed the woman cyclist into the path of traffic has turned himself in:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/25/man-pushes-cyclist-into-l...

And just a couple of random things about those puir, misunderstood MRAs...

http://mic.com/articles/90131/the-8-biggest-lies-men-s-rights-activists-...

http://www.agoravox.fr/actualites/societe/article/les-masculinistes-une-...

http://www.vox.com/2015/2/5/7942623/mens-rights-movement

Some of them (and not only Marc Lépine) have explicitly threatened feminists here in Québec.

http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/societe/2009/12/07/001-Rochefort-me...

I know some prominent feminists, younger than I am, who have received such threats.

quizzical

Brachina wrote:
  I concider myself to be an MRA and a feminist and I know of others who do too, such as my newest personal hero Jennie Bharaj, founder of basedgamer.com, a video game review site. Not all MRAs are antifemist, although most, including those who concider themselves feminists as well are very critical of the Elites within feminism, and corruption within.

 I will grant that they're are elites in society that have harmed both genders, and in fact many MRAs will agree with that, but they resent the term parcharchy.

 I'm a lefty, I think I've establish that by now on rabble, from wanting key internet/phone/hydro infostructure nationalized, to supporting gay rights, super prochoice, ect... so the stereotype of MRAs is bullshit. 

 I also believe that consent can be withdrawn during a sex act, safety word means no, I like having and giving explicit consent (but I don't expect everyone to adhere to my personal standards), that they're is a wage gap, but only in specific industries, and it can go both ways (male model and porn actors apparently make less money then they're female coworkers for example), and so on.

 

 Just trying reminding people I'm not a women belong in the kitchen, women hating (or men hating) charicture.

 I support the Men's Rights Movement because they talk about issues I care about, thinks like a society that seems to have more compassion for women then men, because I think some Elite Feminist intellictuals, and organizations (not all) promote poor quality ideas and research, hypocracy, and corruption and that the greater feminist community deserves better then that, but sadly there is far too little internal accountiblity.

 As for parents taking responsiblity fincially, I think they're are 2 key exceptions, 1 if the father opts out at birth, in which case he should not be concidered the father (this idea I believe actually has its origins in feminism, but its been taken up MRAs), and secondly you can't expect blood from a stone, the state should take over financially in the case of low income parents, in fact this is one of the last forms of debtor prisons, parents who can't afford to pay child support can be put in jail in some states, although how the fuck they're supposed to make money to pay it  in jail, I don't know. 

offs i'm not a feminist  and i can see you definitely aren't one no matter how you self identify....talk about poor quality ideas.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Quote:
I support the Men's Rights Movement because they talk about issues I care about, thinks like a society that seems to have more compassion for women then men, because I think some Elite Feminist intellictuals, and organizations (not all) promote poor quality ideas and research, hypocracy, and corruption and that the greater feminist community deserves better then that, but sadly there is far too little internal accountiblity.

Such as?

Links, etc, to back this up, please. 

6079_Smith_W

Brachina wrote:

 I'm a lefty, I think I've establish that by now on rabble, from wanting key internet/phone/hydro infostructure nationalized, to supporting gay rights, super prochoice, ect... so the stereotype of MRAs is bullshit.

That doesn't follow at all.

Whatever personal reputation you might have here it has no bearing at all on this discussion about organizations, any more than libertarians who somehow think they are progressive just because they support legalization of marijuana. On that, they are in line with the Fraser Institute.

The only article on AVFM I could find that wasn't in some way attacking feminism or women was one warning about a porn app with malware. Not exactly my kind of political content. As for the slightly more benign ones, sorry, but pop-psych articles about men feeling better about themselves, or bothering about how to attract a partner seem more like People Magazine to me. And really, they just seem to be there as cover for more of the same rhetoric.

lagatta

There is an odd reactionary discourse (not only antifeminist, but anti-ecologist etc) that always seeks to portray progressive social activists as "Élites".

