The HetPat First Directive »« Zimmerman, Martin and patriarchal misandry: An intersectional analysis

What should a men’s movement look like?

In preparation for the upcoming National Conference on Men and Boys, Glen Poole has posted an interesting poll.

Picking up on Ann-Marie Slaughter’s recent article arguing that there’s a need for a men’s movement, Glen asks what it would or should actually look like.

His list is a fairly accurate reflection of the different flavours of men’s activism currently at play. I’d perhaps suggest there should be a category for social conservatives and traditionalists, who although my political opposites, are a definite presence within the debates.

Many are  perfectly compatible and quite rightly you can click more than one. I’m not entirely sure there is a clear line between the different categories (I’m not quite sure of the distinction between numbers 4 and 5, in particular.)

In answer to the question, I think the men’s movement is really all of the above and more, and perhaps it needs to be. I include in that the positions with which I profoundly (and often furiously) disagree. But dynamic democracy requires debate, and debate requires different positions. I also think you could draw up a similarly diverse list of models and strains of feminism, many of which furiously disagree with and even  despise each other, but the movement requires that diversity for its intellectual health, and most people within feminism are happy to accept that, whatever their disagreements, they are all feminists.

Anyway, I’ll reprint the list, and then add my own Number 11. Except it isn’t really a Number 11, it is more what Number 5 would look like if I’d drafted it! .

Glen’s list

1.    A Men’s Liberation Movement

A global men’s liberation movement would be pro-feminist and focussed on liberating men from rigid gender roles on the past and helping men to address unhealthy male behaviours and develop and promote healthy masculinity.

2.    A Men’s Human Rights Movement

A global men’s human rights movement would tackle feminism head on and address all the areas of life where men’s human rights are under attacked, with a particular focus on tackling laws, policies and initiatives that favour women and girls and discriminate against men and boys in the process.

3.    A  Men’s Rites of Passage Movement

A Men’s Rites of Passage Movement would ensure that all men and boys had the opportunity to take part in rites of passage work with the support of other men and help every boy make a safe and healthy transition into manhood in the process.

4.    An Integral Men’s Movement

An Integral Global Men’s Movement would seek to unite everyone committed to improving the lives of men and boys no matter what perspective they came from and seek out areas of common interest and opportunities to work together for the greater good.

5.    A Men’s Social Justice Movement

A Men’s Social Justice Movement would focus on areas where men and boys experience inequality or problems with their health, education, family life, personal safety, social care needs etc and take action to find solutions to these issues.

6.    A Religious Men’s Movement

A Religious Men’s Movement would help to solve the problems that involve men and boys by actively working to bring more men to God—with a focus on one religion only (whatever that religion is).

7.    An Interfaith Men’s Movement

An Interfaith Men’s Movement would work across religious boundaries to help solve the problems that involve men and boys by actively working to bring more men to a life of faith, no matter what that faith is.

8.     A Fathers’ Rights Movement

A Fathers’ Rights Movement would seek to ensure that every child knows the love of their father by tackling the failings of the world’s legal systems which favour mothers particularly when parents are separated.

9.    A Shared Parenting Movement

A Shared Parenting Movement would work to unite mums and dads to help men and women equally share the responsibility of caring for their children, looking after the home and earning money through a rewarding career.

10. A Men Go Their Own Way Movement

A Men Go Their Own Way Movement would encourage and support men to “go their own way” and live their lives free from any problems associated with being in a long-term relationship with a women.


And Awkward Ally’s Number 11,

11. The men’s flank of the social justice movement. 

A movement that challenges male-specific issues and injustices from a holistic and humanitarian perspective, recognising that economic and social justice issues are interlinked, inseparable and intersectional.

 

So, there’s the options. If you feel so inclined, please cast your vote here and let me know your thoughts below.

Comments

  1. says

    I didn’t vote for any of them.

    1. Freeing people from gender roles is grand but the overall perspective here is that men are bad, m’kay. Nuts to that.
    2. Bah.
    3. Implies that men are all the same. Nuts to that.
    4. Doesn’t seem so bad, though it’s a bit vague.
    5. Bah, if not quite so much as #2.
    6. Nuts to that too.
    7. And that.
    8. More bah.
    9. Fine of course – for people who actually want kids.
    10. Double bah.
    11. Similar to #4 but even more vague.

