What An MRA Is, And Isn’t
Like all social movements, the Men’s Rights Movement struggles with its identity at times, and with factions withing its ranks that tend to do more harm than good. Many of us are a little hesitant to take this problem on directly. We have enough problems with divisions and infighting as it is. But the dangers of ignoring these things altogether are probably more significant than the frictions that ensue from talking about them. And, after all, it seems to be the calling of MRA’s to talk about a lot of things people would rather we didn’t.
First, defining a real MRA is just as hard as defining what a real man is, which obviously means it can’t be done with any authority whatsoever. Opinions are all we have.
That being said my personal definition of an MRA is very loose, but it isn’t just about being against feminism. A lot of people are against feminism, but you would never know it unless you asked them, and you might not get an honest answer anyway depending on who’s listening. They are the silent and quite useless majority, and they are more hindrance than help because they care more about social and political approval than speaking up for their values.
The truth, rather my truth, is that if you can leave your values at the door when you walk into a room you never really had them to begin with. MRA’s in my experience are people who have and act on their values in many situations that other people won’t. It is what will eventually make the movement an unstoppable force for change, and it is what makes the MRA stand out above all others when gender is discussed.
When someone makes an asinine, vacuous statement like “If women were in charge there wouldn’t be any wars,” the MRA is the man or woman that stands up and says, “Excuse me, that’s BS,” and then spouts off a string of names like Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi and anyone of a number of female European monarchs. The MRA is the one person that will publicly rip the covers off of someone who is spouting slanted numbers from an imaginary gender wage gap or making the ridiculous claim that domestic violence is mostly a male thing.
So, in the simplest of terms, an MRA is someone, anyone, who sees the emperor has no clothes and says so out loud.
Marxist-feminist hate mongers were successful in hiding behind a thin façade of equalitarianism for a long time simply because no one wanted to challenge them. It was MRA’s and MRA’s only that finally blew the whistle on the stinking lot of them and continue to do so whenever the opportunity arises.
Another group of men, part of the social phenomenon we now call MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) are also MRA’s in my opinion. These are men who see through the misandry of modern times and vote with their feet about marriage and about relationships. They won’t trade their dignity for sex, for attention and approval, and certainly not for a pathetic illusion of love.
So far, all of this is easy enough to talk about. Most MRA’s agree that feminism is the enemy of decency and justice, that it is nothing more than female supremacy dressed up as a movement for equality, and we all agree that the MRA’s are the only ones that are actually doing something about it.
It gets a tad stickier, however, when we start talking about what an MRA is not. This is the discussion that sends fingers pointing from and to within, and that’s seldom pleasant. But, it is an important dialogue because in defining what an MRA is not we create the opportunity to identify and rid ourselves of some pretty heavy baggage.
First, a chivalrist is not an MRA. The guy who thinks his purpose in life is to care for women like they were children, to pay their way, to open all their doors, to rescue them from the harshness of the world, to pamper them and treat them like a princess is no friend to men and boys. He is just a trained seal balancing a ball on his nose for a piece of fish, and he is a Judas among his brothers. When he is not that, he is generally one of a truly dying breed, a real deal male chauvinist, seeking control in exchange for his niceties; the “man” that thinks he is paying in advance, that sex is owed him when he slides the plastic to cover dinner and drinks.
Either way, the chivalrist will sell his best friend out over a skirt and a pair of legs. He does this because it is the only identity he knows or can even imagine. He sees himself as good and gallant, but he is actually a white knight with a black heart and bloody hands.
He may call himself a traditionalist or chime on about his family values but he’s really just interested in getting laid and being admired (or obeyed) by women. He has no identity whatsoever without their approval and/or submission, and has much more in common with a feminist than he does with “us” because in every waking moment he is about and only about giving women whatever they want in exchange for his validation fix. That validation is his drug and he will walk right over our broken, bleeding bodies to get it.
Regrettably, the traditionalist must be approached with some amount of caution as well.
While tips of the hat are well due to men who chose and succeed at traditional marriage, they are the exception– not the rule. The traditionalist who knows his good fortune will not aspire to obligate other men to that path in life. They recognize the risks and vulnerabilities of modern marriage and they do not condemn, but rather fully support, men who choose not to go that way. They stand behind men who opt to un-tether themselves from the role of protector and provider and do not let shaming language about that choice pass between their lips. They tend to see their own path in life as one of free will, a choice followed by some measure of good fortune, not of the mandated disposability to which men have been historically yoked.
Troubled families are a concern in this culture, but the men and boys bear the worst of that burden, so it is the otherwise unnoticed men and boys that remain the concern of the MRA; not marriage, not women or girls as a group. This is not an attitude of supremacy or contempt, but a rational response to the egregious state of imbalance that already exists. By advocating for men and boys, we pursue parity, not hegemony.
The biggest pretender in the Men’s Rights Movement is the neocon. This is the right wing ideologue that asserts whatever Republican hopeful du jour is some sort of de facto MRA, and consequently a friend, despite their well documented track records of selling us out.
