I'll admit, I did too at first. But thanks to this site, I've been able to see both sides of the issue and come to terms that patriarchy hurts everyone, even men. Gender equality is something I'm truly passionate for as a feminist because it's good for both men and women. Yes, being a feminist means I take a special interest in how things affect women, but I'm very interested in how sexism hurts men as well. This mainstream dogma of what it is to be "manly" fascinates me to no end.
We've seen the men's rights movement come up before with that guy who's sueing Columbia for Women's Studies (I'm bad with names) and today with the Men's Rights and the Domestic Violence ads. I'll be honest, my main beef with Men's Rights is how they target women in divorce courts and sebsequently blame feminism for the unfairness to men with child support and how "men can't get out of fatherhood". This really hits a personal chord since my mom was divorced twice and barely scraped a good deal out of both of them. Also my cousin lost her little girl to a crack-addict and the court knew he was one.
Divorce is messy. Unless it's an annullment or other circumstances, usually no one gets what they want. That's what makes it a compromise, n'est-ce pas? I'm not saying that there aren't cases where things were heavily in the woman's favor, and there aren't cases where things are heavily in the man's. This I bear no grudge. The system is just heavily flawed due to emotion and bias. But to go and blame feminism? Divorce has been around *way* long before the feminist movement. And yes I'll admit has had some impact on it since the first and second waves. But it doesn't have it's iron grip upon it. Hell, what does feminism have a firm grip on? All I can think is sufferage (don't forget to vote!) and even then not really.
The point is that I base my opinions upon fact and research. I don't agree with masculinism because it's about men. I disagree with it because it's flawed and ultimately reinforces gender stereotypes. And the whole reason I'm writing this is because my male feminist friend accused me about being sexist for that reason! I don't need to ask you as a community if he's right. I know he isn't. But to be called a sexist blatantly. I am upset. I don't think I'm sexist for disagreeing with masculinism. I'm entitled to my researched opinion.
I'm not totally off the mark, am I?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: My male feminist friend bought into Men's Rights???.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10196
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
Unfortunately, you're not off the mark at all. While I think there is a huge need for a men's movement that would complement feminism and work toward common goals, while simultaneously working for better representation for men in victims' services and casting a critical eye on unfairness in the judicial system, that does not seem to be purpose of MRA's or Masculinists as we know them.
While some men that identify as MRA's may hold the above ideals, the vast majority of identified and vocal MRA's spend all their time trying to reverse any progress made toward true equality, and put those uppity feminists back in their place.
It is not "sexist" not to support such people.
I do wonder what a truly independent, yet complementary, men's movement, should it ever take off, would call themselves?
You're right. There is a need for a men's movement to *complement* the feminist movement. A men's movement that fights the patriarchal issues of manhood and being "manly". This I'm all for and would love to see. Patriarchy hurts men as well, and as soon as men as a whole realize this, it will accelerate the movement as a whole.
I find it curious that much of the community hear makes derisive comments of MRA that mirror the comments made towards feminist.
Also, both feminist and MRA have philosophies where their side ALWAYS wins.
And sometimes guys do get shafted. I have known a few guys, both personally and antedotically, while I was in the Marines, who would deploy or go on a extended training operation and come back to find their wife had cheated on them, filed for divorce and moved across the country, taking the kids with them.
And when the divorce is done the ex-wife has custody, despite not having a job (and having low moral character). The Marine has a job, but lost the pay associated with being married (comrats for food, BAH for housing,) and has to pay child support out of his base pay.
If you don't think that is a fucked up situation then I just don't know...
You're missing the point. Men do get shafted--so do women. But women get fucked over systematically, and they have the history of being the abused party. Using the military as an example is miserable because it's one of the most fucked up, misogynistic organizations in the Western world. My heart goes out to the poor guy, but it doesn't justify the type of feminist hating that goes on with MRAs.
Yes, divorce is fucked up, but are feminists the ones giving the kids to the mothers, or is it the sexists who still believe that women make the better parents? Are MRAs blaming feminists because we're actively trying to take their kids away, or because now that women can get jobs and be just as good single parents as men, their privilege has suddenly vanished?
I'm sorry, but comparing feminism's ire towards men's rights to men's rights hatred and scapegoating of feminism is flat-out wrong, biased, and uncalled for. The two are nothing alike. I don't disagree with men's rights, but that's why I'm a feminist, because it's about equality. Men's rights groups aren't about rights, they're about protecting privilege.
"sexists who still believe that women make the better parents?"
