Is The Men's Rights Movement Becoming Recycled Feminism?
When I first began reading Men’s News Daily, I felt empathy for the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM). Supporting men’s rights is in the best interests of women. False accusations of rape, abuse and harassment undermine the credibility of real ones. Making divorce and custody settlements more equitable helps women who want families because punitive settlements discourage men from marrying and becoming fathers. However, as some of the articles and forum comments came to resemble classic feminism, my empathy has begun to wane.
I believe men often get raw deals in divorce court and family courts. I also believe our court system has made it too easy for women to file false charges of paternity, rape, abuse and sexual harassment. While such wrongs need to be addressed, the MRM seems to over-emphasize their incidence. Some women accuse men of paternity when they know those men aren’t the fathers. Some women abort their babies without the fathers’ permission. Some women file false charges. Some women cheat on their husbands. However, many in the MRM act as if ALL women do those things. Dirt bags come in both sexes. Some men deny their paternity when their mates have been faithful, (why do you think DNA testing was created?). Some men try to coerce women to have abortions if fatherhood isn’t convenient. Sometimes rape, abuse and harassment charges are real. Some men cheat on their wives. Neither sex is responsible for ALL immoral behaviors. If men are tired of being portrayed as rapists and oppressors by the feminists, isn’t it likely that women are just as tired of being portrayed as lying, cheating whores who marry only to divorce and take hubby’s stuff?
I believe most, if not all, women resent the MRM’s implication that women’s success is the result of preferential treatment forced on society by the feminists. I personally resent it. As a non-athletic individual, I did not benefit from Title IX and that is true of a great many women. If I got preferential treatment in college admission, why were many white males who had both lower grades and lower SAT scores admitted to the same university? I received no financial aid for college, so how did I get preferential treatment in that area? While other students partied, I studied and worked at an on-campus job in my major, (I was chosen for that job because of good laboratory skills, legible handwriting and punctuality, but somehow that’s probably just because I’m a woman). If the MRM is right, my getting my first corporate job must have had nothing to do with my prior work experience or my grades, but affirmative action. My pay raises and promotions probably had nothing to do with my ability to perform many tasks in several departments without supervision. They were awarded just because I’m a woman despite the fact that some men also received them while some women did not. Most women who have achieved did so, not via affirmative action, but because they worked hard and earned it! It is an insult to imply that they didn’t.
While over-represented in the media and academia, feminists represent a small minority of women. I’ve never heard any woman in real life speak of "patriarchal oppressors" or of all men as rapists. I do not know any women who have made accusations of rape, abuse or sexual harassment, (To be fair, I have met one man whose ex wife made such accusations). I’ve only met one woman who believes women are paid less for equal work. The married women I know do not speak ill of their husbands.
Men rightly point out that the media portrays men as dolts. However, television, movies and the news media do not represent average women. Hollywood is notoriously liberal. Most journalists describe themselves as liberal. The Gonzman, (Gonzo’s Bar and Go-Go Grill II), missed that point in his post, "Future perfect: how to be a ‘real’ man again? WTF?" The post was about men "letting women define manhood for you" by wearing trendy clothing. Unless men’s moms dress them, women don’t choose what men wear. Trends are defined by clothing manufacturers, retailers, advertising agencies and the media: Not by women or we wouldn’t have low-rise jeans, thong underwear, wedgie shoes, make-up, 4" heels, etc. The men on "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" don’t represent heterosexual women. Not only did the Gonzman’s post squarely lay blame on the wrong group, it included the terms "femtard," "bitch," "femherroid rug munchers," (I don’t know what that means, but it hardly sounds flattering), and "douchebags." One who posted "comments" used the c-word, "femtwats" and "cows." These slurs appeared to be directed at women in general, not feminists. Is alienating approximately 50% of the population in the MRM’s best interests?
It appears that the MRM may be becoming a recycled version of feminism in which all problems are the fault of women. If that happens, little real progress will be made on the core issue of making our legal system fair to men.
Despite "preferential treatment," feminism has probably hurt women more than it helped them. Many women like myself wanted to be housewives and mothers, but did not pursue that option because we were told that was for losers and women are defined by their careers. Once we had careers, our achievements were attributed to affirmative action rather than to career skills and hard work. Many women don’t even bother to date because of the male hostility wrought by feminism. Dates are a Catch-22 anyway: If a woman pays her share, she’s a "feminist;" If she lets the man pay, she’s a "princess." If a relationship does work out, men don’t want to marry because feminism made divorce so unfavorable to men.
If the MRM concentrates on legislation and court system reform, society can become more equitable. The MRM must also recognize that there is a personal responsibility component to relationships, marriage and paternity. Recognizing and avoiding deceitful, greedy women is part of that. Women as a group aren’t the cause of all woes: Some are caused by bad decisions by men themselves. If the MRM concentrates on blaming and hating women, men could eventually be just as screwed by Men’s Rights as women were by feminism.
Copyright Eva Ellsworth, 08/28/05, all rights reserved
I believe men often get raw deals in divorce court and family courts. I also believe our court system has made it too easy for women to file false charges of paternity, rape, abuse and sexual harassment. While such wrongs need to be addressed, the MRM seems to over-emphasize their incidence. Some women accuse men of paternity when they know those men aren’t the fathers. Some women abort their babies without the fathers’ permission. Some women file false charges. Some women cheat on their husbands. However, many in the MRM act as if ALL women do those things. Dirt bags come in both sexes. Some men deny their paternity when their mates have been faithful, (why do you think DNA testing was created?). Some men try to coerce women to have abortions if fatherhood isn’t convenient. Sometimes rape, abuse and harassment charges are real. Some men cheat on their wives. Neither sex is responsible for ALL immoral behaviors. If men are tired of being portrayed as rapists and oppressors by the feminists, isn’t it likely that women are just as tired of being portrayed as lying, cheating whores who marry only to divorce and take hubby’s stuff?
I believe most, if not all, women resent the MRM’s implication that women’s success is the result of preferential treatment forced on society by the feminists. I personally resent it. As a non-athletic individual, I did not benefit from Title IX and that is true of a great many women. If I got preferential treatment in college admission, why were many white males who had both lower grades and lower SAT scores admitted to the same university? I received no financial aid for college, so how did I get preferential treatment in that area? While other students partied, I studied and worked at an on-campus job in my major, (I was chosen for that job because of good laboratory skills, legible handwriting and punctuality, but somehow that’s probably just because I’m a woman). If the MRM is right, my getting my first corporate job must have had nothing to do with my prior work experience or my grades, but affirmative action. My pay raises and promotions probably had nothing to do with my ability to perform many tasks in several departments without supervision. They were awarded just because I’m a woman despite the fact that some men also received them while some women did not. Most women who have achieved did so, not via affirmative action, but because they worked hard and earned it! It is an insult to imply that they didn’t.
While over-represented in the media and academia, feminists represent a small minority of women. I’ve never heard any woman in real life speak of "patriarchal oppressors" or of all men as rapists. I do not know any women who have made accusations of rape, abuse or sexual harassment, (To be fair, I have met one man whose ex wife made such accusations). I’ve only met one woman who believes women are paid less for equal work. The married women I know do not speak ill of their husbands.
Men rightly point out that the media portrays men as dolts. However, television, movies and the news media do not represent average women. Hollywood is notoriously liberal. Most journalists describe themselves as liberal. The Gonzman, (Gonzo’s Bar and Go-Go Grill II), missed that point in his post, "Future perfect: how to be a ‘real’ man again? WTF?" The post was about men "letting women define manhood for you" by wearing trendy clothing. Unless men’s moms dress them, women don’t choose what men wear. Trends are defined by clothing manufacturers, retailers, advertising agencies and the media: Not by women or we wouldn’t have low-rise jeans, thong underwear, wedgie shoes, make-up, 4" heels, etc. The men on "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" don’t represent heterosexual women. Not only did the Gonzman’s post squarely lay blame on the wrong group, it included the terms "femtard," "bitch," "femherroid rug munchers," (I don’t know what that means, but it hardly sounds flattering), and "douchebags." One who posted "comments" used the c-word, "femtwats" and "cows." These slurs appeared to be directed at women in general, not feminists. Is alienating approximately 50% of the population in the MRM’s best interests?