In fact, this usurper is more dangerous than the left wing ideologue. We already know the left is owned and operated by feminists; that their thinking is saturated in misandry. And we know that they embrace whatever they are told to by McKinnon and the rest of that ilk. But that chap from the right, the one who hangs out in the MRA forums and contributes to threads, cheering on the Men’s Rights Movement and weaving in pitches for republican politics as usual is looking only for useful idiots.
In reality he is a cancer growing near our vital organs.
The modern right offers men nothing more than religious fundamentalism, conscription to traditional marriage and disposable roles for men like that of cannon fodder; all the things that have hindered us from fighting back against feminism in the first place. It still seems clear that elements in the right hold much more actual promise for men than anything on the left, but that promise won’t be realized with blind allegiance and automatic votes.
The right must be brought back on track towards small government, constitutional ideals, and must become openly and energetically counter-feminist to be anything but useless to us. We must hold allegedly conservative leaders to account for participating in travesties like VAWA and the full gamut of feminist governance that they have either supported with their votes, or by omission with their shameful silence. Joe Neocon in the comments section doesn’t care about all that, he just wants to push his Republican candidate. So it is Joe Neocon who should be pushed right out of the Men’s Rights Movement and into the street where he belongs.
And it means. at least to me, that all politicians of both parties are considered feminists or sympathizers till proven otherwise.
It must be said, however tactfully, that misogynists are not MRA’s either. Misogyny is a touchy subject in the MRM. All of us who take public stands with our opinions are used to being called woman haters. It comes with the territory. But there are a scant few real ones in our ranks.
They should be invited to join Joe Neocon in the street, but by MRA’s, not by feminists.
In the end, it seems clear that the MRM doesn’t have a political party (I’d vote for a three-legged chihuahua if it would dump VAWA). We don’t have a religion, or even a sex. We don’t have a nationality or an ethnicity; a universal identity or even national organization that centralizes our leaders. Heck, we don’t even have leaders.
We are more a scattering of diverse and independent voices, unified by the quest for justice and an unyielding refusal to be silenced. As such, we are generally policed from within, all of us keeping an eye on each other, and keeping the all but ungovernable masses more or less in line for the greater good.
The few misfits among us won’t stop any of that from happening.
Paul Elam is the Editor-in-Chief of Men’s News Daily and the publisher of A Voice for Men.
Possibly related posts...
This entry was posted
on Thursday, January 7th, 2010 at 7:18 pm and is filed under Vox Populi.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. | 1,309 views |
Trackback | 
Print This Post
|
Bio available at my website | More from Paul Elam
Stumble It!
Mr. Elam…
While I don’t have a problem with MGTOW’s and fully support those men who refuse to risk all by marrying (I myself warn any and all of the unmarried men I come in contact with not to marry or engage in any intimate contact (sex) with any member of the opposite sex nor will I attend any wedding that I’m invited too). Yet after reading through several of the articles posted here on MND and the comments left by other readers I sense a growing hostility within the rank and file of those who call themselves MRA’s towards the men and women who make the choice for the mother to stay at home.
As a former latchkey child myself who knows what it is like to come home to an empty house as well as having the experience of being molested by my first stepmothers 16 yr. old niece; who attempted to seduce me into sleeping with her during the summer after I turned thirteen. I fully understand the loneliness, dangers and possible mistakes that children face and sometimes make when left to their own devices without the strong hand of an adult who is present to guide them.
This is why I feel so strongly that the mother should remain in the home with her children and avoid seeking employment until her children are at least in school. And that parents who refuse to make the necessary sacrifices in their lifestyle when they become parents are guilty of parental neglect when they refuse to raise their own children by dumping them into the local daycare before they are even weened off the bottle.
@ Dabir Dalton
Thanks for your comments. Perhaps I should clarify a few misconceptions here, as your post was replete with them.
First, in the form of essays and articles I have written about 100,000 words on men’s issues, and much, much more over the years in internet forums. If there is one sentence in any of it in which I “self proclaim” to be a leader of anything, please copy it to this thread to support your contention, otherwise I might be inclined to think you just made that up to offer some punch to your commentary.
As to traditional men and women who want to stay at home, I appreciate your opinion. But again, you are drawing a false premise, perhaps from a not so thorough understanding of what I have written.
As I said, even in the OP here, “Regrettably, the traditionalist must be approached with some amount of caution as well.
While tips of the hat are well due to men who chose and succeed at traditional marriage, they are the exception– not the rule. The traditionalist who knows his good fortune will not aspire to obligate other men to that path in life. They recognize the risks and vulnerabilities of modern marriage and they do not condemn, but rather fully support, men who choose not to go that way. They stand behind men who opt to un-tether themselves from the role of protector and provider and do not let shaming language about that choice pass between their lips. They tend to see their own path in life as one of free will, a choice followed by some measure of good fortune, not of the mandated disposability to which men have been historically yoked.”
So you should be able to see with a more thorough read, I didn’t exclude traditionalists from my personal vision of what constitutes an MRA.