There are feminists who perpetuate that claim. The ever-so-popular Male Privilege Checklist explicitly states that fathers are "marginally competent"
Well, I'm not saying all mothers are better than all fathers, but study after study has shown that /on average/ women spend far more time child-raising in a two-parent home than men do.
And many of those women aren't happy about the situation -many work full-time outside the home as well, and many would prefer their husbands did half the work. But there are still a lot of men out there who'd rather not... and don't feel obligated to, as men. But then a divorce happens, and they feel their "parental right" is being taken away if the children go to the mother. It's a complicated issue and like the above poster said, I do not think there are any ideal solutions.
Actually, the male privilege checklist says nothing of the kind. Here is the actual quote:
"11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I’ll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I’m even marginally competent."
That sounds to me like a father providing primary care for his children is praised for his parenting skills no matter how good or bad of a father he is. This is not the same for women, hence why it is a male privilege.
I also resent the statement that men's rights and women's rights groups have the same goal. The vast majority of women's rights groups believe that men and women should be equal - obviously their focus is more on women, since we are still the underclass, but we also focus on the problems other groups have as a result of the patriarchy. Whereas men's rights groups are all about maintaining the patriarchy - not destroying it. I don't know of any men's rights groups that have the latter goal (but I'd love to hear about them if they do exist).
The military did not decide whether or not yonder Marine got to keep his children. Der courts did that. And how is getting shafted by the courts not systematic? It is certainly institutional.
I know a guy who lost his children in a custody battle, when I think of this guy that is the first thing I think about him. He really is concerned about his rights as a parent, as a father.
He is not coming at things from a position of privilege. He is a guy that wanted to spend time with his children and he got shafted by the system. Point-blank.
This guy does not care about pay, working for/with women or any of that stuff. He just does not like the fact the court, in his opinion, blindly sides with women in divorce/custody battles.
I think alot of what happens in these debate (arguments, whatever) is both sides look to the extreme in the other faction.
Some MRAs are serious nutters. Really. I have seen them on the "Youtube". But so are some feminist. The idea that all heterosexual relationships are grounded in patriarchy, therefore they are always coerced and basically non-consensual is way the fuck out there.
There is no conversation between MRAs and feminist, they are two groups talking past one another.
Okay, so if we take it as a given that there are moderate Men's Rights Groups, and Moderate Women's Rights groups (which obviously there are), and that theoretically they're both interested in the same things (eradicating the institutionalized Patriarchy that hurts both men and women) then why on earth is there not communication going on between these two groups? What's going wrong?
Like Rachel said below, the tradition of custody being granted more easily to the mother than to the father has its roots in the idea that women are better, more nurturing, more caring parents than men. And that idea comes from age-old stereotypes about men and women, stereotypes that say "women stay home and hold the family together, while men go out earning money/sowing their wild oats/etc." It's an example of how patriarchy hurts both men *and* women.
I know where you're coming from. My mother's parents got divorced when she was small, and her mother got full custody--even though her father, an army lieutenant, was the one who cared about her, and her mother was basically a terrible person (for reasons I don't want to go into). The court actually said that the reason they were doing this was because mothers make better parents than fathers. The time this happened? 1956--WAY before second wave feminism (the kind MRAs have issues with). And this sort of court ruling, while still prevalent today, was far more common before the second wave. Things are better now, although still (as you know) not truly equal.
Feminism is deceptively named: it's not about favoring women over men; it's about equal rights for everyone, treating everyone as people, saying that no one should be discriminated against because of their sex or gender. An ideal feminist court would rule in favor of the better parent in each case.
And no feminist I know is saying that all heterosexual relationships are grounded in patriarchy and therefore non-consensual. Anyone here think that? Anyone?
I will flat out say that I am neither a feminist nor a MRA. Although I do have some issues with the way both groups run.
To comment on the actual article:
aas711 seems to have a gripe with the MRA's attack on feminism because the MRA's are saying "men can't get out of fatherhood".
Well men can't. Women have ALL the options. I don't think it's oppressive to allow the man to keep the kid if the women doesn't want it. Just make sure she can opt-out of being financially responsible for it.
From the moment of conception, men sit on the sidelines waiting for the woman to decide what she is going to do.
Another key point is child support and custody. Courts don't just have a slight bias towards women, the court 90% of the time will give full custody to the mother. As well as barring the father to see the child or give them a weekend a month.