It appears that the MRM may be becoming a recycled version of feminism in which all problems are the fault of women. If that happens, little real progress will be made on the core issue of making our legal system fair to men.
Despite "preferential treatment," feminism has probably hurt women more than it helped them. Many women like myself wanted to be housewives and mothers, but did not pursue that option because we were told that was for losers and women are defined by their careers. Once we had careers, our achievements were attributed to affirmative action rather than to career skills and hard work. Many women don’t even bother to date because of the male hostility wrought by feminism. Dates are a Catch-22 anyway: If a woman pays her share, she’s a "feminist;" If she lets the man pay, she’s a "princess." If a relationship does work out, men don’t want to marry because feminism made divorce so unfavorable to men.
If the MRM concentrates on legislation and court system reform, society can become more equitable. The MRM must also recognize that there is a personal responsibility component to relationships, marriage and paternity. Recognizing and avoiding deceitful, greedy women is part of that. Women as a group aren’t the cause of all woes: Some are caused by bad decisions by men themselves. If the MRM concentrates on blaming and hating women, men could eventually be just as screwed by Men’s Rights as women were by feminism.
Copyright Eva Ellsworth, 08/28/05, all rights reserved
104 Comments:
Nonsense! The tables have completely turned. Men are wary of aggressive and masculine women out for money. Younger women want successful men and older women want a meal ticket. The author obviously holds strongly feminist view. Men are the losers in the modern dating world. Ms. Ellsworth seems to be happy with that state of affairs.
It may be helpful to think that MRAs don't hate women, they merely have a severe distaste for feminist extreemists.
You're absolutly right to be pissed that your qualifications for academic and professional may fall under a leary eye.
Remember that every time you see calls for quotas outside of qualifications.
It would be swell if you could direct your amazement of the actual lack of victims of the crimes you speak of to those that make these claims. I to find myself apparently beyond statistic in that I don't know of every fourth woman I raising concerns of violent rape, no..um..date rape, no..um..sexual assult,no..um...workplace harrassment,no...um..inappropriate looking.
Normally I'd defend "The Gonzmans" use of verbiage in context, but apparently he's quite able to defend himself.
There is a whole demographic you seem to be missing besides the princess and the feminist, that is the black widow out to pick the man with the largest potential ,get preggers, find his assets,take them, and run away with "You can't catch me 'cus I've got the judges robes to hide behind. Much better than mommys skirt."
These are not ALL woman, I have yet to see any MRM/MRA/F4J/or even confirmed bachelor spew hate for ALL woman.Do you now understand how miserable untruths gain momentum just like the childs game "telephone"
Very good and hope full.
We men need to hear more of this.
But I am afraid that "affirmative action" (anti male discrimination) is a firm basis for the assumption that "women" have preferential treatment.
This will not go away easily.
Now if women were 50-51% of the wounded and dead at work, that assumption would ...die!
Thanks for writing this,
Gerard Levesque
"If that happens, little real progress will be made on the core issue of making our legal system fair to men."
I wish I knew the basis of this comment. I don't agree. Afterall, if the MRM becomes more like the feminists version than I would expect great strides by the men. Anger seems to force change.
Frankly, I'm tired of hearing women like Eva complain. And I don't think men need to hear more of this. I'm tired of hearing these men speak too. But it is a free country-at least for some. What men do need to hear is a hulluva lot more pro-male defenses from the women who claim to not be man-hating feminists. I would agree that men should not lump all women in with the feminists. The trouble is these women who claim to not be man-hating femisnists have took the easy and beneficial route the last 40 years. Only now do we men hear an occasional pro-male comment or column from women. And like eveything else in the past, (some of) these women are likely only doing this out of self-interest. Afterall, the MRM is increasing the heat on feminists-and we men are a threat to the status quo-the same status quo that the women like Eva (those who 'claim' to not being man-hating feminists)have had many benefits from for many years at the expense of men. Only when the MRM threat arises do we now hear (some) women defending men.
Eva, you may be getting resentful.
Welcome to the America the feminists created. I too am resentful-and have been for a long time. Longer than you. I 've either experienced myself, or know someone who has, the many things you attempt to portray as rare.
Women -- girls -- got preferential treatment when I was a little kid in school in the 1950s. Now that feminists have shrieked continuously since then about how "oppressed" they are we're justified in trying to root out their priviledges by whatever means. The only means available in many cases is verbal.
The purpose of feminism is to keep women from being brought down to mere equality with men. Feminists must be made to eat every hateful thing they've shrieked at us, and women must be forced to behave as our mere equals.
Dear Ms. Ellsworth:
This is one of the best pieces on the subject I've ever read.
Please go to www.pepintexas.org and register. It will allow us to get in contact. I believe you have a great deal to offer in solving the underlying problem.
Again, outstanding work! Thanks.
Jim Loose
Chairman
People for Equal Parenting, Inc.
Women receive such widespread preferential treatment that most of them do not give it a second thought.
Example: When I return a plant to Home Depot, I'm grilled in a harsh tone as to whether I even watered it. When my girl friend does so, at the same HD, she is treated very nicely.
When I write a letter to a company about their poor service, I get a nasty letter back attacking me. She gets apologies and gift certificates.
When I get stopped by the police, I get a ticket. She brags about not getting tickets.
When I take the children to the Drs. for injuries, I get grilled (some child abuse may be happening here). My X is treated like a queen.
The list goes on and on. Most women live in fairy land and do not realize the preferential treatment thay are getting. Any women I have spoken too about these differences, just gives a silly laugh. These women do not do overt acts of male hatred, but they continue to enjoy reaping the benefit of gender discrimination without lifting a finger to end it. They just want their gravey to continue, thinking it is only natural that everything should magically turnout right for them, not realizing or caring that it was not magic, but preferential treatment.
Hello Eva,
In answer to the most fun point (about dating), there is a third alternative that maybe didn't occur to you: Try offering to pay not only your share, but the whole check. (That would be REAL equality with men.)
The catch-22 is for men as well: If the woman "offers" to pay, it's often because of a feminine-code that says such women offer to pay as a form of rejection or a patronizing attempt to let the man off easy. It's like a man saying he's going to be a "gentleman" and not kiss a woman goodnight at the end of an evening when he really means he thinks she a dog.
I can see your point that the hostility between the genders has begun to spill over to men as well but this is no surprise. For some time, even women who don't apply the feminist label to themselves in the states have engaged in gender identity thinking at the expense of personal relationships. Many women would rather play "hard to get" and give up a relationship with a man whose perfect for them rather than be seen as "easy" by her peers. This may predate feminism, but American women play more "games" than women in most other cultures. Maybe this is a cultural sickness between men and women that carried over from puritannical times.
You argue that MRM implies that "all" women are bad, but the fact is that American culture encourages women to be arrogant, materialistic, and misandric and many have heard the call in their own way. Men are subject to continual criticism for any negative consequences of their sexism or self-identity while women are given a free ride. This doesn't mean such women are bad for being unconscious of their self-centeredness, but at the same time they do need to accept responsbility for their actions and it's going to be painful. Imagine if all the things feminists say about men applied even moreso to women. That's basically what's happened and sooner or later the piper is going to come acalling.
I can see your point about women not having anywhere to go. I remember in my youth that I gave many sweet women a hard time for being traditional and reasonable when I had been brainwashed to believe that men were entitled to women who provided an income similar to men. But this means that if men are to be understanding of women who still desire traditional benefits from men, then we must re-evaluate the feminist argument that women are entitled to "equality" at any cost. Are women willing to pay that cost?
Yes, you 100% correct.
The MRA movement has become the male equivalent of the feminist movement. Actually these movements have much in common as well on their positions.
For instance, BOTH MRA and feminists are gender neutral on custody, no matter the age of the child or if the mother was a stay-at-home parent. Their goal now is to have even infants taken away from mothers and given over to father custody since many complain of how come mothers can leave the hospital, after birth, with baby and they can't.
BOTH are gender neutral on this issue.