My point though is that it isn’t traditional marriage that is the enemy of men, so much as it is family law and family courts. That isn’t warmed over feminism, Mr. Dalton, it is just an eyes-wide-open assessment of what men face when choosing the traditional path. Still, my hat is off to men who succeed at it, but my guard is up with men who think it is the only legitimate path for a man to take.
And, again for your clarification, I say all this is a “personal vision” in the spirit of the very important foundation I laid out early in the piece.
“First, defining a real MRA is just as hard as defining what a real man is, which obviously means it can’t be done with any authority whatsoever. Opinions are all we have.”
This, of course, goes back and speaks to the notion of whether I have proclaimed, or even view myself as a leader in the MRM.
I hope that I have been able to clarify my words here, perhaps to a point that it even helps you to clarify yours.
Mr. Elam I’m glad to see that you have seen the light on conservative republicans, however, your negative attitude on women who want to stay home with their children and the men who want them too is, to put it simply, warmed over feminism. Quite unbecoming in a self proclaimed leader of the MRM who wants to rid the ranks of the ideology impure. Perhaps you should read The Woman Racket written by Steve Moxon taking great care to pay extra attention to the chapter entitled Sex at Work.
Two wise-cracks:
NUMBER 1:
In this day, it is extremely easy for a man to have SEVERAL BAD EXPERIENCES with women. This can easily turn a man into a woman-hater.
What do we hear- “Not all women are like that”.
I think there was something written up about that in the latest issue of the MRM magazine…;)
NUMBER 2:
As I read this article, to the right, there is an ad that says, “SPOIL HER this Valentine’s Day”.
It is not terribly offensive to me, but doesn’t it seem contradictory to this site and some of the articles written here???
I have also seen other ads to the right that seem contradictory to the content expressed here…
Is there somebody I can point them out to?
I wonder if the ad banner will eventually cycle to those “erection pills”…
Like many Men who were dragged into the Culture and Gender War. I was AWOL for standing up for other Men. Always believing they brought it on themselves. I have failed to see Women stand up to demand an end to the Male bashing and criminalization of Men, and now Boys. Women simply refuse to stop their insane Sisters. Their silence in the face of injustice is appalling and betrays Men who love Women, and respect their Mothers and Sisters.
It was ZenPriest who articulated the unique American Feminism model. Which carries a Liberal/Progressive political pedigree but Conservative/Libertarian Funding mechanism. Without Conservatives funding Liberal media outlets the voice of Gender hatred and Spin Sisters would lose their voice and the power to corrupt the Government.
Decades of demonization of Men and emasculation of Men is met with silence. When our National Policy declared by Obama and Sec. State Hilliary is to promote Feminism in Central Asia and the Middle East. And enforce it with Predator drones and the blood of primarily young, Christian Rural Southern Men. It is time to rethink our participation in the current paradigm.
The Men’s Movement is a Big Tent with many voices. We are gaining adherents and visibility. We should focus on positive changes and opportunities to articulate solutions that benefit all of us. There is too much discord and sniping. It is counter productive and a distraction.
this article raises a very important issue. Men’s Activists are similar to warring factions. With our website being the classic example. I became a Men’s Rights activist way back during the early 1980′s. Yet, have received little moral support from other activists. It’s almost as if, they regard other MRA’s as competition rather than allies. It’s ironic because there’s no pleasure being a full-time activist for decades. it’s taken all of my free time. And, perhaps, the biggest slap-in-the-face is the lack of support MRA’s receive from each other. Why should things be this way? Nobody’s gaining fame or fortune from this. We all share a common goal. And, this face MUST be remembered.
This is good news for me. As an MRA that consistently votes for Dems, I really get to feeling lonely fighting the feminist nutjobs from inside. Are there more people out there would would define themselves as progressive, but are antifem or MRA ?
Lest we forget federal VAWA with multi billion budget and office at the Department of Justice. While DOJ is supposed to fight discrimnation, it has became the Department of Injustice. It remainds of Daniel Goldhagen’s book that could be renamed “Feminst’s Willing Executioners”. Link to VAWA.
http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/regulations.htm
What is feminist power base? About 30 odd years ago a temporary Commission for Women was created to study women’s issues. Then it became a permanent state agency with an office and staff. Many states, cities and counties have similar Commissions for Women in addition to private NOW, AAUW, NWLC etc. There are no Commissons for Men. Current Governor was once an assistant to radical feminist Sen. Barbara Mikulski.
While this nominee for MCW pays lip service to helping men also it’s just PR tactic. We are fighting a losing battle. Link:
http://www.carrollcountytimes.com/articles/2010/01/11/news/local_news/4_women_commission.txt
I think we are getting a little off-topic here about this misogyny.
I think the main concept the MRM should oppose to is the idea of male disposability, or we can call this also the pressure on men to self-sacrifice.
The most disastrous form this takes, is in the glorification and pressure to sacrifice ourselves at war. I hope this will all change, now that people are becoming more aware of the financial and political manipulations behind the business of warfare, and can see trough all these lies.
Also the introduction of unmanned war-vehicles, and war-robots will decrease the need for disposable men.
There’s a lot more to be said about this.