    I guess I don’t really want a men’s movement at all. What have I got in common with “men”? If there are particular issues, then address them. But a movement – no.

  2. Ally Fogg says

    Jonathan

    Ha. Fair do’s.

    I guess “I don’t think there should be a men’s movement at all” should be one of the options!

  3. dcovill says

    Numbers 1 and 11 make some sense. Most of the rest are pretty much “My piece of the societal pie is smaller than I would like – I want a bigger one!”

  4. says

    Thanks for that excellent summary Ally

    Interesting point about the social conservatives and traditionalists I agree that they exist though not really encountered them as a distinct group, I see them more as factions within other factions like the men’s rights, fathers’ rights and christian men’s movement—-all of which have many shades of political perspectives ranging from trad right to progressive left

    On the distinct between integral and social justice, the integral approach is a very distinct approach using integral theory as its framework. There’s a scattering of us using it specifically in the field of men’s issues that I am aware of at present—I’ve written a little about it here: http://integralmensmovement.blogspot.co.uk

    Thanks for your description of the social justice arm of the movement — I wonder how the Centre for Social Justice would view that—or would they be an example of our conservative wing?

    If I could add another now, it would be the “gender transition” movement—which to me would be people who understand how gender roles transition as societies evolve—particularly the different stages of transition from conventional to post-conventional gender roles that we are in the middle

    Again the integral approach provides a framework that can help us make sense of that transition

    Thanks for taking time to share and provide commentary on this Ally

    Best for now

    Glen

  5. Paul Sunbeam says

    #A movement that challenges male-specific issues and injustices from a holistic and humanitarian perspective, recognising that economic and social justice issues are interlinked, inseparable and intersectional.#

    With you until you reached intersectional. You need a new word. There are ‘intersectionalists’ who’d regard the very existence of such a movement, and it’s probable containment of white hetro males as a gross affront of unchecked privilege. Unless, that is, they spent all their energies on abject self-abasement and fulsome acts of contrition for their complicity in fucking up history. You know there are such people.

    People who’ll recognise any disadvantage but class…or rather, in a belated effort to avoid looking like a bunch of incorrigible liberal fuckwits, they’ll acknowledge it but place it somewhere near the basement of their progressive stack.

  6. johngreg says

    Ally said:

    But dynamic democracy requires debate, and debate requires different positions.

    Absolutely. I don’t think I could have said it better myself.

    I also think you could draw up a similarly diverse list of models and strains of feminism, many of which furiously disagree with and even despise each other, but the movement requires that diversity for its intellectual health …

    Again, I agree completely.

    … and most people within feminism are happy to accept that, whatever their disagreements, they are all feminists.

    I have not seen any evidence to support that conjecture; quite the contrary, actually.

    I am more a humanist than a men’s or women’s rights movementist, so to speak, but nonetheless, I would support numbers 1, 4, 8, 9, and 11.

    I think the others tend to focus too tighlty on men’s issues while leaving out relevantly related women’s issues — which is also how I see much of the contemporary feminist movement.

    All that being said, I would prefer it if there were neither a women’s rights feminist movement, nor a men’s rights masculinist movement, but simply a humanist movement.

  7. KiwiInOz says

    I prefer to be part of a human rights and responsibilities movement, confidently providing my perspective as one man, and respectfully engaging with others to understand theirs.

    [ /motherhood and apple pie]

  8. carnation says

    @ Ally Fogg

    How am I meant to be up bright eyed and bushy tailed when you post this late at night?? Shame on you!

    The name Glen Poole is familiar, but I’m not sure from where. I’m also not sure if he agrees with the descriptions of the types of “movement” or not, but I’ve deliberately not read the article, prefering to use my own knowledge to make my judgements.

    Rightly or wrongly, here they are:

    1, 3, 5, 9 and 11 could complement each other and to an extent are accessible to anyone. 1 and 3 will never appeal widely, remaining a niche, academic and retreat based “movement”. Useful for those who get something out of it, harmless for everyone else. 5, 9 and 11 are interesting, some scope for wider appeal and female support. In fact, this is arguably already happening. 5 and 11 appeal to those with a social conscience who have perhaps moved sideways from feminism, or outright left it, and are openminded. 9 and 1 share some similarities in practical application, I think.