BOTH MRA and feminists support women being registered in the military and in the front lines in the event of war, even though testing done in the 80s under Clinton clearly showed even the BEST women with special forces training were unable to overcome the average man with no training, actually the below average man (which is the men the military is generating screening out of the service). Thus, women were banned from not just the front lines but ALL Special Forces as well such as Rangers, Navy Seals, Green Berets, whatever.
Yet BOTH want them in the front lines and right now many women are trapped over in Iraq, (which is the equivalent of the front lines) in a classic bait and switch scheme, approved by both the Pentagon and that idiot Kim Gandy of NOW.
Additionally, BOTH MRA and feminists hate stay-at-home mothers with a passion.
I too was once a stay-at-home mother with no plans for a career, just thought I was going to make my husband, home and children my job.
Guess what when all men decided to be like Hugh Hefner and become Playboys and feminists encouraged all women to plan a career, I, too was shafted. Of course, you don't hear me complaining about it all the time.
Well actually you do, as I have a blog now at http://www.womenasmothers.blogspot.com
But you're 100% right about this bunch. Find better people to hang around with, that's my advice.
They are truly BAD PEOPLE.
Jim Loose,
I find your post incredible. If you don't mind, would you explain yourself further?: 'This is one of the best..."
I think the premise of Eva's column is all wrong. In fact, I know it is. We have a 50+ % divorce rate, many men, including myself have seen affirmative action run wild (for decades), try giving a woman a complement on her dress while at work and see how you feel about that afterwards. In all these cases men have a huge disadvantage. We have a huge male prison population. Women get lesser sentencing for the same crime. There is much much more that can be said.
Please read a new post on MND: "The Feminist Infection" by Erik Rush.
"Like the addict, perhaps we will have to reach a level of demoralization and misery so profound that there will be no room left for the denial that a fundamental perversion of human society can somehow work."
Whether the affects are direct or indirect many many (the vast majority of) men are affected by what society has become from feminism. The affects have been destructive on the whole of society. The rights and incomes of men have been damaged severly. Who is responsible and who had, and has, the greater power to change the course for the better over the last 40 years? Well, radical feminists have caused the damage through their actions. Women as a group had the power to neutralize the extremist fringe elements of the womens movement for over 40 years.
They did not.
They took (what they thought were) their advantages. Powerful men have always benefited the mass of women against the mass of men.
Men have seen their role in society decimated.
We're NOT supposed to be angry? We're SUPPOSE to see the world through Eva's reality, and not our own?
Is this why you consider this column so great?
I am very curious.
Hello NYMOM,
I looked at your blog and found that you supported the feminist agenda: "anger over women's increased status or independence within Western society and male attempts to undermine the recent rigorous enforcement by the federal government of child support"
Question: If women are independent, why do they still need mommy-support? The attack on "motherhood" is that motherhood, just as with men and children, take a backseat to the empowerment and materialistic aspirations of women. Men, children, and society are all in the same boat.
Just so all the facts are in-NYMOM also has many posts on Gonzo's Bar and Grill. There you will see the irrational rantings of a man hating extremist known as NYMOM.
She is unstable and she is hateful to men.
After you read her rubbish ask yourself if this maniac has any credibility left.
well, if it takes on the tenor of feminist movements - so be it.
It is hard to ignore the progress that they have made by propogating lies and misinformation. I hope the men's movement doesnt stoop to that - for example, most men's rights group endorse shared parenting. However, the women's groups seek monopolistic custody.
The sad thing about the gender war, is it will likely get worse before it gets better.
annonymous-
I agree that we MRAs should not stoop to their level-lies, misinformation and all.
It requires constant vigilance to expose the lies-and thus destroy the credibility of the liars.
But the tenor ought to be intimidating and hostile, at times. Playing nice when the otherside won't will not help us much.
Well, Ms. Eva represents just what the MRM needs most ...
Legions of "sympathetic" iFeminists telling men how they should think, what they should feel, and especially, how much we need to appreciate all the sympathetic women out there who are "different" from those nasty radical feminists who...
tell men how they should think, what they should feel... etc.
yes. exactly.
Men are supposed to always see things the way women see them.
We men have been letting others deny us our rights for so long that they have come to believe that they should tell us what we should think, feel, do, etc...as you say.
Any movement that goes unchecked for as long as feminism has gone unchecked (40 years) without letting opposing positions to be discussed, much less implemented,
is bound to become extremist in nature. They see no limits to what they can do.
If I saw a known womens group getting investigated and arrested for blowing up the headquarters of the N.O.W. with dynamite, then I might start thinking "hmm, maybe some of them are sick of this too".
Until something this drastic starts to happen, I'm happy alone. To hell with Eva.
ahh,NYMOM
still mad at men I see.
The feminists have the MSM on their side. They distort the meaning of what men actually say to promote male hatred. In this case Judge Roberts:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/08/29/feminists_have_fixed_the_woman_hater_label_to_roberts/
Notice how the feminists lie. Notice how the MSM such as the Washington Post and Slate.com promote the lies...all to create hatred of a man based on lies.
Notice how the perceived "disrespectful tone" is ample proof to spread lies and hatred. That alone condemns a man. Women are supposed to be treated like the angelic princesses that they all are. Right.
Eva, we men are climbing a mountain for equality. Anything that goes against the sisterhood results in surefire character assasination. This goes for any man.
And Eva, you're all upset because men are fed up and angry.
You got a lot of nerve lady.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Hello Denis,
Ironically Eva may have a point: Feminists make a claim that they are seeking equality as a pretext for specific women's interests. By the same token, many men's rights activists mistakenly advocate equality between the sexes even when society and feminists themselves are uninterested.
Consider the shared-parenting crusade: I admire the idea, but in some cases it just won't work where the parents will not get along or economics dictate that the child live with one parent. In that case, a sane legal system that respects the _real_ interests of the child as well as the rights of the parents need to take over. Feminism's failure isn't due to radical man-hating feminists but rather the impracticality of a philosophy that seeks to empower women as equals and still retain all their traditional protections and perks.
polishknight-
the other part of the equation as far as "equality" versus "traditional protections and perks" goes, is that men have been stripped (en masse) of their rights and incomes thus preventing men from performing their primary "traditional" role of provider and protector. This is the area that the RadFems excel in. Therefore, I disagree with one aspect of your post-it's not in my opinion simply the incoherence of the philiosophy. The RadFems were instrumental in where we are today. Men don't get much "equality" in Family Law, Employment Law, Harrassment Law.....
Hello Denis,
If you could educate me otherwise, it's my impression that family law preferences for women were established during the turn of the century. This may have been due to "stage 1" feminists but the reasoning was more chivalrous rather than based upon any misdirected notion of equality.
The employment laws are based upon a notion of equality absent affirmative action. However, gender affirmative action is pregnant with the presumption that unless women are given special treatment, natural social pressures (especially from women) will tend to undermine women's equality in the workplace.
Where I'm going is that there is no way for MRA's to honestly support "equality" when the reality is that women's natural preferences and needs make such equality impossible. It's possible to have THIS discussion with women such as Eva rather than argue that "equality" needs to be extended to men which is largely counterproductive.
"Consider the shared-parenting crusade: I admire the idea, but in some cases it just won't work where the parents will not get along or economics dictate that the child live with one parent. In that case, a sane legal system that respects the _real_ interests of the child as well as the rights of the parents need to take over. Feminism's failure isn't due to radical man-hating feminists but rather the impracticality of a philosophy that seeks to empower women as equals and still retain all their traditional protections and perks."
Getting along is not a criteria. The parent who causes the "problem" forfits their right to be a parent. Otherwise PC dictates who is the "best" parent. The "best" parent will not allow "not getting along" to disrupt their parenting. Rewarding a parent for "not getting along" with custody the children is a large part of the problem.
To believe that government can determine the "real interests of the child" is crazy. Many times the courts do believe that they are acting in the best interests - they just believe that mom is the better parent. The courts must respect that both parents are looking out for the best interests of their children and uphold each parents' fundamental rights to their family. One when one parent does not recognize the right of the other parent to be a parent should government restrict rights.