Concerning women, traditionally a man had to sacrifice himself to support his family, and a woman sacrificed herself for her children.
Giving birth was always very dangerous. Nowadays, this all has changed, and very little women die at childbirth.
Children are for a woman not a sacrifice any more, but an instrument for financial profit.
The career has become more important than the children, who are dumped in daycare as soon as possible, to continue the career.
Or children are used as an excuse for not going to work at all.
So much for the sacrifice.
But for men very little has changed: a man is still considered an inferior life form, which can be sacrificed for a woman’s goals in life. A man is still seen as an instrument for profit, so he must made believe that it’s the right thing to do to self-sacrifice for a woman.
This situation is very disadvantageous for men, and it has to stop.
So in my opinion, an MRA is somebody who rejects the idea that a man should sacrifice himself (for women), and it is somebody who treats women as equals.
@Shatteredmen
I’m just saying that I don’t consider “misogynist” the worst thing to be called, and I think MRAs should try to defuse the power of that accusation rather than being overly concerned about whether there are some among them to whom it applies. I agree with Hunchback’s comment about criticizing women without that being labeled misogyny; see also Angry Harry, who as Schopenbecq said below, “isn’t afraid to call out women in general.”
Something Harry would probably agree with, based on his writings, is that we shouldn’t be overly worried about alienating women who may support men’s rights; some have been and are great contributors, but their goals and those of the MRM may diverge at some point. (SingleDad is also right that worrying too much about getting women’s support may be a type of chivalry.) As MRAs, our focus should always be on helping men and boys.
Hating people is wrong. That said, criticism of women is not the same as misogyny. In the 60s, both men and women were flawed in the way they related to the opposite sex. But after 40 years of being nagged, men improved toward women; unfortunately, after 40 years of being cheerled, women got worse toward men. IMO, MRAs have every right to deflate women without “throwing rocks at them.”
@ JimM
You seem to be justifying being a misogynist because a class of people oppressed you. Did all women oppress you? It is OK to hate ALL Black people because some did you wrong? It is OK for feminist to hate ALL men because of the deeds of a few? If not, then how can we justify hating all women because of what a few have done? In any case of those who are prejudice, I have most often found the reason for this prejudice by most is simple lack of knowledge. Most have accepted the feminist rants because they do not know the truth. Most have accepted women shelters and the VAWA and other laws because they believe that most of the victims of abuse are women. I have found that taking the time to educate the ones that have been deceived has worked far better then anything else.
Misogyny (IPA ) is hatred (or contempt) of women or girls. Misogyny comes from Greek misogunia (?????????) from misos (?????, “hatred”) and gyn? (????, “woman”). One who displays prejudice against or looks down upon women It is parallel to misandry—the hatred of men or boys. …
Now I ask, if we become a misogynist because some women express misandry, do we not become the…enemy we say we detest?
Many of the strongest supporters in SM were strongly opposed to us and became our supporters because we educated them. Some of the strongest supporters of men’s rights are women. Can we afford to alienate them?
@ Mr. Truth
90% is a great compliment, so I will take it with gratitude.
And I think you make a good point about chivalry. I don’t think that opening a door for a woman or picking up the tab at dinner makes you a problem. I was speaking more about men who see their chivalrous obligation as one that supersedes any willingness to acknowledge discriminations against men, or that indeed serves as the foundation justifying those discriminations.
Add to that chivalrists who try to bully or shame other men into emulating their values relative to taking care of women and then you have a real problem, at least IMO.
Thanks to you and all the others for your comments on this piece.
@Paul
As I read more of your writings, I find myself agreeing with you 90% of the time. Your articles are spot on and insightful to most readers. However, I must disagree on the following statement; “First, a ‘chivalrist’ is not an MRA”. I believe no one should be excluded from being an MRA or coming under the fold of the MRA Brotherhood. It is important to understand that these Men have been programmed by their mothers, Fathers and society in general, to worship women. From birth they have been told that women are special (girls are sugar and spice and everything nice) and should be treated as such. They need to be deprogrammed and educated, not excluded. After all they are all our brothers. Also, I believe it is important that MRA’S be Pro-Male, not Anti-Female, being Anti-Feminist is a good thing, being Anti-Female is a bad thing. That said, the so called misogynists should not be excluded either.
The below statement is spot on and must be spread and repeated whenever possible:
“Most MRA’S agree that feminism is the enemy of decency and justice, that it is nothing more than female supremacy dressed up as a movement for equality, and we all agree that the MRA’S are the only ones that are actually doing something about it”
For me an MRA should be defined at its highest level and should be all inclusive and stated in the following way; anyone who is Pro-Male, Pro-Father, Pro-Son in all aspects of life, is an MRA. Meaning, if you are in support of anything that is good, positive, helpful, and most of all beneficial to Males you are welcome in the Brotherhood. This would include females. Although this may sound selfish and self promoting, you must consider the state in which we currently find ourselves. We are by any measurement, second class citizens, denied the same rights, privileges and government funding that women receive.