I have seen this with a lot of my male friends as well as uncle's. One uncle in particular had two children with his wife, the wife filed a false sexual assault claim on him (he was on a business trip when the supposed incident happened). She did this to assure he would have no part in his children's life. He is now heartbroken and depressed that he can't be a part of the kids lives. The family as well is torn that for the last 8 years we have not been able to see them and let them play with their cousins.
The family has tried to bring Christmas and birthday presents to them to only be threatened by his ex-wife. The presents were refused. She called the cops on us on Christmas when we were at her door with boxes of toys for them.
My grandmother was hit hard with these facts. She passed away last year, only seeing the kids when they were born. In fact we only have two baby pictures of them hanging up with the rest of her grandchildren.
My uncle has even thought of committing suicide because he can't be a father to his children. needless to say, I miss my cousins and I am positive his ex-wife is only bad mouthing there father to make sure that neither of them go looking for their father or extended family.
One day, I hope I will be able to see my cousins.
So, as you can clearly tell. I have a massive grudge against any group that think their constituents can cause no harm or are always victims.
The fact of the matter is that it has hit my family multiple times. The above just being one example.
The concept that women or men are victims and innocent of any wrongdoing is utter nonsense. My uncle's ex-wife is just as mean-spirited and vindictive as any man can be.
My family is warm, loving and caring. I solely put the blame on my uncle's ex-wife for denying her children from us.
P.S I also have a deadbeat uncle that doesn't pay child support to his legitimate child. Needless to say, we aren't happy with him either.
Your story is very sad, however it's missing the point. I never said the system couldn't be manipulated. In fact, I said the opposite. It's a terrible system. What that woman did was terrible, but *she* did it. Blaming her actions on a social movement that is feminism is absurd.
As for child support, once again, that's the court's action. Not feminist. As a feminist, I'd say whoever would raise the child better should get him/her. The courts bias is sexist but has nothing to do with feminism. Your testimony is sad, but I can think of a few dozen stories that could contradict it. This is the argument. You can't use divorce court to make sexist claims. It goes both ways. The *system* sucks. Blaming feminism is just using it as a scapegoat.
I'm sorry those things happened to your family. My family doesn't have it better. No child should be given to a drug addict.
Ariel,
I am not blaming feminism for the plight of my uncle. I do blame his ex-wife.
My exact quote was:
"I solely put the blame on my uncle's ex-wife for denying her children from us."
I hold a grudge against any group that sees the people it fights for as only victims and helpless. I hold this belief in a bi-partisan way as well. I despise some feminist groups that have the audacity to say the woman is ALWAYS right. The same can be said with my despise of women-bashing MRA groups. Both groups do a dis-service to their constituents. If women are strong and independent, how can they possibly be weak and helpless at the same time?
I see both organizations as hurtful to society. Not because of what they believe in, but there utter hatred of the opposite sex.
Womens groups are only fighting for women's rights and the MRA's are fighting for what they believe in. There is such hatred between some factions of these groups its sickening.
While not all MRA's and feminist groups are radical, I believe both groups "breed" gender hatred (misogyny and misandry). The idea that both sexes are at war with one another is absurd.
Back on point:
If both parents are loving, want to raise their child and are equally suited to do it. Then they should be able to.
Speaking solely on the court system, if the courts grant custody to the mother roughly 90% of the time, and the idea that most men are good fathers, why doesn't the feminist movement rail against that?
That seems fair and equal. If both parents are good parents, they get joint and equal custody.
The idea of raising the child "better" is debatable. I believe that both parents can offer something to the child. As long as the parent is competent and non-violent (mother or father), they should get equal access.
I was lucky in my upbringing, my parents divorced, I lived with my mother and she allowed my father complete access to me. Both my parents were civil when it came to me and neither one pitted me against the other parent. If my mother punished me, my father would follow through with it and vice versa.
I consider myself on of the lucky cases of divorce. Both of my parents contributed to my wellbeing. My mother taught me her lessons and my father taught me his. I would be an incomplete person if I was not allowed to see my father.
So my point being is even though the goal of feminism is to advance womens causes, disregarding legitimate men's issues has only pushed feminism to the fringe.
A lot of men (especially the men in my family) see the feminist movement whose primary goal is to divide and conquer as opposed to working together.
Wow! Talk about a rambling.
I think you misunderstand what feminism is. Feminism doesn't say "the woman is always right." Otherwise we would all support Phyllis Schlafly and Ann Coulter (p.s., we don't). Feminism is about gender equality - about looking at factors besides gender when, for example, deciding custody cases. You sound like you are a feminist and don't know it.
Or else you are a concern troll. Can't tell yet.