As far as I can tell, the burden of the article was pretty simple (and inarguable): MRM -- if it doesn't want to become Jane Fonda with a beard -- should discontinue the Group Think histrionics and concentrate on repairing actual injuries in a calm and rational way through the available political channels.
None of us is hurt by a "feminine media environment" (whatever that means). We're hurt by having our kids taken from us, or we're hurt by getting arrested on bogus DV charges, or we're hurt by a Drive By marriage, etc. These are real injuries, that need real corrections. All the accompanying howling is a waste of time for those of us who're determined to make actual changes, versus indulge in Primal Scream Therapy II (How to Feel Better by Writing Nasty Blogs Now That Society's Too Polite to Tolerate Much Public Cursing).
The author was telling anyone with brains bigger than their ... well, you know ... to quit having hissy fits. There's work to do. And we men need to act like men, not 45 year old ladies hot-flashing our way through an estrogen-distorted change of life.
Good idea.
Most of us had pretty good mothers that taught us how to be gentlemen. If it takes a gentle reminder from a contemporary who happens to be -- Gasp! -- a woman ... so much the better.
John Lennon put it well in Revolution: "You better free your mind instead ... But if you want money for people with minds that hate. All I can tell you is brother you have to wait."
Yaaaaawwwwwwnnnnnn! Ad infinitum.
"None of us is hurt by a "feminine media environment" (whatever that means)."
Wow!
This man does not believe in language, symbols, or politics!
How come he's not running for our next President already?
Is he The Shrub's illegitimate son?
"The MRM must also recognize that there is a personal responsibility component to relationships, marriage and paternity. Recognizing and avoiding deceitful, greedy women is part of that."
The women must also recognize that there is a personal responsibility component to rape, sexual harrassment and discrimination. Recognizing and avoiding deceitful, violent men is part of that.
How does that sound?
As we can see in the debate in these comments between PolishKnight and Denis, MRA are not the stereotypes that Eva would portray us. I do not say that there is a great deal of anger in the hearts of men who have been deprived of their children. Just ask NavyBlue. But who can blame them? If you have a problem with over the top rhetoric from individuals then I would suggest that you NOT READ THOSE BLOGS. You say you sympathize with the MRM, well how about stop painting the MRM movement with the most stringent rhetoric you can find on the internet.
PS Jim Loose, nice job promoting your website. Please come visit mine:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/channel1/
2005/08/jim-loose-is-tool.htm
Dear Anonymous:
Is your handle a function of the thinking you put into your posts? ;-)
Kidding aside, c'mon, dude, think! If we were talking about some bunch of womyn making a case to the US Supreme Court that there was an "oppressive workplace environment" that was responsible for their problems ... but they were short on specific injuries being done to them ... you'd have zero problem identifying the wide gap in their argument. A generalized bad work environment (whatever that means) presumably expresses itself in specific acts of wrongdoing, or it's nothing to complain about.
Same thing with us. Yes, yes, yes, I know all about the gender hokum Hollywood and academia is foisting on us. Naturally their whole line is a crock. So what? There've been people selling political snake oil since Athens. What counts is specific injuries. Something can be done about those if (I should say IF) we (mostly) men will stop screaming like a bunch of banshees and get down to the hard and thoughtful labor of preserving liberty. Nothing can be done about a feminine media environment because we can't show a direct causal connection between it and our injuries. Even if we could, the same 1st amdt that we value for protecting our right to blog protects the rights of hyperfeminists to spew their nonsense wherever they like. The spray itself hurts no one. People who listen to the spray and then go take some Joe's kids or falsely accuse him of rape, are guilty of specific acts. The thoughts that motivate them can't be punished ... unless you really like 1984's idea of Thought Crime.
Dear bill c:
Thanks for your comment on your website. Until I read it I always thought damning required faint praise at least. How wrong I was.
We're working hard here. Wherever you are, best wishes for your efforts too.
Eva regarding what some here have said about me you can feel free to go to any board I've ever posted on and see that I've never cursed at, threatened to kill, hurt or injure someone's family members in any manner. YET I have frequently had threats like that directed at me from a number of the mens rights advocates on this forum.
Feel free to investigate if you doubt my claims.
Additionally regarding this comment which is the only one I consider to be worth responding to:
"Feminism's failure isn't due to radical man-hating feminists."
No it isn't.
Any more then the failure of MRA's agendas will be due to radical woman-hating MRAs.
What will ultimately spell the end of BOTH movements will be your failure to convince people that men and women are essentially the same with no inherent differences between us.
That will be the reason.
And all I will have to say is good riddance to you both, when it's over.
Dear nymom:
Outstanding!
It's past time for everyone to figure out the con game being played. The issue isn't male versus female. The issue is individual liberty versus government power.
Bureaucrats, politicians, and organizational interests within governments promote inter-gender antagonisms and then shed crocodile tears when they're called in to referee the resulting conflicts. Puh-leeze. How obvious can it be who's duping who and why?
Decent, rational people in both genders realize what's afoot and know that, if we work together, we can solve the problems rather than profit from them as our governments presently do at our (and the future's) expense.
Actually blaming women has kept me safe from all those bad women, and hating them has been rather fun lately.
Then again, I'm not an MRA so I guess I can't speak for them.
As soon as women deny the obvious and that is they did not for some obscure reason receive any favoured treatment then I have to wonder why you missed out.
Billions are spent every year on selfish females.
All you have to do is stand in line with the rest of your sex.
OK. Some men do bad things some of the time. What is your point?
The difference is that the law does not support and encourage these bad things. Besides, some wrongs don't make a right.
You largely acknowledge the truth of MRM's issues. Howe is that truth changed by the fact that some men do some bad things some of the time?
All women are not bad, but a man who has been burned unfairly may not want to take the chance. The last woman he thought was good also. He may believe that the risk of a repeat may be just too high. He knows there are good women but given the high price he pays if the new woman acts as the last one did he may not want to take a chance. I agree good women suffer.
As jim loose said above: "The issue is individual liberty versus government power."
Us vs them. The end of civilizations have occurred with that ideology. Wake up to the reality that we are all humans. AND MANY HUMANS ON THIS PLANET ARE BEING EXPLOITED/KILLED/ABUSED/VICTIMIZED. The use of boxed ideologies is killing our species. We have no need to worry about explosions when an implosion is occurring amongst the sexes.
Great article. Thanks.
As a wise man once said...."I'm not changing my views so some courderoy wearing B*%^h in Toronto can feel better about her ugly, fat @$$".
Women bought this, and soon they're gonna pay for it.
Yes, our culture is imploding.
I learned of the impending marriage of a relative the other day. I remember feeling sorrow for him rather than joy. He is young and naive. I wish him the best.
I realized the other day that instead of savoring my middle years and I am hoping they end as soon as possible. I am counting the days until I no longer have to continuously fear jail (I am self employed and although I have always made child support -- sometimes barely -- I continuously fear the consequences if I fail). Eight and one half years to go -- much better than when this terror started - it was 12 years then.
I now fear the police. After all, they arrested me at my wife's request for no reason. They knew the score but they dutifully did what they are instructed to do. They know the score because it happens to them also. They arrested me when I went to pick up the children at my ex-wife's request. Again, for no reason, other than my ex-wife asked. I live in continous fear.
Men go off to war to preserve this culture against supposed aggressors. However, when they return, their own culture commits aggression against them. It is obviously absurd to jail these men whose income drops when they enter active duty yet their child support is based on civilian pay. How come no one is fixing this? They have had years. I foresee the day when men refuse to defend the culture that treats them so badly. Women are all eager to enjoy military pay and privileges in peace time but I don't see them rushing to actually fight now.
I see men hurting. I am just one. I see women hurting. Most divorcees are hard unfeeling cold women. They are not happy. They successfully pulled a powerplay but they didn't win happiness.
We think we are smart. The truth is we are idiots. Culture developed in certain ways (e.g. family and marriage) for a reason. It developed over thousands of years and it developed because it worked and best promoted the welfare of all. We change everything in a few decades because we think we are smart. The truth is we are stupid. We don't know what we do. We are screwing up. Our culture is heading down.