Since the topic keeps coming up in the comments, I’ve got to say that I don’t think MRAs need to weed out misogynists from their ranks; some men may be justified in hating women, and I’d never dismiss their contributions or ideas because of that. More importantly, since misogyny is something MRAs are frequently accused of (as mentioned in the article), we should work to remove the stigma associated with that accusation; I don’t mind being called a misogynist, because to me that word means opposition to a class of people that has oppressed me.
@Denis: Bernard Chapin is still out there. He left MND when one of his articles was censored due to spurious complaints of hate speech. He can be found at his youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/pinegrove33
I would distinguish between personal chivalry — holding doors open for women you know, behaving honorably, devoting yourself to family values — and “collective chivalry,” which is making men legally inferior to women. The former is fine but the latter is ultimately unjust and antisocial.
Being a good father and husband is important but it must be a free choice. When you starting telling men (and parents in general) what to do you end up undermining their dignity and eliminating the things that make men want to behave that way in the first place. In some parts of the ghettos there is no social reward for being a husband so boys end up joining gangs instead.
As always great work Mr. Elam
I could agree more.
Maybe in theory. I have no problem with social norms that are enforced with social pressure. This is because anyone can choose to give society the middle finger if they disagree strongly enough with the social norms in question, and there is no way to legally use violence to coerce the person into behaving in an ‘approved’ way. This is the essence of MGTOW. Notice however that MGTOW is impossible once the government gets involved. Think about: Child support, custody, alimony, the selective service system, affirmative action, government funded woman’s only scholarships, title IX, etc.
In practice chivalrist’s support, draft, vote for, and enforce laws that co-op the governments monopoly on legal violence to force men into becoming a potential bullet sponge, and a beast of burden. Regardless of what an individual man would choose to do, if he had a choice.
@Paul You didn’t give the impression that you are calling for witchhunts but there are many in our community who appear to be doing just that, in a very much overzealous way.
I think we do need to clarify what is and isn’t misogyny, as Denis said. It’s a touchy subject but it isn’t going to go away.
There are two massive obstacles in the way of progress for our movement. One is the reluctance of the mainstream media to address men’s rights issues and to highlight our role in fighting for them (as we saw last year, this is slowly changing). The second is waking up men from their chivalric slumbers and making them realise that society is violating them as men and, really, always has been (we are winning here too as our increasing numbers demonstrate).
Now obviously the achievement of the second is largely dependent on the first. Men have to hear our message, and the mainstream media plays a huge role in that. However, making the mainstream media sit up is also dependent on spreading the message at a grass roots level and recruiting enough angry young men to our cause, and this is not always a matter of restrained language and cold logic and reason.
It might take what some would call ‘mysogynistic’ language and rhetoric to wake men up from their chivalric complacency, at least on occasion.
I can see that as far as the public face of men’s rights is concerned, we need figures like yourself who are beyond any accuastion of ‘women hating’. Our movement needs media friendly activists such as Glen Sacks, but it also needs the Angry Harry’s just as much (I’m not saying that Harry is in any way truly mysogynistic, but he isn’t afraid to call out women in general on their responsibility for the mess we are in).
Finally, if men and women are fundamentally different and each have conflicting needs (as many of us believe) it is likely that simple calls for ‘equality before the law’ will always be no more than damage limitation execises and could even sometimes play into feminist’s hands (for example what does ‘equality’ mean in regard to laws against paying for sex? That women recieve the same sentances as men, even though we know that such laws will criminilize far more men than women?)
BRAVO! GOOD JOB! Finally someone has given the real definition of who/what MRAs are. Being an MRA doesn’t mean that we are “he-man woman haters or misogynists (believe it or not, many MRAs are married men who deeply and pasionately love their wives).
-victim of the gender wars
@ Ray Merk
No apologies necessary. You are a passionate man among many in this mess we are all trying to sort out. I am grateful for the challenges you present to keep us all thinking.
“Traditiionalists are more dangerous to our movement. They want a Marriage Movement where marriage is saved on the sweat of our brow and saved on our broken backs. I don’t think so. If marriage will ever be saved it will be saved because men are given equal rights.”
If true, what if we had different marriage contracts for traditionalists and others? Why do all marriage contracts have to be the same? If different people have different ideas of what marriage should be, why use the same contract for all?
Paul, my apologies. I think I misunderstood your article. However, (i) I would pretty much agree with Jut. (ii) I would distinguish between a chivalrist and a chauvinist.
A good corollary to this fine piece would be:
“What misogyny is and isn’t”
There has been alot of confusion in the MRA movement about this definition. It is THE great neutering force that limits the men’s movement. This internal confusion (sometimes a battle) is keeping us from going full throttle ahead.
I’ve been a long time friend of MND and seen the many transitions of readers. I don’t know many of you posters here anymore. I’ve seen columnists come and go. BTW-Bernard Chapin: where you been my friend?
A consistent problem going back to 2001 in the posting here at MND is the infighting or at the very least the low level (and sometimes not-so-low level) conflict between men who hold views with varying degees of chivalry (traditionalists) and those who don’t (that would be me for one). A lot of wasted energy and time has been spent by each side in getting the other to come around. This is evidence of the depth that feminism has penetrated the male psyche . We would much rather over-compensate to protect the interests of women (who don’t need this by any measure!) then allow any of our brothers to radicalize in the defense of the males (or at least TOO much radicalizing).
