A Feminist Rant from McGill University ~ OFF THE BOARD: The fight for men's rights

My response to a Feminist rant in the McGill University Newspaper is below the article.MJM

Carolyn Gregoire | Published: 12/1/09

Discrimination against men has, understandably perhaps, never occupied a prominent position on the feminist agenda. Recently, however, the rise of the men's rights movement has led men's rights groups and feminists alike to call issues specific to male identity into question. A recent article on Slate's women-oriented webzine DoubleX entitled "Men's Rights Groups are Becoming Frighteningly Effective" has spurred contentious debate extending beyond the feminist blogosphere as to whether feminism should encompass issues of men's rights.

The article was triggered by the actions of men's activist group RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting) who gathered in Washington this October to lobby against issues such as false allegations of rape and domestic violence, unrecognized domestic violence against men, and child custody rights for divorced fathers.

Many women, and not only those who identify as feminists, are outraged by the measures these groups have taken. Rather than addressing the negative impact that patriarchy and gender stereotypes have on men and calling for change, RADAR chooses instead to undermine the prevalence of rape and domestic violence against women. Relying on hyperbolic claims and sensationalism - suggesting, for instance, that domestic violence laws represent "the largest regression in civil rights since the Jim Crow era" - RADAR succeeded in blocking the passage of several domestic violence bills, such as the Violence Against Women act. It is also worth noting that many of the movement's leaders are themselves accused batterers.

Though issues of men's rights and injustice towards men deserve attention, the anti-feminist approach employed by RADAR and many other men's rights groups in battling these issues is counterproductive and alarmingly reactionary. RADAR's attempt to take funding away from "discriminatory" women's-only shelters, rather than fighting for resources for male victims of domestic violence and sexual harassment, epitomizes this ineffectual methodology.

While it's true that all human rights are men's rights and that history is essentially a men's rights movement, discrimination against men should be a feminist concern because male and female rights are inextricably intertwined. Though a patriarchal society operates for male benefit, societal standards of masculinity are also harmful to men in real ways which deserve to be acknowledged. Rigid definitions of masculinity which narrowly cast men into aggressive, machismo, bread-winning roles are damaging to men, and further, they are damaging to men in ways that are also damaging to women. Following this line of reasoning, many feminists fight for fathers' rights as a means of countering the socially sanctioned notion that nurturer or caregiver must be a female-occupied role. A central objective of the feminist movement is debunking gender stereotypes, even when they apply only to men.

Male victims of sexual harassment, domestic violence, and rape deserve to be recognized and taken seriously, mothers should not be unjustly favoured over fathers in child custody proceedings, and individuals of both genders do not deserve to be systemically limited and harmed by rigid social definitions of masculinity. Feminist concerns and men's rights are not mutually exclusive, and should meet on the common ground of seeking gender equality - the irony of it all is that we're both fighting the same battle. As feminist Gloria Anzaldua suggests, "Men, even more than women, are fettered to gender roles … We need a new masculinity and the new man needs a movement.

While it's true that all human rights are men's rights and that history is essentially a men's rights movement, discrimination against men should be a feminist concern because male and female rights are inextricably intertwined. Though a patriarchal society operates for male benefit, societal standards of masculinity are also harmful to men in real ways which deserve to be acknowledged. Rigid definitions of masculinity which narrowly cast men into aggressive, machismo, bread-winning roles are damaging to men, and further, they are damaging to men in ways that are also damaging to women. Following this line of reasoning, many feminists fight for fathers' rights as a means of countering the socially sanctioned notion that nurturer or caregiver must be a female-occupied role. A central objective of the feminist movement is debunking gender stereotypes, even when they apply only to men.

Male victims of sexual harassment, domestic violence, and rape deserve to be recognized and taken seriously, mothers should not be unjustly favoured over fathers in child custody proceedings, and individuals of both genders do not deserve to be systemically limited and harmed by rigid social definitions of masculinity. Feminist concerns and men's rights are not mutually exclusive, and should meet on the common ground of seeking gender equality - the irony of it all is that we're both fighting the same battle. As feminist Gloria Anzaldua suggests, "Men, even more than women, are fettered to gender roles … We need a new masculinity and the new man needs a movement."

http://www.mcgilltribune.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticle&ustory_id=6ae2c632-12be-4a4c-9c7c-842b184b7297

….feminism should encompass issues of men's rights.