Terrorism is not the real risk. China is not the real risk. Muslims are not the real risk. The real risk is us. We are unhappy and unhealthy and it is getting worse. We are attacking ourselves in any number of ways. We can only imprison and destroy so many before we all suffer even those not directly attacked. We are so busy trying to change everything that we have destroyed what worked.
snootfish-
it's ironic isn't it that men are going off fighting and dying in other countries to establish democracy while our own Bill of Rights is becoming a memory.
I agree that ultimately the problem is one of the government and I have no doubt most MRAs understand that. It doesn't take much intelligence or awareness to see that.
An important aspect of the problem is how we got here in the first place. It all started with RadFems working to push men aside and to get the government to replace the role of men as fathers and to systematically take rights from men in many other areas of life.
Now I did not see many women speak out for fairness in the past and I see little now-just more of it now because there was none.
MND has many great columnists and they have served to raise the awareness on the problems radical has brought to everybody. The agitating noise level is good-it accomplishes something. More people are reading MND everyday-and more people are expressing opinions. The bullets are flying and this is a good sign in my opinion. Heck Jim Loose, you can both take a swipe at MND for it's aggressive commentary and still benefit by the growth in readership this has accomplished by posting a link to your own site. Even nymom who's own site
and whose own posting rallying against father's rights can get heaps of praise from a shared parenting advocate like Jim Loose.
I'd say MRAs are a pretty damn diverse lot.
So if some of you are having problems because you have been pushed out of your comfort zone I say too bad. There are a lot of opinions, a lot of experiences, and a helluva lot of truth that needs to be said-especially by the men. The world has been hearing about everything female for one heck of a long time-you don't think men are tired of this?
I say let the men speak out. RadFems have been shutting men down for decades, so I say let it rip men. You want harmony between the sexes? Let's start with correcting all the unfairness against men that abounds. You women don't want to hear MRAs lump all women together with RadFems? How about speaking out and actively joining with the men to change laws and change the culture.
The bottom line is yes, it should not be female versus male-but that is where we are at. And yes the government has a big hand in all this. The RadFems with the governments involvement have dangled many goodies in front of the women-and they grabbed all they could.
If you want to hear less anger from men-give up ALL the advantages who have been given the last 40 years that have put the lives of ALL men at an advantage.
When I see that say-I will sing my praises of Eva as well.
women for so long
The Gonzman-never at a loss for hitting the target precisely has said everything I wish I had said here. I encourage all here to go to Gonzo's Bar & Go-Go Grill.
Go to:
"The Men's Movement, Lost Sheep, and how do these moccasins fit?"
One of my favorite Gonzo comment's here is:
"You’re not listening. You’re too busy excusing yourself personally, and to many of us it really doesn’t seem like you want to pitch in and help, you just want some sort of absolution."
I could not have said it better. That comment applies to some of the posters here as well.
Thanks Gonzman.
From Gonzman's post:
"Of course, I would be remiss not to mention the Great, “You don’t speak for me, Betty Freidan” and “Gloria Steinem is not my Leader!” rallies of the sixties. Oh, yeah. They never happened. Well, How could we forget the “Real Equality for All in Family Court” and “Don’t Shaft My Son in My Name” organizations women started in the seventies. Ooops. Yeah. Um. They never formed either, did they? Anti-Paternity Fraud groups? No, none of them either. Hmm. The Protests against women who made false accusations? No, no – none of them either. Well, surely in the eighties we had petitions by women to their congressmen to not expand “Sexual Harassment” to include everything that merely displeased a woman."
"Oh. Yeah. None of those, either. Except for Phyllis Schaefly, and a scant few followers, come to think of it, there sure as hell has been a lot of silent complicity in the excesses of feminism for a long, long time, now that you think of it – hasn’t there, Eva?"
and:
"Tell me, Eva, is it okay if we’re annoyed at that? Irritated? Mad? Angry? Maybe even enraged? Okay if we don’t believe in a system or institution that we were promised glorious things about, and which ripped out great chunks of our hearts and souls, leaving voids which can never, ever, be filled? Is that okay with you, Eva? Do we have your permission, here, to be just a tetch aggravated that this was done in the name of “Feminism?” Might we even dislike it a little bit, even for a few minutes in the morning before anyone else gets up?"
and:
"Maybe we might also be a little disgusted that so many women are “Janie Come Latelies” to the party, especially when they couldn’t be bothered years earlier out of simple fairness and justice and waited until – how did you put it? They realized that “Making divorce and custody settlements more equitable helps women who want families because punitive settlements discourage men from marrying and becoming fathers” and that “feminism has probably hurt women more than it helped them.” You’ll have to pardon me a bit here, Eva. See, where I sit, it sounds like there is a lot of women who supped at the table of feminism in years gone by, but now want to get out of paying the bill for it. It sounds like a lot of women didn’t believe the water was rising until it was sloshing on them – and of course, now we men, once again, are expected to “do something” and make it all better."
and:
"And despite the fact that you yourself admit that “men often get raw deals in divorce court and family courts” and “our court system has made it too easy for women to file false charges of paternity, rape, abuse and sexual harassment” and that “the media portrays men as dolts” and that feminists are “over-represented in the media and academia” and “feminism has probably hurt women more than it helped them” and “male hostility (has been) wrought by feminism” and that “feminism (has) made divorce so unfavorable to men" it's our fault for being sick and tired of playing the damn game. The day of "Everything Being Made Right" is surely coming, isn't it, Eva? I mean, while you women were talking (but not much else) about how things were terrible, you've been asking us for decades to chill out, bide our time, and one day it would all be evened out.
A more cynical man than me might think we men have had smoke blown up our asses for years by women wanting us to wait until they had theirs secured before we finally rose up and said, "Screw this bullshit..." and commenced to cracking skulls, whether literally or figuratively. Such a man might even regard the common sentiments of "Well, this is terrible, but we have to deal with this carefully, and it will take some more time while (Holy, holy, holy!) THE SYSTEM(tm) grinds away. Chill out, guys, bide your time and we'll get it sorted out and all will come right in the end." as a continuation of do-nothing empty words."
and:
"Well, Eva, I know what I might say if I was such a woman in that world. At the very least I might say, “You haven’t taken the first step, let alone walked the proverbial mile in my moccasins, boyo, and you have a lot of dues to pay before you are entitled to tell me how I should feel.” But I am a charitable sort at heart, Eva. I imagine other women in that dark place might have less charitable sentiments than me. In that alternate reality, such women might refer to Masculists with vulgar names. And given that so many men in that world just stood by and clucked while women were reduced to second class citizens, but did nothing but urge women to take charge of themselves and take responsibility for the evil that has befallen them; and of course, to suck it up, and take one for the team for now, it'll all even out some day - at at the same time urge those women to be temperate in their speech while doing it - Why, Eva, I think those women in that horrid world might not really give a rat's ass if a few men got their feelings hurt, especially when those men read "Masculist" and decide to infer it applies to "All Men."
and:
We're just sick of the spin that the moral and ethical thing for a man to do is whatever makes a woman's life work for her; and more so, we are sick to death of being told that because we want women to have real equality, which includes all the bad of equality to go with all the good they are unwilling to give up, that we are somehow anti-woman and re-issued feminists.
You want men to take responsibility for their part in all this - collectively, as opposed to individual cases? Excellent. Done. It's time, then, for women to take a similar collective responsibility - all this damage done by "feminism" has been done by, and at the behest of your sisters. The majority of women stood by and uttered nary a peep while this went on for half a century - and while those who spoke up deserve individuallly deserve honorable mention, on the whole the collective actions of women were pretty damn pathetic as their fathers, brothers, and sons were being turned into second class citizens and they just watched with pursed lips and really concerned looks but did or said sod all about it.
And if those of us who got splattered when the feces hit the fan want to go off, get a shower, and drink a beer, are saying, "Call us when you clean up the mess" well, it certainly is our right, I'd say."
and:
"Do you feel a lot of anger from men in the movement towards women? I'd say that is probably true Eva, and justifiably so because for years upon years all we have recieved from all but a scant few here and there is lip service, platitudes, and at best indifference. And what compounds this annoyance is that even though we have been banging drums and blowing horns, and raising sixteen kinds of holy hell for years upon years until we were blue in the face, now - because women are suffering the long-predicted fallout! - only now has it become a crisis worthy of mention. So I am afraid, at the very least, that you will have to suck it up and be patient for a while. We've been clamoring for our change first. Solving men's problems is the first priority, then we can deal with yours. And to be brutally honest, if some women are nconvenienced by this in the meantime, well, their apathy up till now makes it the very least of what is coming to them."