Brachina

 A voice for men does lean heavily towards antifeminism, but in some cases its partially justified, although I wish they would make so many blanket attacks against feminists and vis versa. 

 As for use of the term Elites, I use it to seperate normal people who believe in feminism from certain manipulative individuals who I believe are petty, destructive, spiteful, and who encourage toxic situations for profit, vanity, vengenceness, ect... I'm sure I can find some MRA who behave simularly. I don't use it to tar all feminists or even all persons of influence in feminsm like a rightwinger.

 @Quizzical no offence, but your not feminisms bouncer, you don't get to decide who gets into the club or not. 

 @Timebandit equalitycanada.com, its a starting point to fully do what you ask is a major project invovling a great deal of research and work, perhaps I will do so over time, but its no small undertaking if I'm to do it justice, but for now the link I provided. 

 

Brachina

 Lets set aside past differences and come together both MRA and feminists to create a better world one without domestic violence, without rape, a world that has compassion for those who are hurting, where no one gets left behind, a world of understanding and free speech, a world were passion and logic are harmony, a world without poverty, filled with dreams and opportunity, but deviod of harsh judgements, where individuality is respected and collective good will benifits us all.

 Does this not sound like a better world?

 

quizzical

brachina how do you "believe" in feminism? and i'm not being flippant or anything.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Brachina wrote:

 As for parents taking responsiblity fincially, I think they're are 2 key exceptions, 1 if the father opts out at birth, in which case he should not be concidered the father (this idea I believe actually has its origins in feminism, but its been taken up MRAs), and secondly you can't expect blood from a stone, the state should take over financially in the case of low income parents, in fact this is one of the last forms of debtor prisons, parents who can't afford to pay child support can be put in jail in some states, although how the fuck they're supposed to make money to pay it  in jail, I don't know. 

You missed the boat on the first exception by about nine months. If your sperm impregnates a woman you are responsible. Haven't you ever heard of birth control? If you don't want to support kids don't have unprotected sex, end of story.

The state does not get involved in most divorce and separation cases. Only a very tiny percentage of cases go to court and those are usually driven by assholes who don't see children as a shared responsibility but either chattel or a burden.

If the state takes over financial obligations for children of low income parents who divorce I think the divorce rate will increase dramatically.

I have some advise for you, one man to another. Men should never annoint themselves feminists. If you're called one by women then that means something but it seems to me to be a bit too macho to thrust out ones chest and appropriate some one elses movement 

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Brachina wrote:

  I concider myself to be an MRA and a feminist and I know of others who do too, such as my newest personal hero Jennie Bharaj, founder of basedgamer.com, a video game review site. Not all MRAs are antifemist, although most, including those who concider themselves feminists as well are very critical of the Elites within feminism, and corruption within.

That must be one uncomfortable cognitive dissonance.

Jennie Bharaj appears to be a Gamergate supporter.  So she supports a group that is mainly men who go after female gamers with rape threats and death threats, started by a disaffected gamer as revenge against his ex-girlfriend, who happens to write about games.  A movement that has been vocal in wanting less diversity in both representation of women and minorities in games as well as games that might appeal to a demographic that isn't white gamer dudes. 

If she's your personal hero, you are not a feminist.  If you support Gamergaters' point of view and their tactics, you are not a feminist or feminist ally.  It doesn't matter what you consider yourself. 

So can you please give me an example of who these corrupt elites are?  With a link as to their elite-ness (your say-so isn't good enough) and their corruption.

Quote:
  I will grant that they're are elites in society that have harmed both genders, and in fact many MRAs will agree with that, but they resent the term parcharchy.

I don't care. Patriarchy had a definition before MRAs and if they don't like that they can lump it.

Quote:
I'm a lefty, I think I've establish that by now on rabble, from wanting key internet/phone/hydro infostructure nationalized, to supporting gay rights, super prochoice, ect... so the stereotype of MRAs is bullshit.

That doesn't logically follow. 

First of all, I don't follow your every word on this board, so don't count on having established anything.  You certainly haven't established any kind of lefty cred in this thread.