I used to simplify things in terms of viewing Democrats as the manginas-those would never see men’s rights as a legitimate cause. I still see this.
I used to simplify things in terms of viewing the GOP as traditionalists (chivalrists)-those who see women as needing male protection. I still see this.
But I do see things differently also. Instead of cutting the pie in half, I cut it up into more pieces. My view changed and grew by watching what has been posted here at MND over 9 years. I see this as evidence that this movement is penetrating the male psyche of varying (and opposing) political affiliations. We are coming together more and more on this movement and it’s issues.
I’m a militant MRA. That’s not the same as a misogynist.
Traditiionalists are more dangerous to our movement. They want a Marriage Movement where marriage is saved on the sweat of our brow and saved on our broken backs. I don’t think so. If marriage will ever be saved it will be saved because men are given equal rights.
Marriage, The Family, This Country….all of these can down the tubes for all I care if men do not get fairness, equality, respect, first.
@ Ray Merk
Chivalry is a custom that manifests in our unequal legal system, and has done so predating even first wave feminism. We can look at selective service laws, family courts, VAWA and the like and easily see the evidence of chivalry and how it shaped the imbalances we fight against.
True, it is a social custom, but ALL social customs find their way to legislation and chivalry is hardly an exception.
@Schopenbecq
Well, if I gave the impression that I was calling for witch hunts, I totally missed the mark. I look at it this way. Real misogyny is actually so relatively rare in the MRM currently that it is likely to die off mostly by attrition. Most MRA’s deplore hateful agendas because they have been subjected to the mother of them in western culture for a long time.
Over recent years, in the internet forums I have participated in, most real misogynists are gently called to task by their peers and they either tone down the rhetoric or go on their way. It is still out there, but I don’t see it at all in numbers that even justify worrying about it.
I really think that misogyny, right along with chivalry, right wing extremism and the other things I mentioned will generally self sequester because the voice of men that is finally gaining momentum relative to men’s rights does not echo those sentiments.
As always, time will tell.
An excellent article. Mens News Daily has sometimes come across as an American Republican mouth piece, so I was more than pleasantly surprised by such a reflective and open-minded piece on this topic.
However…yes, misogyny is a touchy subject and I would tread with care when calling for witchhunts to root out those of us who are found to float instead of sink. Unfortunately, female support for feminism and what feminists are doing to men is so overwhelming that it is very difficult or even foolish to make a point of removing them from moral culpability and even directing some verbal anger at women in general. This is especially ture if, like most of us, you don’t subscribe to absurd notions of man-made gender constructs. In which case, it is difficult not to admit that women’s support for feminism may simply be serving selfish biological ends that inherently conflict with those of men and even justice itself. To state such a belief might be ‘misogynistic’ but it also might be inseperable from the very possibility of men’s rights.
It is also true that virtually every woman who has tried to enter the men’s rights movement has had the overt agenda of pushing an extreme neo-con form of sexual and social conservatism. In other words feminists with sufficient self-awareness to realise that second wave feminism was only needed when the contraceptive pill brought forth the free sexual market.
Besides that caveat, another quite brilliant article.
Alek,
You said “You can see it within these comments even. Some people suggesting the MRA become more neocon/misogynistic or else you’re a chivalrous pussy-beggar/”
I’ve spent more time than I probably should have searching these comments for this content, and have not yet been able to find it. I would sincerely appreciate it if you could direct me to the specific comments that support this statement of yours.
Thanking you in advance – Donnie
You should read Roger Gay’s article on “Deprogramming Yourself After Global Warming Scam” which lays out some logical fallacies. Demonizing the enemy is one of them.
A MRA is someone who wants men to have equal rights under the LAW. It has nothing to do with chivalry, which is a social custom. So, your negative and false portrayal of chivalry is irresponsible. You impute evil motives and very low character in a broad sweeping brush about people you obviously don’t understand. You’re just creating a negative stereotype.
Excellent article, Paul. You hit the nail on the head. Both political parties exist to gain power, not to help people.
We need to continue to express why chivalry is a trap for men. Chivalry has no place in equality of the sexes.
Paul, I can’t believe it, I went into this article doubting you’d be able to do it, yet you did it, you identified things as they stand.
I want to add one VERY important thing:
The really sneaky thing the neocons and misogynists do, is they use the “chivalry” label as a way of getting everyone to follow them.
In other words, you’ll notice that… if you don’t support a bitter/misogynistic view of women, they’ll imediatelly label you a pussybeggar who’s acting in chivalry.
The neocons, will do the same… Unless you are a cult-like neocon, they will call you a pussy-beggar.
You can see it within these comments even. Some people suggesting the MRA become more neocon/misogynistic or else you’re a chivalrous pussy-beggar/
Its a very sneaky tactic.
This article nails it again Paul. More grease to your elbows.