The above are only selected excerpts.
Frankly, I am speechless. This is brilliant writing from the Gonzman.
More from the Gonzman:
"You can reference a lot of “Pro Male” women writers for that one Eva – preaching at us how it is high time men stood up for themselves. But, by golly, do it in a “nice” way, and don’t be mad about it, okay, boys?
Crusty elder that I am, I’m part of that first fruits, the first generation of men who grew up under the scourge of feminism, who are now past the age where custody, visitation, support and all that are anything but a moot point. Like I said, my chance is past, and gone. And I’m not real eager to ask to be dealt in again, nor are many of my peers. Nor are many of our sons. We’ve learned through the baptism of fire that we’re about two flights of stairs lower than whale shit when it comes to our rights as fathers, and we’ve also learned that pretty much nobody really gives a bag of sour owl shit about it, either. Far as most of your sisters are concerned, we’re a soulless life support system for a fleshy dildo and a wallet, and a potential sperm donor if they ever decide they want to “be fulfilled as mothers.” And thanks, but – we really have to turn down the part. The pay stinks – you don’t even get scale – and the retirement plan is lousy. Plus there are no residuals involved.
I have to say, I’d be a lot more impressed over all the high sounding talk about men taking responsibility if this hadn’t come after years of urging – by women – to suck things up, to be a man, to not “judge” women by their “pasts” and make generalizations – those very things which would be the things to make us avoid poisonous women. We say, “Avoid College girls, they are infected with Feminism” and we are afraid of women with brains. We say, “Avoid Career women, you’ll always be second place” and we are afraid of capable women. We say “Avoid divorced women, single mothers” and we are judgemental. We can’t tell our sons and brothers to avoid promiscuous women. God forbid we preach a gospel of “Don’t Cater to demands and whims” because we are then insensitive. “Stand up for yourself” makes us abusive. If we look for women who have trained themselves for marriage and motherhood we are regressive control freaks. And so on. And so forth."
Reverse the genders, Eva. For a moment. Badda-bing, abracadabra, hocus pocus, and bam-a-lam-a-ding-dong; and suddenly you’re a woman who is subject to losing jobs and opportunity for legal set asides for men. When you divorce, you’ll probably lose any material goods you have accumulated, and will be relegated to “visitor” in your children’s lives – if Daddy lets you get that far. Men will be able to accuse you of vile and despicable crimes, and you’ll be regarded as guilty until proven innocent; that the man has lied about such things before will be considered immaterial, and even if you prove yourself innocent, you’ll lose your kids and be forever suspected of being really guilty. A few loud mouth men get all the air-play, repeating myths that anyone with a computer can show to be false, and everywhere you look, women are portrayed as bumbling and incompetent nincompoops. Man can get a secret restraining order against you, call you, and YOU will be thrown in jail for violating the restraining order. And even if the man who has just taken your house, car, bank account, and kids makes six figures, he can quit his job to stay home with the kids, and he won’t be regarded as shirking work. And your child support will increase. And if you take a second job because what you have left over won’t pay your bills, he can get a chunk of that too, and complain in court that you are a piss poor parent because you are always working, never have time for the kids, and he shouldn’t be expected to accommodate your weirdo hours for visitation – and the court will side with him, because he’s a man. And he can berate you, punch you, kick, scream, throw things, and refuse to let you be, and if you so much as raise your voice to him, you can go to jail.
Want to live in that world, Eva? I wonder how long you might take there before you decided that men were more trouble than they were worth. And all this time many men will sit there and sanctimoniously claim, “Well, I’m not a masculist, but” and do sod all to help you for years on end beside give you platitudes, and tell you to keep a stiff upper lip, that it will all come right one day, until the day you wake up and realize that if that day were ever going to come, a couple years ago would have been too damn late to do you any good.
Think you might be a little bitter, Eva? Hm? And what do you think you might say to some man who comes up to you one day and says, “Hey, even though I took all the benefits of masculism for years, I have seen the light, and am now on your side, and have written a few columns in support of you. But you’re too bitter; and even though the movement I stood by and watched destroy you, and even supported at times, took years to make you what you are, you need to just get over it now. And stop talking bad about men – even though most of us have just stood by and let a few of us turn you into a second class citizen, we’re not all bad, you know.”
Well done! You've used biased arguments, and used personal anecdotes to "disprove" general trends...
Here's bias. Basically it works like this. A pro-male fact gets divided by a certain value, lets say "2". And so you equate two things, on totally different scale.
Do you know how many men actually do rape? On the other hand, a very large percentage of married women end up stealing a man's posessions and earnings.
The figures are not in balance. If 0.01 percent of men rape, then men wouldn't complain so loudly if 0.01 percent of women ended up stealing a man's posessions. Not as loudly as females complain about men being rapists...
The rest of your arguments are just as stupid.
You cannot change the world until you have a team. This is a forum that allows men who feel abused by the system / culture to know they are not alone. They aren't. Men have suffered in silence for decades. It is good to get together and yell and scream about the abuses. Eventually, politicians will listen and others will and the world will start to change. Or will it? So many men have been "felonized" and can't vote. Women out number men (within prime voting ages). The political system may not work. Things may not change until our culture takes a huge fall. It would help a lot if women got on board and supported real equality and fairness. It is in their interest also. The current system will not stand as it for long. If the culture falls, everybody loses not just men. Women depend on men for much or most of what they get from this culture. When enough abuse has been suffered and things start to fail (as I believe has already started), everybody suffers.
"Many women don’t even bother to date because of the male hostility wrought by feminism."
Nonsense. What world do you live in? Talk to any man on the street, and the worst he will be is isolationist, pulling himself back away from females. Guys are 100x more likely to worship women and even regurgitate all of their lies, than to be hostile.
And male reactions are not because of feminism. Male reactions are because of women's behaviour. So you have no one to blame, but YOURSELF.
Read this: " Researchers find that when only one sex expresses argument-provoking feelings, it is likely to be the wife—by a ratio of almost six to one (85 percent vs. 15 percent). When both sexes participate but one dominates, women are about twice as likely to dominate. Overall, women are more willing to initiate conflict, more willing to escalate conflict, better able to handle it when it occurs, and, when they have initiated it, are quicker to get over it.
These findings come from numerous sources. They are found among couples of high, medium, and low socio-economic status. They are found using a variety of methodologies: The couples themselves acknowledge this gap, and, much more reliably, researchers who systematically observe couples verify the couples' own assessments.
Probably the most respected researcher in the field is John Gottman at the University of Washington. He records pulse rates, heart output, skin conductance, and other indicators of stress. Then he videotapes the couples to observe facial expressions and body language. He does not ask the couples to fight, since that would be artificial. Instead, he basically works with a couple and when a major area of disagreement naturally evolves, he asks them to discuss it and attempts to resolve it. When a fight naturally occurs, the equipment is there to record it.
Gottman found that men are more intimidated by angry women than women are by angry men. Men are more stressed by marital arguments, while women are more comfortable with emotional confrontation and are better at it."
from: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1559275707/103-2347035-0259864?v=glance&vi=excerpt
As I said, WOMEN HAVE NO ONE TO BLAME BUT THEMSELVES.
'Dates are a Catch-22 anyway: If a woman pays her share, she’s a "feminist;" If she lets the man pay, she’s a "princess."'
If a woman pays her share, she's considered reasonable, and normal. Thats how every guy I've talked to feels. Once again, you are making up lies.
It is not guys who put females into a catch-22. It is females who put guys into a catch-22. And then YOU complain of suffering that which you have made US suffer, but you DON'T suffer at all! Pure evilness.
Sounds like you are notthing more than a whiner, a selfish self-victimising whiner. The men's movement doesn't need you. Get the hell out and shut the fuck up, bitch.