    I’ve nothing to say about 6 and 7, except that they were never, for obvious reasons, gain any support outwith their faith or interfaith groups. There’s some danger than the religious right, particularly in America, will through their lot in with a “men’s movement”, but it’s unlikely.

    4… It’s difficult to know what’s meant by this. Taken as just words, it’s hard to argue with. But then the wording in 2 and 8 are laughably different to the actuality.

    Which brings us to 2, 8 and 10. Complementary collections of bloggers, driven by mistrust of women, who have credited “feminists” with bringing about everything from 9/11 to widespread sexual abuse to “misandrist” chairs in universities. It is crass in the extreme to describe an anti-feminist movement as a “Men’s Human Rights Movement”. It’s difficult to know where to start refuting such juvenilia, but it’s safe to say that, in the western world, men’s human rights aren’t “under attack”.

    Number 8, the “fathers rights movement” apparently “seek to ensure that every child knows the love of their father by tackling the failings of the world’s legal systems which favour mothers”. Unfortunately, much like their brethren in the “MHRM”, the leadership is inept and they cannot prove their raison d’être‎, let alone do anything to successfully pursue their mission statement. I contend, in the UK anyway, that this is because the problem as they see it, is nowhere near as widespread as they claim. Their narrative is flawed and their membership and leadership questionable. They fellows stand out from the 2 and 11 because they actually do things other than blog and write comments (thought they do that as well).

    10 – men “going their own way”, amount to a group of particularly crass misogynists who claim to avoid women at all costs. These people have always existed in society, they use the anonymity of the ‘net to justify their existence and create a political reality for it. This, in my opinion, couldn’t ever be a movement basically because it doesn’t really exist. Are these men really so far gone that they assume every single woman will “falsely accuse” them, steal their sperm, marry them for their money or otherwise view them as nothing more than a utility? I don’t think so. I think these particular bloggers like being crude and reactionary.

    Those of us who have an allegiance to 5 and 11 are often the ones doing real work, trying to help men and boys and doing so in a hostile environment. What little impact feminists have had on this work has been vaguely positive. That might change with expansion, but I don’t think so. The overwhelming majority of people I tell about my work have never heard of any men’s movement, and those that have usually assume it’s F4J. From those that I talk to, most are supportive of the supposed aims of F4J. I don’t often engage in discussion about this, F4J feed on existing tropes of evil post-divorce women.

    As long as 2 and 11, and to a lesser extent 8, exist, a wider men’s movement founded in concern for social justice will suffer immeasurably. 2 and 11 have been described as amongst the “looniest and fringiest” groups on the internet. I tend to agree. Lost deep within their bile are a few well-made points, and even a couple of sensitively written articles. But they are the rare exceptions.

  9. carnation says

    As long as 2 and 11, and to a lesser extent 8, exist, a wider men’s movement founded in concern for social justice will suffer immeasurably”

    Should read “2 and 10″

  10. says

    To Carnation

    Thanks for the thorough dissection of the 11 categories

    I’ll just respond to this point:

    4… It’s difficult to know what’s meant by this. Taken as just words, it’s hard to argue with.

    If you want to know a little more about the nascent Integral Men’s Movement see:

    http://integralmensmovement.blogspot.co.uk

    Best

    Glen (sounds familiar) Poole

  11. says

    SHouldn’t there be a cultural group to discuss and celebrate maleness in art and maybe talk about the misandrist subtext in other art? This basically exists, though tends to get overlooked as part of the MRM since it’s dominated by college-educated gay guys.

  12. says

    It’s also interesting how a lot of these don’t parallel any part of the feminist movement. Do any theorists talk feminists as part of a larger women’s movement which would also include things like women’s Bible studies?

  13. Jebedee says

    The problem with a “men’s movement”, as indeed with a “women’s movement”, is that if you try to construe it as somehow being about bettering the lives of roughly 50% of humanity, then you are going to encounter many of the same political divisions about how best to go about that as you would if you asked the question in a wholly ungendered way. And it ceases to be clear (and is probably often not the case) that focusing on the gender axis really makes sense.

    So I suppose I’d be in favour of something that doesn’t perfectly match anything on the list: a fairly narrowly-railored mens’ movement, focused specifically on areas where men appear to lose out because they are men, rather than just broader issues that affect men, disproportionately or not. So if you want to campaign on, say, workplace safety, then that may well affect more men than women, but it makes much more sense, IMO to treat it as an issue affecting workers in particular industries, rather than a “men’s issue”.