Secondly, even if you are a paragon of left wing ideology, I'm not sure how that absolves MRAs of being nasty, antifeminist pieces of work, given the kinds of things they say, do and advocate.

Quote:
I also believe that consent can be withdrawn during a sex act, safety word means no, I like having and giving explicit consent (but I don't expect everyone to adhere to my personal standards), that they're is a wage gap, but only in specific industries, and it can go both ways (male model and porn actors apparently make less money then they're female coworkers for example), and so on.

 

 Just trying reminding people I'm not a women belong in the kitchen, women hating (or men hating) charicture.

Okay....  But can you remind us why we would care whether you are or not?  And give us a little reminder on how just because you say you aren't but support people who are, that we should just uncritically accept your position that you aren't?

Quote:
I support the Men's Rights Movement because they talk about issues I care about, thinks like a society that seems to have more compassion for women then men, because I think some Elite Feminist intellictuals, and organizations (not all) promote poor quality ideas and research, hypocracy, and corruption and that the greater feminist community deserves better then that, but sadly there is far too little internal accountiblity.

I would like some evidence of these "poor quality ideas and research".  Also, some examples of who and what hypocrisy.  I did ask for some examples of the corruption you're talking about earlier in this post, so I'll reiterate that now.

Quote:
As for parents taking responsiblity fincially, I think they're are 2 key exceptions, 1 if the father opts out at birth, in which case he should not be concidered the father (this idea I believe actually has its origins in feminism, but its been taken up MRAs), and secondly you can't expect blood from a stone, the state should take over financially in the case of low income parents, in fact this is one of the last forms of debtor prisons, parents who can't afford to pay child support can be put in jail in some states, although how the fuck they're supposed to make money to pay it  in jail, I don't know.

What kropotkin said.  (BTW, thank you, kropotkin.)  You poor little muffins are SO hard done by, aren't you?

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Hey Brachina, you've been asked to stay out of the Feminism Forum because of brilliantly contradictory posts like the above. Kindly adhere to that request.

ETA. There was a great lil discussion here before Brachina came on in so let's get back to that, eh?

6079_Smith_W

Funny thing is, I had a personal encounter not too long ago with a men's rights guy who I think was in it for real with good intent. It wasn't just a front for a diatribe about women as oppressors or benefitting at men's expense or feminism being wrong. He didn't seem to be coming from a place of bitterness or blame at all.

Nor was it the warped sexist and religious take on it that the Promisekeepers are slinging - that men need to take responsibilities as head of the family.

It was actually quite a good presentation about not falling into macho stereotypes. And while I think his stuff about men dying from stress and work was valid, it went a bit too much into victimhood for my taste, especially since he made no mention of the elephant in the room - patriarchy - that men have far more privilege than women, and that if we are pressured into a box, it is one in which we are at the top, make the most money, and have by far the most power and freedom.

I mentioned my discomfort to him afterward, because it really did make me squirm. Although I was as nice as I could be, it was like I hit the third rail. He just said he wasn't like those people, seemed quite offended and I could tell he really didn't want to talk about it. Kind of odd, because I cannot believe I am the first person who has said something to him about this, and if he was so insistent about not being one of those anti-feminists, what is the problem with framing his valid concern for men within the obvious context of our partriarchal world?

 

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

It's unexamined privilege, I think.  Regular guy privilege just feels normal to them, and because any sexism that they may consciously or unconsciously perpetrate is not mean or vindictive they don't understand that it's an issue.  Banal and benevolent sexism is harder to combat than virulently hateful sexism.

ETA: Also, because the benefits of being male aren't visible to them, the grievances stand out more. 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

You do expect more restraint face to face, though. It's too bad that he reacted that way. I've had similar conversations and it always amazes me how asking someone to just stop and consider their position from a slightly different angle can be so threatening to some. The cynic in me says it's because they know, deep down, that they have privilege they don't want to give up for the greater gain, but if that's it, I don't think it's usually conscious.