Mens rights activism is not an idle diversion, but the living of a life of values. Values grounded in a moral conviction of human rights and human liberty. That is, privileges common to all people because they are commonly human.
It is also a rejection of the proposition that, on account of a persons gender or any other demographic designation, they are more or less worthy of the above rights and privilages.
@ Jutgory
I am not disposable. My son is not disposable. It is your attitude that got us here. I respectfully disagree with you in almost everything you said.
@ Paul
Of course you are correct, but I think the desire for female inclusion in the MRM may be just more chivalry on our parts. Will women truley work against their best interests because it’s the right thing to do? That’s what men do. Women don’t do that. Beware the Trojan horse we let in so we get street cred about diversity. Nancy Pelosi and Hillary know that unless they can motivate women to be in government they are at risk of men acting in mens best interest. Harriet Harman won’t even allow a man to rule Britain without a legal requirement of a woman at his side, he cannot be trusted. In much of Europe women don’t trust corperate boards that are elected by women but simply because they are male, they cannot be trusted, they legislate 50% of corperate boards be women.
We might not agree with them but Clinton, Pelosi and Harman are astute politicians and very successful. Don’t ignore the lessons they teach us.
I’ll second the motion and amen for everything JimM said.
Paul Elam,
Very accurate diagnosis of what ails us but the prognosis is not very good. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union the feminist were offended if the country was called “Russia” ,but that is what the country calls itself now. To quote you.
“Marxist-feminist hate mongers were successful in hiding behind a thin façade of equalitarianism for a long time simply because no one wanted to challenge them. It was MRA’s and MRA’s only that finally blew the whistle on the stinking lot of them and continue to do so whenever the opportunity arises”.
Another issue, even if we fight for our son’s future, because the mother’s control they don’t appreciate it, maybe someday they will realize what happened to their fathers who were MRA. But like the Memorial Day to pay homage to fallen soldiers and is usually the first day at the beach while dignitaries, most of whom never served in the military, give a pompous speech and lay a wreath, future generarion of young men will do the same for us.
Another great piece from Mr. Elam. Thank you for addressing the fact that it’s traditionalists and neocons, not just chivalrists and leftists, who are foes of the men’s-rights movement. Thanks for also reminding us that MRAs don’t have a common nationality or ethnicity; I’d take that further and say that MRAs can come from a variety of cultural/political backgrounds and have different opinions on non-gender issues (which is why articles on non-gender issues should be removed from MND in my opinion).
I must admit that when I read the title of you article I simply assumed that I was going to be told that to be an MRA I had to adopt an ultra-conservative right wingnut political ideology. That’s pretty much been my view of MRAs. I was pleasantly surprised when this turned out not to be the case. My own political views vary with individual issues and can sometimes be very liberal and at other times be very conservative or centrist.
I do admit to being married and having a marriage that works. It’s not exactly traditional, however, as my wife makes more than twice my salary and we have no children together (she has a daughter). I also admit to holding doors open for women, but not out of some sense of chivalry. I also hold doors for children and men. I do it because it seems to be the polite thing to do and I believe in being polite and in treating others with respect.
I distrust and detest most politicians whether they be Democrats or Republicans and generally feel that I am completely unrepresented by anyone in our government. I advocate for men’s rights particularly in the areas of education, family law, and domestic violence. But I am mostly all about equality. this means equal rights, equal opportunity, equal access, and equal protection regardless of race, sexual orientation, gender, etc. I am also very concerned with protecting the environment regardless of whether or not the concept of global warming does or does not exist. I simply believe that having clean air, blue skies, clean water, etc. makes for a better, healthier, more satisfying life.
That said, I’ll let you decide whether I’m an MRA. I distainlabels and typically think of myself as a free radical. If anyone is interested, I have a blog at http://thedamnedoldeman.com.
Nicely written.
I’m betting most MRAs are born on the receiving end of feminism’s misandry, at the hands of the “justice” system. My path here was different.
A long time ago I began a study of American history; I soon found myself espousing libertarian ideas. I find it very easy to be libertarian. It is a consistent philosophy of human freedom.
Human freedom is the very opposite of government power; that is the simple reason libertarians oppose most things the government does. Liberty is only found in the sphere in which the government does not interfere. Men know this all too well. This is why I frequently post comments here.
The assault on men is an assault on their human rights and their liberty. For me, the best way to oppose it is to espouse a consistent philosophy of human freedom. Neither major political party in the U.S. genuinely believes in human freedom. They have both actively participated in the enslavement of men. But there is an awakening taking place that will help us in the long term. That awakening is not specifically about men’s rights, but is about human rights more generally and American-style liberty, the liberty that is the birthright of each and every American, male or female.
I am not here recruiting for the Libertarian Party. I am not even a member. But it is clear to any thoughtful observer that the two major parties in the U.S. are anti-liberty and pro-government. While they differ slightly in some minor ways, both are completely in the thrall of big business, the banking interests, and the Military-Industrial Complex.