  14. Paul says

    One of the criticisms of the various strands of the feminist movement in this country is that they’re dominated by White middle class women who in effect exclude those women who challenge them. Consequently many Black and Asian women as well as White working class women view the various strands of the feminist movement as not representing them.

    If the various strands of any Mens Movement in this country are also dominated by White middle class men who seek to exclude those men who challenge them then like the feminist movement it’s likely to have limited appeal.

    I passionately support the campaign to get equal custody rights for fathers. And the issue of of what it means to be a dad probably incorporates aspects of every category Glen mentioned. So for me any debate as to what it means to be a dad in 21st century Britain should in theory transcend every single social cultural and ethnic group in this country. However if the debate is dominated by White middle class men then that ain’t going to happen.

  15. karmakin says

    @5. Paul.

    I consider myself an intersectionalist, however, I understand what you’re saying, however I think that if you think that power dynamics are unidirectional, then you’re not really doing intersectionalism correctly. If you think that it’s always one-sided, then you’re in no way able to actually look at how the structures are mixing together.

    @OP: I’d change in your #11 Social Justice to Progressive. Unfortunately, class issues I don’t think are dealt with in Social Justice circles well. At all. And all too often I feel that’s a feature, and not a bug.

    @13. Jebedee: Yeah, that’s why I consider myself a gender egalitarian, not a feminist or a MRA (although I agree with some issues on both sides). In that I don’t think that outside of reproduction, there are very many issues that cut entirely one way or the other. Our solutions for these problems should be gender neutral, as that’s the way, IMO to get the BEST solution to these problems.

  16. Soarer says

    It’s quite simple – every movement gets captured by a particular kind of person, who is more interested in the pursuit of power and control over others than in the movement’s stated its aims and objectives.

    This is seen clearly in feminism, where those with the most prominent platforms and the loudest voices are engaged in a strenuous attempt to control the lives of other people – women and men – indiscriminately. Hence the vilification of women who make choices of which the sisterhood don’t approve, such as homemaking or sex-work.

    Made up ‘research’, ‘statistics’, and big words like ‘intersectionality’ underpin the authoritarian stance. None survive any close scrutiny, so strenuous attempts to close down debates are made against anyone not toeing the party line.

    I have no doubt that the men’s movement is the same, or at least will go in the same direction. It is the same with political parties, where first Labour and now the Tories introduce legislation to prevent people doing things they don’t like them doing, whilst ignoring the very real problems which do exist.

    When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I am a bit tired of being hammered by authoritarians and control freaks whatever their claimed motivations are to do good to me.

    How about a People’s Liberation Movement, to free us from these overbearing types and allow everyone the space to decide for themselves how to live their own lives?

  17. Ally Fogg says

    Soarer

    It’s a good job I haven’t officially instigated the HetPat First Directive yet, because that would definitely have fallen foul.

    There’s an element of truth in what you say, in that it is an inevitable result of politics. Politics is about control (whether of the population, society, the economy ot whatever) so either we take on board the risks, be aware of them and try to find means to prevent them taking hold or else you just crawl into a hole and wait until you die.

    In the meantime, if what you say is true, why wouldn’t your People’s Liberation Movement be prey to the precise same pressures?

  18. Soarer says

    Ally – No 17

    In the meantime, if what you say is true, why wouldn’t your People’s Liberation Movement be prey to the precise same pressures?

    It would Ally. Which is why I haven’t started it.

  19. John Austin says

    I’m conflicted about this movement thing. While I see there are specific issues and problems that may confront different young men, older men and boys at different times in their lives, I’m not so sure it will do anything but invite ridicule to call a campaign to solve them a movement.
    All the problems are exacerbated by race and class. So what affects a 52 yo working class unemployed man from Brixton won’t necessarily impact on me (white, 52, corporate lawyer) in leafy Surrey the same way. It may even be that his interests are diametrically opposite to mine, being as it is that I’m not on the left, politically. I can see that intersectionality applies to him, but to me, hardly. Maybe I need to check my privilege. ;)

    So with those caveats in mind, my list of issues include:
    Education – although my sort of young man manages perfectly well: it’s the CDE groups where boys face particular problems.
    Crime – both in young men being victims and perpetrators.
    Health – particularly men’s health issues but also just getting men to do something about all the other stuff that flesh is heir to, coronary disease, diet, cancers, etc. there is no male equivalent of the Race for Life.
    Employment – the end of the job for life, heavy industrial jobs and their replacement with zero hours and call centres.
    Child care etc on divorce. Nuff said.
    Ageism – affects virtually all men as much as over 50s women in the media, contrary to what Polly T would have us think.
    Death – men tend to die younger than their wives, not just because we may want to.