Several flavours of feminism have been identified over the years and the movement seems somewhat splintered and indeed incoherent. The current flavour encompassing Victimization is the loudest and most pervasive. This version is narcissistic, propagandist, mendacious, and not entirely adult in its approach. After all if the premise women are always victims at the hands of the patriarchy strikes me that you are mere children in adult bodies requiring the nanny state to be your new “patriarch”. You have simply requested a new protector of a collective sort which is in keeping with the Marxist roots of feminism. In short your narcissistic notion that any flavour of feminism could encompass men’s rights issues is “dreaming” out loud.

Here are a few samples of today’s flavours of Feminism:

Victim Feminism: – the 3rd wave relying on the psycho babble of the Duluth Wheel that all men (patriarchy) are oppressors and all women victims.

Maternalist: A virulent strain of feminist supremacy specializing in custody by moms only and in some cases as a lunatic fringe of moms who lost custody and cannot get over it. These tend to be the ones who will quickly slime anyone, male or female, who disagree with their premise and will spend inordinate amounts of time, using taxpayer resources, to research their foe and create hate websites vilifying these enemies. If you visit their blogs you will understand better why they lost custody.

Lifeboat Feminist: If on a boat and it starts sinking they will rationalize they are more than equal to or greater than men. The men will give up their lives as they always have but the LBF rationalizes someone has to raise the children and they are more qualified. Equality isn't really their goal it is supremacy. They cannot walk the walk but can spin a good yarn to try and talk the talk about equality. This term has its roots from a brave Irish Independence newspaper columnist named Kevin Myers.

Gender Feminist: This appears to be the author’s category. It is clear there are no gender roles with exceptions of course, one of which is related to custody of children, where women are supreme and men incompetent. They are full of contradictions, one of which was just described, and a most confusing breed of female.

Equalist Feminist: The original flavour which few will disagree with.

The rest are Real Women: The vast majority who need no ideology to know they are equal and go through life unfettered by any ideology and some even decide to be stay-at-home parents .

In other words until you get your act together in the feminist movement platitudinous statements about encompassing men’s rights are blather.

“… RADAR succeeded in blocking the passage of several domestic violence bills, such as the Violence Against Women act.”

Last time I checked this regressive and blatantly discriminatory act still exists. Your lack of research is typical, however, of feminist rants which are much adieu about nothing. It is one of the most regressive acts in the modern history of a western democracy. It is built on feminist mendacity some of which is evident in this article based on nothing but supposition such as: “It is also worth noting that many of the movement's leaders are themselves accused batterers. .” Your credibility sits at Zero but then what else is new when we see feminism doing its “dirty work.”

“…the anti-feminist approach employed by RADAR and many other men's rights groups in battling these issues is counterproductive and alarmingly reactionary."

Here is a quote from one of your predecessors and please absorb its meaning in the context of this silly and naive remark of yours.

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage."
Sheila Cronin, prominent member of NOW

What was that you were saying about hyperbole?

“RADAR's attempt to take funding away from "discriminatory" women's-only shelters, rather than fighting for resources for male victims”

So the way forward is to hoard your resources even if you recognize a need for someone else needing help. A very feminist approach but not very “motherly” don’t you think. As a movement you need to get your act together and lobby with the men. More resources would likely flow without taking from the other.

“While it's true that all human rights are men's rights and that history is essentially a men's rights movement, discrimination against men should be a feminist concern because male and female rights are inextricably intertwined.”

Next time try not to get overly intellectual and you might actually be understandable. The last 7 words are the only thing that makes sense.

“…patriarchal society operates for male benefit, societal standards of masculinity are also harmful to men in real ways which deserve to be acknowledged”

Oh please! Is this mythical patriarchy that rules all our lives similar to SPECTRE that James Bond used to fight? What in heaven’s name is “societal standards of masculinity” other than inane and effete attempts at pseudo-intellectual babbling.

“Rigid definitions of masculinity which narrowly cast men into aggressive, machismo, bread-winning roles are damaging to men in ways that are also damaging to women.”

You have seen far too many Hollywood movies or been hanging out in too many bars listening to too many narcissistic pick up lines by hormonally induced and imbibing males. Since when is bread winning machismo? What does that make all those women who are earning a living?

“…We need a new masculinity and the new man needs a movement."

Please get over yourself. Masculinity is one of the finest forms of human kind on the face of the earth. It’s the men who run into burning buildings to save lives and give theirs up in the bargain. How quickly we overlook the firefighters and police officers, pretty much exclusively male, who went into the world trade Towers knowing they might not ever get out alive. If you are a victim trapped in a place imperiling your life you may feel better knowing that out there is a burly man who is rushing to find you and if he does he will lift you up over his shoulder and carry you to safety or die trying. I’m paraphrasing a well known Canadian female journalist who witnessed the aftermath of 9/1/1.