Brachina

 First off the vast majority of Gamer Gaters have nothing to do a few trolls with those who make death threats, so that's a dishonest slur, second, GGers and MRAs have also recieved death threats, does this mean that all feminists are to be blamed for that? You do feminism no favours with truthiness.

 Secondly I haven't stated what my gender is, so your assumption show more about you biases then anything.

 Thirdly I've been nothing but respectful, and diplomatic.

 Fourthly I already established what makes me a feminist, my support for women's rights and freedoms, I'm prochoice (clearly unlike some people on rabble), my belief in equality of genders, my support for countless female politicians, ect...

 My belief was feminism was for the people, that it wasn't exclusive to a select club, where questioning an approach gets you thrown out of a forum.

 What is so toxic about suggesting an attempt at constructive engagement where each side takes the concerns of the other serious in an attempt to find solutions, instead of continueing feud that is counter productive.

 The situation in this forum is unhealthy, instead of being about promoting opportunity for women, its becoming a lynch mob asking about the best way to attack others, is this what feminism devovled into, no longer about positive engagement, equality, and compassion, but about crushing all that oppose you, trench internet warfare on anybody who doesn't tow the line?

 Are you going attack a Men's Rights group like CARE when they provide services to men, childern, and yes even women are welcome on issues like mental health, and escaping a violent abusive relationship,because guess what this group was banned from marching in support of Pride, because certain feminist groups complained about they're particapation. CARE isn't even an antifeminist group btw, just MRA.

 There is no contradiction in my position, I support MRA because I believe in men's rights and I support feminism because I believe in women's rights. I also believe in transrights.

 How can this be a healthy enviroment in which all dissent is quashed, is this the kind of feminist you signed up for, feminism for the select few, instead of feminism for everyone, a feminism where all are welcome, diverse opinions are welcome. 

 @Krop how can a movement like feminism be for equality of genders and exclude men from its ranks, its a contradiction in terms.

@catchfire this thread was neither productive or healthy before I arrived, but I'll leave, you can go back to your unhealthy echo chamber, free from alternative opinions, free to continue to plot against MRAs many of whom will plot agianst you in turn in response, in a continued pointless fued that does nothing for anybody except ensuring more people then ever what nothing to do with either group, with the disadvantaged the ones who pay the price.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Yup. I agree.

I think it was seeing an otherwise fluffy metro guy (and a friend of a good friend, and a guy with a message of not being an angry reactive guy) suddenly pop the veins out on the side of his head and start blowing smoke out his ears that threw me.

But then I guess we're more used to that here in internet land; the assumption is that when you meet people that isn't supposed to happen as much.

 

lagatta

There is no party line at babble, but there are very few babblers who aren't pro-choice.

6079_Smith_W

Quote:

but I'll leave, you can go back to your unhealthy echo chamber, free from alternative opinions, free to continue to plot against MRAs

...not without a big scenery-chewing production number first, obviously. I'll break out my violin.

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Brachina wrote:

 First off the vast majority of Gamer Gaters have nothing to do a few trolls with those who make death threats, so that's a dishonest slur, second, GGers and MRAs have also recieved death threats, does this mean that all feminists are to be blamed for that? You do feminism no favours with truthiness.

Even if it were true* that the issue revolves around truth in game journalism, there is a point where the few ruin things for the many.

*However, given that the whole mess started with Zoe Quinn's ex claiming she was a slut and asking his gamer bros to harrass her - which they did - it's hard to argue that this is even remotely the case.  They threatened and harrassed her over writing something they didn't like about a GAME.  She had to leave her home because of intimidation and threats. That has extended to other women calling for diversity in GAMES.  Anita Sarkeesian's talk was shut down because some guy who doesn't like diversity threatened to shoot the place up if she didn't.  Gamergaters have everything to do with that harrassment and threatened violence.  The start of the "movement", if you can call it that (more like disaffected little children in grownup suits), should make any reasonable person recoil.  That you don't says everything we need to know.