    Given the fact that my interests may very likely conflict with many other men’s, even in healthcare where I firmly agree with private medicine, I’m not at all sure how I could ever belong to something as unified as a movement. I will support individual campaigns but politically we are all too diverse to follow the same track for long.

  20. CrashDive says

    ‘A Shared Parenting Movement’ – Number 9.

    This is the biggest issue by far that needs to be tackled, the rest will follow

  21. redpesto says

    I might respond to the options in detail when I’ve a bit more time, but for now I’ll just point out how disappointed I was with the Ann-Marie Slaughter article. First, it was yet another example where the issue of masculinity was discussed by women, presumably with the intention of working out what instructions the men will be given afterwards. That said, the bit about ‘we need a men’s movement’ felt tacked on to an article that was ostensibly about the flak Slaughter received about how women ‘still couldn’t have it all’.

    Moreover, one wonders whether Slaughter had been paying attention for – oooh, let’s see – the last 30 years in which there have been numerous attempts at a ‘men’s movement.’ Most of these attempts are echoed in the list of options in Poole’s list. Many of these have either failed, turned sour or been subject to criticism – if not dismissal – by some feminists. It’s hard to have a ‘movement’ if you’re simultaneously part of the same hegemonic/dominant group repeatedly held responsible for the problem in the first place.

    In the meantime, any ‘movement’ is the result of what actually happens as men try (however well or badly) to deal with the social and economic circumstances or changes they have to deal with (which explains why people keep acting surprised to discover the increasing number of full-time/primary carer fathers).

  22. carnation says

    @ Redpesto 21

    It’s true that most rational discussions about masculinity come from women, but isn’t that because, generally speaking, it’s just not something men tend to discuss? If they do, the most positive forms seem to be groups 1 and 3 from the list (mgtow/mhrm claim to, but are infinitely obsessed with feminist/women tropes than masculinity).

    As an aside, I read that the “mhrm” regard themselves as the “second wave” of the wider MRM. It’s times like this that I believe for more than a few of them, the whole thing is like a World or Warcraft style game, except based around a pseudo social movement.

  23. redpesto says

    carnation:

    It’s true that most rational discussions about masculinity come from women, but isn’t that because, generally speaking, it’s just not something men tend to discuss?

    That excuse won’t wash these days. This site is just one such example.

  24. carnation says

    @ RedPesto

    Eh, this site is men and women, no?

    And where else is it discussed sensibly by men?

    And in what way am I obliged to provide an excuse?

  25. Ally Fogg says

    redpesto

    Most of these attempts are echoed in the list of options in Poole’s list. Many of these have either failed, turned sour or been subject to criticism – if not dismissal – by some feminists. It’s hard to have a ‘movement’ if you’re simultaneously part of the same hegemonic/dominant group repeatedly held responsible for the problem in the first place.

    That’s a really interesting point, but I think all movements are prone to failing, turning sour or criticism.

    I think we have to ask why it happens though. Some movements fail because the cause is insufficiently supported or they overstretch themselves. Some turn sour because they contain bad elements that rot the barrel. Some fail because they are subject to fair criticism which they cannot withstand. . .

    I know that there are some feminists who actively resist any attempts at addressing men’s issues. I’m more than happy to argue with them. As a general policy I try not to tell feminists what is or is not in the interests of women and what should be done about it, but that ends at the precise point that they feel able to tell me what is in the interests of men and what should be done about it, which is something I feel perfectly qualified to talk about. I do fully accept that campaigning on men’s issues will sometimes involve direct argument and debate with feminists. That’s fine by me.