I know that sounds harsh, but at the end of the day, men will decide the lives of men. Not women. You've interferred with our lives for too long.
-- theo
I had not heard of that research. It rings very true to me. I think women do initiate most conflict and they usually press and press and press and give the man no way out. Then, when there is finally a response of any kind, then he is "abusive." That is what I have seen. I think the pattern can occur all in one incident or it can occur over the course of several years of esculation.
Now, I think were a little too harsh with Eva. She at least understands the man's perspective and expresses some empathy for the position. I did not find her offensive at all. I have heard so much so much worse from other wome. Her empathy and understanding may or may not be genuine but she at least expressed it. Her criticisms were within the realm of reason.
I too have heard so much worse from American women that in the past I sometimes risked letting the lesser stuff pass. But I don't do that anymore. I won't give American women any more passes. Those days are over for me. They aren't going to tell me what I ought to think, feel....
Well Eva I warned you. You are hanging around with a lot of BAD PEOPLE. They have no concern for you whatsoever (or any women really).
You staying here and participating in this site just gives them COVER so that people don't understand how hateful to women most of these men here really are.
You are a pretty decent writer, you can have a blog ANYWHERE. So what in the heck are you doing hanging around with this bunch. They mean no good to you (or any women) or your children (or any child). You are helping to empower these sad specimens.
Do you really want to be seen as supporting these sorts of low-end men coming to power or having any influence.
I think not.
GO check out the feminists sites where all you righteous females rant and rave and then come here and tell us what great human beings women really are.
To nymom:
I don't think you want to hold most bloggers to a high standard of self-expression, do you? ;-)
When I read many blogs what I hear is a kind of general (often somewhat justified and misplaced) emotional outflowing about something wrong in the world. That's really about as much as can be expected in the ordinary course of events, isn't it?
If my basic idea is sound -- that the problem isn't male vs. female but, rather, individual liberty vs. gov't power -- then the fact that the bloggers above aren't especially concerned for women as a political class isn't a big deal. I think Eva doubts that there's much need left for helping women as a political class. I think the burden of her article was that men shouldn't turn themselves into a political class in need of help from the great white father of gubmint. Instead, men should focus, stop screaming, and start doing careful work. This strikes me as sound advice.
Those who've responded that they don't need Eva or any woman to tell them how to feel have missed Eva's point. She wasn't telling them how to feel, per se. She was telling them how to EXPRESS THEMSELVES if they actually want to be politically/legally effective. Again, I think this is very sound advice.
Neither Eva nor you, in my opinion, should be bothered by the strident reactions you read. After all, how many people have ever been concerned enough about being effective that they were willing to change their behavior? Guys and women have the right to behave however they like, so long as it's not criminal. If that means most can't be effective ... why would anyone who can be effective care at all?
....and I would say that the activism by men such as the Gonzman..and the many others that spread the word are quite effective. Afterall, if the word doesn't get spread out and about then there is n't much of a choir to preach to now is there?
I have yet to hear one MRA speak about WANTING the government involved in their lives in any way whatsoever much less in some way analogous to the way it has involved itself in women's lives (at the detriment of men's lives). Most MRAs I speak to want the government to just leave them alone.
And I am also pretty certain that the expression by the many men is perfectly helpful to the cause. It is gathering more and more men....and THAT is the whole point. With or without the women men will move forward. As is ALWAYS the case, opposing views say little.
How about addressing one issue at a time the many issues raised by Gonz? As I had said earlier I wish I had been able to write something so perfectly to the point...on MANY points.
But not one of you who wishes to think differently, has, or apparently CAN do that. Can you?
All you have to offer are trite dismissals of the men.
From nymom, that is all I expect.
From a few others I hoped for more.
I'll throw out a challenge to any man or woman here with the intellectual horsepower to do so, to offer a credible rebuttal to each point made by the Gonzman instead of the usual platitudes.
That's when a real discussion can begin.
So why the hell don't you begin it?
Men "becoming llike feminists"?! I don't think so. Our use of FACTS over LIES and distortions is the foremost difference.
Men collectively voicing their anger over mistreatment is not a BAD thing, as the alternative is what we've BEEN living with: men "sucking it up" and being treated as second class citizens.
Allow me an anecdote? If I am at work and so much as BRUSH against a woman, or just piss her off, she could allege sexual harrasment and I'm history.
Contrast that to the constant character assassination many women do constantly ("oh he slept with that skank so-and-so") and NOTHING is done about that.
So, I can lose my CAREER, that I've invested YEARS in, lose my livlihood (and that of my family), but a woman who says nasty things about ME behind my back is "it's just women talking ... ignore it" is the response I HAVE gotten from more than one employer.
And the reason I became an MRA was because I was falsely accused of rape in college. Didn't matter that the woman's story was ridiculous, not one jot. They didn't care that **I** went to the local FEMALE ADA (Assistant District Attorney) and begged for her to come into it, to interview me (w/no lawyer for me!), the woman, and if she thought I was guilty to arrest me. The ADA said the story was contrived, contradictory, and that it made NO sense. Nope, the school was following the PC script and I was denied even to have any witness SPEAK on my behalf and have access to witnessess no less. That I was going to (and subsequently was) be found guilty was a foregone conclusion.
Here I was, in training to be an airline pilot and all the money, time, training and dreams I had had holes blown in them because I dated some sociopath who was pissed I broke up with her.
The other reason I'm an MRA is because I was denied access, love, and wisdom from my father for **21** years due to a bad breakup with my mom and dad.
So, access to children for fathers for me is a little personal and since I can't be accused of "You just don't want to pay child support" and was a child denied my father I fight for fathers to be with their kids.
No, MRAs should not politely ASK women if we may have our rights, we should raise hell about it and get things changed. The whole polite discourse idea has no effect on hate-mongering feminazis because most are lesbian sepratists/supremacists whose sole use for men is as a combination sperm bank and cash machine via "special (read: women only) programs" that do a wealth transfer to further there hate programs.
So, no, we shall not go quietly into that good night.
We shall rage against the dying of the light.
L. Steven Beene II
It's interesting how NYMOM's very comments precisely illustrate how MRA's are NOT like feminists: Her opinion is so incredibly contractory: She argues that society needs to run to aid women as damsel-in-distress precisely because they're being threatened by emasculated, weak men. What doesn't make sense here?
I respect Eva's point in that she has never denied a desire or hunger for a strong masculine figure in her life and only went down the "traditional" road of education and earning a living because she didn't sense that men were reliable anymore to provide for her. Who can blame her? (She's a woman after all.)
What MRA's need to do is find a place for women unlike feminism which has done it's best to alienate men. Why should women (or men for that matter) who desire heterosexual relationships flock to a philosophy that is counter to their natural desires and interests?
LSBeene:
Aren't you supposed to be in Iraq or somewhere? What in the heck are you doing on this board repeating your story AGAIN for the 150th time.
I think I speak for many when I say could you shut up about getting falsely accused of rape (twice, but who's counting) since every single board I've been on you've invaded with that story and I, for one, am getting highly sick of it.
Everything in the world isn't about you and your rape accusations. Can we not derail this thread from a woman's cry of pain JUST ONCE...
Polishknight.
I wasn't telling Eva what happened to me because I expected someone to rescue me. I was telling her because she's about to experience the same thing (she's in the middle of it already, only she doesn't realize it yet) and I wanted to prepare her for it.
I'm over you jerks already, so don't fool yourself into believing why I was telling Eva this. She's got to be prepared now for a bunch of idiots to start harrassing her at this site and any others she goes on, as well as at home and her job now...death threats, attempts to get her fired if she works, threatening her family, etc.,...
It's that simple.
Additionally Eva explained that she expected and wanted to marry a strong male figure so that she could be home and raise her children. Instead she was told by her FEMINIST mother she needed to be educated and get a job to support herself.
Well after listening to you all on a couple of MRA sites over the last few months, guess who I think was right?
Remember one thing: always listen to your mother, she knows what she's talking about.
Keep the job Eva...