I just want to add to Ariel's comment that the assumption behind many custody decisions in the U.S. is that women are naturally (biologically determined to be) better parents. This cultural attitude hurts women too, and is something that most feminists reject.
Yea it stems from the notion "the child should be with there mother". While I don't disagree completely with this. A son or daughter does need their mother, but they also need their father as well. The concept that the father is nothing more than the "other chromosome" is asinine.
Obviously this is all based on if both parents are not destructive to the child's well-being.
"Okay, so if we take it as a given that there are moderate Men's Rights Groups, and Moderate Women's Rights groups (which obviously there are), and that theoretically they're both interested in the same things (eradicating the institutionalized Patriarchy that hurts both men and women)...(emphasis's mine)"
Feminism is striving for political, economic and social equality for women, right? That is a very powerful statement.
The above does not work for me. Patriarchy cannot be the sole force here. The idea that they are not social norms created and enforced by women that damage men and women is untenable.
If you cannot see or at least academically debate that there are both damaging patriarchal and matriarchal forced then the conversation you want to have will never happen.
Remember, the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.
I don't quite understand your post. Could you elaborate.
My question is define patriarchy in a non-abstract way. I would like to know specific instances where women feel they are being oppressed.
It is impossible to fight this abstract thing called patriarchy without detailing what makes it run.
Also the idea of political, economic and social equality is vague as well. What legislation would need to be passed to eradicate these differences?
I will just use political equality as an example. In order for women to be equal politically, what would need to happen?
The same for economic and social.
Also since men make up roughly half of the population could you then say that if half of society was patriarchal and the other matriarchal, could that be equal since it is based solely on population.
If patriarchy is something that should be abolished, what would take its place? Should we live in a matriarchy or is that just the other extreme. Since patriarchy affects men and women negatively, logic dictates tje same could be said of a matriarchy.
The claim that the only alternative to patriarchy is matriarchy is a false dilemma (a classic logical fallacy). Aren't there other options? Use your imagination.
What are matriarchal forces? And what assumptions underlie them?
Just because women enforce patriarchal principles doesn't make those principles matriarchal.
An example would be the representation of the Virgin Mary in biblical tradition. What do you think underlies the idea of a woman who gives birth to a child without having had sex?
Troll banned. Sorry folks.
Ah, two general points to address what I've been reading on this thread so far:
My son's dad broke my nose and 3 of my ribs, and when I went to court for the custody hearing, not only did his father NOT SHOW UP, but was awarded equal custody and I was not allowed to use my x-rays as proof of his potential for violence. This was because the violence was done to me and not to the child. This is common practice in my state, to disallow any evidence of violence to the mother "in order to render a fair judgment of the father's capability to rear the child." This has also happened to several women I know in the state of Arizona.
Also, there is a law that specifically states that you cannot file nor go to court for a divorce while your spouse is on active duty in the US military. So I'm disinclined to believe that soldiers' partners are running around willy-nilly divorcing their spouses and stealing custody of their children. My dear sister in law caught her husband cheating red-handed with witnesses, and two weeks later he's back on active service and there is nothing she can do until he returns next year.
Ariel,
This is why MRA's blame feminists.
To some of the most radical feminists, including the most influential ones, men’s personal guilt or innocence is of no importance at all. What is important is men’s collective guilt, men’s biological identity, and maleness. This makes men an innate threat to society, that is, to women. National Socialism relied on the same idea, of course, but it identified different targets. For the Nazis, Jews and Gypsies were the "sub humans." It is true that feminists are not Nazis; even the most radical feminists, with a few exceptions, do not want to exterminate men. Besides, they have discovered a much easier and cleaner way to achieve their goals within the framework of a democratic and generally liberal society, convincing the public that men have deliberately oppressed women since the dawn of history. In that case, they have a supposedly legitimate reason for urging legislators establish a "level playing field" even if doing so means punishing innocent individual men for the crimes of their ancestors. These men are not guilty of creating patriarchal oppression, say radical feminists, but they are guilty of continuing to benefit from the godlike power and privileges that patriarchy gives to men. Collective guilt, they argue, deserves collective punishment. The means, in short, justifies the end. This is men's reality in modern America.
Our government has enacted a new double standard. Discrimination is bad when it victimizes women and minorities but legitimate when it victimizes men. Prejudice is bad when it undermines women and minorities but legitimate when it undermines men. Self-defense is reactionary, even cowardly for men but progressive, or even heroic for women and minorities.
You can read the rest at www.mensreality.com
The Best
GR