It’s the gender who has invented almost everything useful, explored the earth, risked and lost life and limb fighting oppressors (was that the patriarchy) in major wars and men like me who spent 10 years as a stay-at-home father raising two girls from infancy who can put their nurturing capabilities up against any woman in the world.

We need no lessons in masculinity from feminists nor do we necessarily think highly of men whose only apparent way to show their notion of equality is give up their masculinity to declare they are feminists. Feminism is derived from female and I am no female, therefore, I am no feminist.

Having said that I don’t know any man of sound mind who would disagree with the notion both genders are equal and different.

Men's Rights ~ Feminism should be about equality--for males too.

Commentary

Cathy Young, 11.19.09, 10:30 AM ET

Earlier this month DoubleX, Slate's short-lived female-oriented publication (launched six months ago and about to be folded back into the parent site as a women's section), ran an article ringing the alarm about the dire threat posed by the power of the men's rights movement. But the article, written by New York-based freelance writer Kathryn Joyce and titled "Men's Rights' Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective," says more about the state of feminism--and journalistic bias--than it does about men's groups.

Joyce's indictment is directed at a loose network of activists seeking to raise awareness and change policy on such issues as false accusations of domestic violence, the plight of divorced fathers denied access to children and domestic abuse of men. In her view, groups such as RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting) and individuals like columnist and radio talk show host Glenn Sacks are merely "respectable" and "savvy" faces for what is actually an anti-female backlash from "angry white men."

As proof of this underlying misogyny, Joyce asserts that men who commit "acts of violence perceived to be in opposition to a feminist status quo" are routinely lionized in the men's movement. This claim is purportedly backed up with a reference that, in fact, does not in any way support it: an article in Foreign Policy about the decline of male dominance around the globe. Joyce's one specific example is that the diary of George Sodini, a Pittsburgh man who opened fire on women in a gym in retaliation for feeling rejected by women, was reposted online by the blogger "Angry Harry" as a wake-up call to the Western world that "it cannot continue to treat men so appallingly and get away with it." But does this have anything to do with more mainstream men's rights groups? The original version of the article claimed that Sacks, who called "Harry" an "idiot" in his interview with Joyce, nonetheless "cautiously defends" the blogger; DoubleX later ran a correction on this point.

Sacks himself admits to Joyce that the men's movement has a "not-insubstantial lunatic fringe." Yet in her eyes, even the mainstream men's groups are promoting a dangerous agenda, above all infiltrating mainstream opinion with the view that reports of domestic violence are exaggerated and that a lot of spousal abuse is female-perpetrated. The latter claim, Joyce asserts, comes from "a small group of social scientists" led by "sociologist Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire, who has written extensively on female violence." (In fact, Straus, founder of the renowned Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire, is a pre-eminent scholar on family violence in general and was the first to conduct national surveys on the prevalence of wife-beating.)

Joyce repeats common critiques of Straus' research: For instance, he equates "a woman pushing a man in self-defense to a man pushing a woman down the stairs" or "a single act of female violence with years of male abuse." Yet these charges have been long refuted: Straus' studies measure the frequency of violence and specifically inquire about which partner initiated the physical violence. Furthermore, Joyce fails to mention that virtually all social scientists studying domestic violence, including self-identified feminists such as University of Pittsburgh psychologist Irene Frieze, find high rates of mutual aggression.

Reviews of hundreds of existing studies, such as one conducted by University of Central Lancashire psychologist John Archer in a 2000 article in Psychological Bulletin, have found that at least in Western countries, women are as likely to initiate partner violence as men. While the consequences to women are more severe--they are twice as likely to report injuries and about three times more likely to fear an abusive spouse--these findings also show that men hardly escape unscathed. Joyce claims that "Straus' research is starting to move public opinion," but in fact, some of the strongest recent challenges to the conventional feminist view of domestic violence--as almost invariably involving female victims and male batterers--come from female scholars like New York University psychologist Linda Mills.

Contrary to Joyce's claims, these challenges, so far, have made very limited inroads into public opinion. One of her examples of the scary power of men's rights groups is that "a Los Angeles conference this July dedicated to discussing male victims of domestic violence, 'From Ideology to Inclusion 2009: New Directions in Domestic Violence Research and Intervention,' received positive mainstream press for its 'inclusive' efforts.'" In fact, the conference--which featured leading researchers on domestic violence from several countries, half of them women, and focused on much more than just male victims--received virtually no mainstream press coverage. One of the very few exceptions was a column I wrote for The Boston Globe, also reprinted in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Whatever minor successes men's groups may have achieved, the reality is that public policy on domestic violence in the U.S. is heavily dominated by feminist advocacy groups. For the most part, these groups embrace a rigid orthodoxy that treats domestic violence as male terrorism against women, rooted in patriarchal power and intended to enforce it. They also have a record of making grotesquely exaggerated, thoroughly debunked claims about an epidemic of violence against women--for instance, that battering causes more hospital visits by women every year than car accidents, muggings and cancer combined.