NYMOM (crying out for attention once again) said:
"Find for me eight - hell, find me FIVE - feminist sites sites which have an unqualified condemnation/dismissal of Valeries Solanas as a whacko/negative review of the S.C.U.M. Manifesto, or other such similar dismissal of it or her, with the only qualification that the article which condemns her must in the context of its entirity NOT contain a "but."
And since sites like "Ifeminists" and IWF are not considered mainstream feminism, by feminists, they don't count.
If you can find that... "
Yes yes dear we men should just stop talking, we should stop reminding others of unfair practices, and the inconsistancy of law.
Of course, since you bring it up, you've called men... what were those phrases again? .... Oh yea
Disease spreading, family abandoning, losers who need to stop whining.
Even rad-fems like Trish Wilson have told you to go away.
Yea, you are SO mainstream.
It is not my fault I dated a sociopath, heck, even your poor Ex-husband made that mistake.
No, sorry sweetie, we MRAs are not going away and I'd start letting that idea gel into that micro you call a mind.
We not only speaking up, but lobbying in Congree each year. And things are starting to change.
Oh, and one last clue Margaret Temple: You make my point exactly making "cute points" about my experience with false accusations: If a MAN were to make fun of rape victims he'd come under (deserved) fire, but the reverse (me) is fair game.
Nah, you're not a sexist unfeeling hate monger .. you're just a "mom" who isn't sexist.
Riiiiiight.
It's too easy with you.
NYMOM lies again:
"I'm over you jerks already"
No, you are PATHOLOGICAL in that you HAVE to get the last word in.
And that is EXACTLY why you are "alone by choice".
Such a beauty, a warm person, a reasoned thinker ... but ... ummm, no one wants to sit by your side, cuddle, and sleep in your bed ....
Why was that exactly?
Oh, you're "alone by choice"
Here's your chance Eva ... do stand up, speak up and talk against the feminazi troll ..
Here's your "I'm not THAT kind of feminist" moment.
Do plz show us how you are not.
But, I'm sure you don't need MY prodding to quash a male-hater ... right.
Here's Eva's chance to speak up and chance the loss of popularity and social stature by telling some fem-troll that certain posts are not representative of her.
Waiting ....
Waiting ...
(crickets chirp)
Yea, we MRAs see EXACTLY the tone, tenor, and volume of the voice that told us we should politely ASK women to give us our rights.
Once again a thanks to NYMOM for making it too easy to prove that we DO need to make MORE noice.
You're a cause unto your self Maggie.
Steven
Noise was the word I wanted to type ... but I bang away and then misspell.
Oy, such is the world.
Hello NYMOM,
Sadly, it's true that such harassment does sometimes occur but what's your point? I think women should be more careful if only because there are fewer of them on internet posting sites overall and they gain disproportionate attention.
Surprisingly, I agree with you (and with Eva) that it's a no-win situation for everyone about now: Women who pursue a life as a SAH mother may have to struggle in a post-feminist world but it's just as difficult for women who try to pursue a career into their 30's who then try to settle down later and find men who live up to traditional wageearner standards. For men, life is more difficult too. There is no easy answer, I'll admit.
Question: If you, as a mother, know what you're talking about when it comes to women being independent of men, why do you so fiercely defend child-support benefits for women? I made this point before and you appear to have blown it off.
I like Eva and I wish her the best.
If we expect moderate Muslims to condemn the extreme, we can equally expect the "good" women to loadly condemn the feminists....thats the point, and that's why you are included in the scrutiny of MRM kinda guys.
Still waiting on Eva to show how she's "not like" other silent women who watch men take injustice.
Ahhhh, it's easy to write an article, but losing popularity is more important than justice.
And MRAs have seen exactly this stance and that's why we are making noise.
yea...me too. And I'm waiting for some to response to the challenge put forth to rebut the most excellent rebuttal by the Gonzman.
No, instead the usual. Silence on the ISSUES or personal attack mode.We never really get to the issues with the women. They try and turn it into a discussion about women.
And that's gonna bring us MRAs to heel? No that's gonna make us kick your ass harder. When o when will women (and some men) ever learn? Haven't had enough have ya? The world is changing girls. Like it or not it is changing.
The world's already changing
Hello Denis,
You missed the memo: It's already changing which is why NYMAMA is worried that child-support enforcement and social programs aren't keeping up with the pace of the men's marriage strike.
Hey..found it!
yea, it says right here in the memo that men, by the 10's of thousands are on a marriage strike. Yup. You betcha. And word is getting out everyday. At the current doubling rate the numbers ought to be in the 100's of thousands sometime next year. Then in the millions!!!
It also says here that the weekly "Destroying the Matriarchy" meetings have been changed to Friday nights from Wednesday nights.
Thanks for the update PK.
Come on! There is no "matriarchy". In that respect, Eva has a point. The legal and society perks that exist for women are entirely due to the support from men including men in lower and middle class positions. Whose to blame women for accepting Greek gifts when men seem to be depositing them on their doorstep?
That said, there is a marriage strike as over-demanding women come to rely less and less upon the traditional family courts and more upon a CSI type of investigation to track down their sperm donors. NYMAMA's frustration appears to come from the increasing numbers of men she encounters who don't buy into traditional chivalrous notions. Not enough, I'm sad to say, but certainly enough to get her flustered (which doesn't take that much, granted.)
sheeeshhhh!!!.....gasp!!!....
guess my humor isn't is as good as I thought (at least for some).
...and....
I wonder why men over the last, oh...say...40+ years did'nt have such a gestalt attack everytime women pulled out the ole'..."evil patriarchy" line....afterall, it's only been used 100 billion billion times...
...uh huh...but I make ONE matriarchy joke....and by God...."How dare I!!!"....
(I will never fucking understand people if I am lucky to live to 100.)
Well you're a perfect example of what I'm talking about LB Beene. First of all I never gave you permission to use my name. As I told you before my name on the internet is NYMOM. Thus when you continue using any other name for me, I consider it a form of harrassment.
Second of all I wasn't making FUN of you but pointing out to others that your story of false accusations could be full of holes, as you claimed it happened TWICE...You claimed the same thing happened to you twice that MOST men don't even experience ONCE. Thus we have to examine your stories carefully, as they are unusual.
Third, of all this thread was NOT about you and your personal pcychological problems with women. I know you are allowed to bully people on OTHER sites and force them to listen to your agenda even when they wish to discuss other issues: ie., peas and carrots versus your steak; yet this is NOT your site.
This woman Eva Ellsworth made some valuable points which we (I and others) wished to discuss before you invaded the site and hyjacked the topic. It's about how similar the mens' movement is becoming to feminism with all this focus on gender neutralism in custody, military and other sorts of rhetoric vis-a-vis adrogynous ideas...
So let's stay on that important topic as opposed to your rap sheet.
Okay.
Polish Knight.
Who the heck said I was concerned about enforcement of child support? Where did you get that idea? Actually I think enforcement of child support is the energy source that is fueling 99% of these parental abductions and custody fights by men...WHO NEVER BEFORE EXPRESSED ANY INTEREST IN THEIR CHILDREN until the government started FORCING them to pay child support.
ANd I'll be the first to admit the child support amounts are ridiculously high. BUT let's address that issue and knock off the baloney that this is about the children.
Okay.
I'm 100% for women being allowed to waive child support (as long as they are making enough to NOT pass the costs of their families off to taxpayers) and NOT allowing unmarried women to be able to get pregnant after a one-night stand and then try to juice some unsuspecting drunken idiot out of 18 years of payroll deductions.
You really don't understand me if you think this is about child support. I could care LESS if men NEVER paid child support. I'm worried about HOW CHILD SUPPORT is allowing you to overturn the historic rights of mothers to their children...that's my concern not mens' investment portfolio.
By the way Polish Knight I hate to diappoint you with your idea about how men are on some sort of 'new' marriage strike. Men have been on a marriage strike since humanity first moved out of caves and into straw huts.
Actually the entire saga of civilization can probably be summed up as the story of the state trying to civilize you all through marriage. The various uses of the carrot and stick that society has used against men to try to force them into marriage are legendary and date from the time of ancient Rome.
Probably older but we don't have such good records from other civilizations.
So quit trying to pat yourselves on the back like you've finally 'discovered' some new privilege of women to be against. Men have been agains