Quote:
Secondly I haven't stated what my gender is, so your assumption show more about you biases then anything.

At what point did I identify your gender?  I said that certain opinions and beliefs you hold are at odds with being a feminist.  If you are in fact female, you still hold as true and admirable a variety of antifeminsts and antifeminist sentiments.

Quote:
Thirdly I've been nothing but respectful, and diplomatic.

I beg to differ.  Apparently so does the moderator.

Quote:
Fourthly I already established what makes me a feminist, my support for women's rights and freedoms, I'm prochoice (clearly unlike some people on rabble), my belief in equality of genders, my support for countless female politicians, ect...

 My belief was feminism was for the people, that it wasn't exclusive to a select club, where questioning an approach gets you thrown out of a forum.

No, you've stated that you consider yourself a feminist, then contradicted yourself by espousing support for an openly antifeminist group.  Even if you *had* "established what makes me a feminist", that would counter that position.

So if you could clarify - and I've asked this three times now - Who are these elite feminists/select club you are referencing?  Do they have names?  Or are they straw feminists, as constructed by the MRAs you so admire?

And to clarify for you, you are not questioning an approach, you're attempting to gaslight feminists here by telling us what we perceive is just all wrong... and that's not what this forum is for. 

Quote:
What is so toxic about suggesting an attempt at constructive engagement where each side takes the concerns of the other serious in an attempt to find solutions, instead of continueing feud that is counter productive.

You haven't made any kind of constructive engagement, and even if you had, disagreeing with you is not toxic. There's also no "feud".  MRAs are all about preserving privilege while removing any kind of obligation - it's colloquially called "having your cake and eating it, too".  Feminists aren't going to help them in that.

Quote:
The situation in this forum is unhealthy, instead of being about promoting opportunity for women, its becoming a lynch mob asking about the best way to attack others, is this what feminism devovled into, no longer about positive engagement, equality, and compassion, but about crushing all that oppose you, trench internet warfare on anybody who doesn't tow the line?

"Lynch mob" is an unfortunate phrase.  Disagreeing with you is not the same as hanging innocent black men.

I'm not sure what "opportunity" for women you're referring to, unless it's a chance to make nice with and take seriously a group of men whose stated purpose is the oppression of women.  It's not unhealthy to say, "No, I think that would suck. Not interested." And seriously, "trench internet warfare"?  Get some perspective already.  (ZOMG, someone disagreed with me on the internet!!!!  It was just like being GASSED!!!!!!)

MRAs have never been interested in positive engagement in any case. Not sure why we would waste the energy on them. 

Quote:
Are you going attack a Men's Rights group like CARE when they provide services to men, childern, and yes even women are welcome on issues like mental health, and escaping a violent abusive relationship,because guess what this group was banned from marching in support of Pride, because certain feminist groups complained about they're particapation. CARE isn't even an antifeminist group btw, just MRA.

Which is the same thing.  And they talk a better game than they play - the "helping" is a thin veneer over a cesspool of anti-woman hate.

Quote:
There is no contradiction in my position, I support MRA because I believe in men's rights and I support feminism because I believe in women's rights. I also believe in transrights.

You want a hero cookie for that?

Look, fundamentally, your position is contradictory.  I'm not going to argue it over again.  It isn't enough just to say it isn't.

Quote:
How can this be a healthy enviroment in which all dissent is quashed, is this the kind of feminist you signed up for, feminism for the select few, instead of feminism for everyone, a feminism where all are welcome, diverse opinions are welcome.

The rules for this forum are pretty clear.  If you don't like them, you're free to not participate.  Spout nonsense, as is your wont, and people will disagree with you.  As I say to my kids:  Suck it up, buttercup.

Slumberjack

I find post-structuralist feminism, third wave, and 'queer' related studies to offer a compelling range of narratives that are refreshing, alternative, and in a social-evolutionary sense, complementary to the more guarded discourses and structures of the past.

Pages