These advocacy groups practically designed the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, and they dominate the state coalitions against domestic violence to which local domestic violence programs must belong in order to qualify for federal funds. As a result of the advocates' influence, federal assistance is denied to programs that offer joint counseling to couples in which there is domestic violence, and court-mandated treatment for violent men downplays drug and alcohol abuse (since it's all about the patriarchy).

Against the backdrop of this enforced party line, Joyce is alarmed by the smallest signs that men's rights groups may be gaining even a modest voice in framing domestic violence policy. She points out that in a few states, men's rights activists have succeeded in "criminalizing false claims of domestic violence in custody cases" (this is apparently meant to be a bad thing) and "winning rulings that women-only shelters are discriminatory" (in fact, the California Court of Appeals ruled last year that state-funded domestic violence programs that refuse to provide service to abused men violate constitutional guarantees of equal protection, but also emphasized that the services need not be identical and coed shelters are not required).

To bolster her case, Joyce consistently quotes advocates--or scholars explicitly allied with the advocacy movement, such as Edward Gondolf of the Mid-Atlantic Addiction Research and Training Institute--to discredit the claims of the men's movement. She also repeats uncorroborated allegations that many leaders of the movement are themselves abusers, but offers only one specific example: eccentric British activist Jason Hatch, who once scaled Buckingham Palace in a Batman costume to protest injustices against fathers, and who was taken to court for allegedly threatening one of his ex-wives during a custody dispute.

The article is laced with the presumption that, with regard to both general data and individual cases, any charge of domestic violence made by a woman against a man must be true.

One case Joyce uses to illustrate her thesis is that of Genia Shockome, who claimed to have been severely battered by her ex-husband Tim and lost custody of her two children after being accused of intentionally alienating them from their father. Yet Joyce never mentions that Shockome's claims of violent abuse were unsupported by any evidence, that she herself did not mention any abuse in her initial divorce complaint, or that three custody evaluators--including a feminist psychologist who had worked with the Battered Women's Justice Center at Pace University--sided with the father.

More than a quarter-century ago, British feminist philosopher Janet Radcliffe Richards wrote, "No feminist whose concern for women stems from a concern for justice in general can ever legitimately allow her only interest to be the advantage of women." Joyce's article is a stark example of feminism as exclusive concern with women and their perceived advantage, rather than justice or truth.

Cathy Young, a contributing editor at Reason magazine and columnist for RealClearPolitics.com, is the author of Ceasefire: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality. She blogs at www.cathyyoung.wordpress.com.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/19/mens-rights-feminism-equality-violence-opinions-contributors-cathy-young.html

Men, Math and Marriage

By Paul Elam

I’ve been just sitting here for 30 minutes now. My hands have been poised over my laptop, but they’re frozen. Actually they have a slight tremble, like all the keys are painted with cyanide and my fingers know it.

I have decided to do a piece offering some marital advice to men. And I know men pretty well. I might as well be doing a porn review for the readers of Ms. Magazine. But I am feeling dangerous and my fingers are starting to work, so here goes.

My first piece of advice when it comes to marriage is simple.

Don’t. And I do mean never. And, yes, that means you.

I don’t cotton much to psychobabble, so I won’t make a hypocrite of myself by putting you though it. Thankfully, it is not necessary. For it isn’t relationship dynamics that will get you. It’s math. And the numbers are scary.

First, and most of you know this, more than half of all marriages end in divorce, not counting the ones that end in murder, suicide and psychiatric facilities. But that doesn’t mean that only half of marriages are failures. There is a lot of failed marriages that don’t end up as divorces. These are people who stay married and make a hobby of hating each other like Palestinians and Israelis.

And the math on marriage isn’t near as disturbing as the numbers you will be faced with when it‘s over. The equation goes roughly something like this.

1 angry wife + 1 lawyer + 1 family court = 1 impoverished man living in a studio apartment and driving a 1981 Buick Skylark.

Numbers are sometimes ugly, but they don’t lie.

But wait, you say, I can change that equation with a pre-nup!

Yes, you can. Here are the factor weighed results.

1 angry wife + 1 lawyer + 1 family court + 1 prenuptial agreement = 1 impoverished man living in a studio apartment and driving a 1982 Buick Skylark.

Pre-nups take more time to draw up than the courts take tossing them aside.