They are not our friend, they are our enemy. National government has demonstrated a shocking independence during this financial crisis; shocking enough, IMO, to shake it to its very foundation. National office is a club. Congress, with the aid of both major parties, has enabled the banking sector to loot the taxpayer for trillions of dollars, in plain sight. I am delighted by this, because now J6P is pissed, and is starting, just finally starting, to ask the right questions: “Why do we have government? What is the government supposed to be doing, and not doing?”
Activists in many states are pushing and passing tenth amendment resolutions, overtly reasserting state’s rights and resisting the federalization of everything. This is significant movement in the right direction. Activists are beginning to openly discuss not sending tax money to Washington from their states. The only way to kill Leviathan is to starve it. The MSM doesn’t know what to call this movement so they call it “new conservatism.” Neocons think this means they can claim it. They are wrong.
How does this affect the men’s rights movement? My view of the men’s rights movement has always been based on human freedom. Men’s rights are being trampled, and they are being trampled by both the dems and repubs. But Joe and Jane sixpack are finally waking up, shaken from complacency by an unfolding economic disaster. They are finally starting to ask the right questions and demanding answers. They are willing to confront Leviathan.
Both major parties are trying to get in front of this movement and claim it, no doubt so that they can employ the standard tactic of “embrace, extend, and extinguish.” They view this burgeoning revolution as something that must be kept within the walls of the prison.
Taboo subjects are finally being discussed in broad daylight. And as the economy worsens, as it will, liberty will continue to break out all over the place, and we must ensure that it does. I recently attended a gun rights-focused political meeting, and one of the subjects there was the loss of gun rights caused by misdemeanor DV convictions and how that feature of the law needed to be overturned. Also discussed was mandatory arrest statutes. It will be a simple matter for me to educate by extending that discussion to TROs, dominant-aggressor and shall-arrest DV statutes, etc. It is easy to so this from a consistent philosophy of human rights, something not offered by either major party or by affiliation with either major party.
Slavery is slavery, and tyranny is tyranny, whether it is enforced by a taskmaster in a field or by a judge in a family court. This is done TO us BY government. Government is the enemy, and cannot be turned into a friend.
There is one school of thought that has consistently advocated human rights: the libertarians.
One thing I am quickly realizing is the power of a small group of determined activists to influence state and local politics.
Paul,
With all due respect, I have to disagree about the chivalrist. While what you say may describe some of them, I do not think it holds true of all of them.
I think it is perfectly okay for an MRA to act with traditional chivalry.
Why is that? BECAUSE THE FEMINISTS HATE IT!
They want to re-define masculinity.
They want to say that it is wrong to acknowledge that “boys will be boys.”
They want to tell us what it means to be a man.
Chivalry (depending on its manifestations (and I disagree with your characterizations of it, by the way)) says, “NO, I am going to act the way I want to act, and I am not going to apologize for it.”
A “problem” with many MRAs is that they seem to have used feminism as a jumping off point. That is not to say that they have adopted all of the dogmatic aspects of feminism. Instead, it is a reaction to feminist theories.
Chivalry is not a reaction to feminism, because it existed prior to feminism. It is SUPPOSED to be the target of the feminists (whether or not it actually is), because it is cast as the strong man taking care of the “weaker sex.”
Frankly, I have no problem with a guy who embraces chivalry because he says to women, in essence, “you can re-define femininity all you want, but don’t think that you can re-define masculinity for me.”
To take a chivalrous approach to the world is to say to the feminists: “gender is NOT a construct. You can’t re-define masculinity. Men and women are different.” This is the way our predecessors acted; they knew who they were and they were not going to be told to be something else.
HAVING SAID ALL THAT, I do not think any of this applies to legal inequalities. I am speaking more about a personal ethic. I agree that legal inequalities and societal double standards should be eliminated as much as possible.
However, I think it is noble that men work jobs they hate to support families they love, without complaint. And, why should they complain? They understand how the world works. Sometimes, you have to do things you don’t want to do. Sometimes, you have to make sacrifices. You should do it without complaint, because you have a fundamental understanding that, sometimes, life is hard.
Does that make you disposable? To some extent, yes. Any father who would sacrifice his life for his child knows, deep down, that he is disposable. And, that is not a bad thing. As a movement, i do not think we should lose that.
We should embrace the fact that, to some degree, we are disposable. Why? Because we are not selfish! We understand that, sometimes, there are more important things in life than our own comfort. (By the way, this is not to denigrate anyone involved in the “marriage-strike.” That is fine if you want to opt out of marriage and children. My point is only that the alternative is an equally valid choice.)
Again, just to be clear, that DOES NOT mean that Courts should treat men and women differently. The laws should be fair and they are not. But that is what I see as the important goal of the MRM.
For what it is worth (and I am sure many will probably say it is worth nothing).
-Jut
I agree with Stan. Not only is it an indication of confidence it is also a necessary dialogue for defining the movement.
I have long been very suspicious of groups like Promise Keepers and the like whom under the cover of all of their rhetoric about manliness and fatherhood are really nothing more than a bunch of neo-ultraconservative men pandering to the approval of like minded women.
This article takes good aim at them.
Great article. Thanks.
Taking discussions to this level is a sign of growing confidence of the MRA.