The fact of the matter is that in modern culture men are better off downing ten shots of tequila and stumbling blindfolded through a mine field. The odds are better.

Think about it for a moment. Marriage is quite literally an investment of not only your heart, but all of your work, income and future income, especially when children are involved. Now, if an investment broker told you he had a deal in which you could invest, with mostly intangible returns, and there was more than a 50% chance that you would be wiped out and spend most of the rest of your life paying the margin call or going to jail, how much would you invest?

Well?

Oh, come on now, you might be saying. It’s not fair to reduce the institution of marriage into a financial equation. Well, yes it is. Believe me, if the woman you marry doesn’t heavily consider your income prior to saying yes, she is the infinitesimal exception. And for those of you who still think it is natural and right for a man to be the breadwinner and the head of the family, please know that would be the same head that gets lobbed off in the family court where more than half of you will end up.

And even if you don’t think, for who knows what reasons, that marriage is about money, you better believe that divorce is. Reducing holy matrimony to assets and liabilities is precisely what family courts are designed to do. And they do it with brutal efficiency. If you walk in to one of those places as a man in western culture, you will find that out in the most sobering ways imaginable.

Your experience there will leave you with a mental block. You won’t even be able to say the words “family court” again, for they will find you, shivering in the corner, mumbling incoherently about“that place.”

A lot of married men already know this. Those are the guys in the other half of the marriage statistics. You know, the group that is “successful?” Plenty of them have consulted lawyers because they wanted to escape insufferably nasty, horrifically high maintenance wives, but the more legal realities they heard, the more those banshees they were married to began to resemble June Cleaver. As soon as they coined the phrase “Take him to the cleaners,” the follow up, “cheaper to keep her,” wasn’t far behind.

Just don’t do it.

Living with a woman may be a better option, but you need to be careful with that one, too. Depending on the laws where you live, you could end up married without knowing it. So gather your facts.

Yes guys, that means go see a lawyer, one that understands men’s legal issues, before you even shack up. Do it the moment she asks if she can leave some clothes in your closet. Better yet, do it now, while you don’t have a girlfriend and can still think from the neck up. Consider the legal consult the investment of a lifetime, because it is.

And having children? Sure. Just be prepared to have every connection to those children severed when it’s over, except, of course, for the financial connection. That will be maintained at gunpoint.

So choose that Skylark carefully. You’ll be driving it for a long time.

I know that some of you are thinking, “Oh, that will never happen to me.” All I can say is that more than half of you are deluding yourselves, and the rest of you have no reliable way to know just how lucky you will be. For those who maintain that adolescent sense of invulnerability, such admonitions will fall on deaf ears. Never underestimate the power of denial.

I also know that some of you, especially some women that are reading this, are saying “Hey, wait! Not all women are like that! They are not all the same!” And you are right. But all family courts are the same. Screwed in L.A. Shafted in New York. Swindled in London. They are all the same.

Just don’t do it.

But, in the rare case you are not going to listen to me and make your own decisions, and you insist on taking that plunge, I have some suggestions on finding a suitable bride that might help with damage control down the road.

First, never finance a relationship. Only date women that pay their own way from the start. Admittedly that reduces your chances of dating, much less marriage, but there is a sound reason for it.

It leaves you with a better, if less common, class of woman. For if a woman feels that she is entitled to ride your wallet though life when she is infatuated with you, when you can do no wrong and are the most amazing man she ever met, just imagine how she will feel about your wallet when she hates the very sight of you and the sound of your voice makes her want to claw her own eyes out.

Watch her behavior and learn from it. How does she act when you disappoint her? What is her reaction to hearing the word “no,” or when you choose your way instead of her way?

If she takes it in stride and moves on, then you might have a keeper, inflection on the word might.

However, if she responds to the fact that you went golfing when she didn’t want you to by cutting you off in the bedroom for a few days, or by telling you how selfish and immature you are for having any interests that don’t revolve around her, what do you imagine she will do when she fully believes that you are the anti-Christ and are responsible for every ill in her miserable life?

And that, gentlemen, is precisely the woman you will face in a divorce. She won’t be rational or reasonable or even principled. She will be, quite literally, your mortal enemy. And she will have the full force of the state on her side.

Make that a 1971 Pinto.

And so there you have it, guys. A brief primer on the potential house of horrors we call marriage. All you need to do to have a fighting chance, though, is find a woman who makes her own money and considers it natural to pay her own way; a woman who understands that no one is the center of the universe and that meeting in the middle is the only sane path to a partnership.

In other words, just don’t do it.

Paul Elam is the editor of A Voice for Men

http://www.avoiceformen.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31:men-math-and-marriage&catid=1:articles&Itemid=2