    It’s also important to note that it is also fine by most feminists, as far as I can tell. Whenever I write about this stuff, the comments from feminists saying “shut up!” or “fuck off!” are vastly outnumbered by those saying something like “Well I’m a feminist and I agree with you.”

  26. Ally Fogg says

    Carnation 22

    It’s true that most rational discussions about masculinity come from women, but isn’t that because, generally speaking, it’s just not something men tend to discuss? If they do, the most positive forms seem to be groups 1 and 3 from the list (mgtow/mhrm claim to, but are infinitely obsessed with feminist/women tropes than masculinity).

    I think there’s a lot of truth in this, but it is not the whole story.

    Commissioning editors have a lot of power. Although things have definitely got better in the past few years, it is still true that anything relating to gender is seen as a women’s issue by most editors, so even when there is an issue about men’s welfare, they often turn to female journalists to cover it. And then their angle is often “what are the implications of this for women?”

    See a lot of coverage of Diane Abbott’s recent speech, for example.

  27. redpesto says

    carnation:

    Eh, this site is men and women, no?

    Of course.

    And where else is it discussed sensibly by men?

    If the key word is ‘sensibly’ that”s a judgement for each person to make for themselves. If you simply mean ‘discussed’ (even if you don’t agree with them), that debate is taking place from ‘general sites’ like Comment is Free at the Guardian to ones that I am aware are regarded as a well-spring of misogyny.

    And in what way am I obliged to provide an excuse?

    I wasn’t asking you for an excuse; my point was that the ‘men don’t talk about such things’ line has been doing the rounds for decades.

  28. Gjenganger says

    I did 2, 4, and 9. I would have taken the Social Conservatives’ option as well, for all that I am probably a flaming liberal by US standards. Basically I think that gender roles are unavoidable, and that the current set is neither as bad nor as easy to replace as a lot of people seem to assume. It is way too easy to compare the problems of what we have with the advantages of what we dream about.

    So:
    – A movement that starts from the experiences and interests of men, and that does not take any ideology for granted. We have feminists enough already.
    – A movement that aims for a distinct role for men, not for the abolition of the concept of gender.
    – A movement that works towards a sensible organisation of society that is fair to men and women both.

  29. carnation says

    @ Ally Fogg 26

    Good points, but this is changing. The Times ran a cover story on New Year’s Day about disparity in medical funding for men and the Telegraph frequently runs articles broadly in step with the F4J view of the world. Neither publication deal with the concept of masculinity, however, and perhaps that’s where the problem is?

    Your good self excluded, there aren’t many (male) journalists with an interest and expertise in masculinities. Peter Lloyd of the Daily Mail write about men as a sex (adopting an excruciatingly embarrassing victim narrative) rather than about masculinities and men, for example. Come to think of it, arguably Julie Bindel does the same for women, but for some reason, I don’t equate the two… I can imagine the reasons Sid/Schala/Adiabat will give for that!

    @ RedPesto

    You accused me of giving “an excuse”. Explain to what I was giving an excuse to, and why you felt the need to state that my “excuse” doesn’t “wash”?

    Excuse the incredulous tone, but frankly I’m baffled by your tone and, in any case, prefer my pesto green.

  30. Ally Fogg says

    that’s odd. Was working until recently.

    Give it a wee while to sort itself, and if it doesn’t I’ll let Glen know.

  31. redpesto says

    carnation (@ 29)

    You accused me of giving “an excuse”. Explain to what I was giving an excuse to, and why you felt the need to state that my “excuse” doesn’t “wash”?

    I refer you to my answer at #27. See also Ally’s comment at #26.

    PS: I swing both ways when it comes to pesto.

  32. says

    14 @ Paul

    One of the criticisms of the various strands of the feminist movement in this country is that they’re dominated by White middle class women who in effect exclude those women who challenge them.

    But these are far outweighed by the advantages of having women who were and are able to put together cogent, coherent, forceful arguements and campaigns that in the 50 or so years that the modern feminist movement has existed, has seen success after success. Whether that’s equal pay, equal opportunities, the minimum wage two thirds of whose beneficiaries have been women, funding for child care, women priests, no fault divorce, access to and reform of education, and so on.

    When I look at the list I find it difficult to imagine any man however radical or conservative, however progressive or reactionary who might be excluded. Hardly a formula for successful campaigning.

  33. SteveF says

    The problem is the link in your article is malformed. It’s either missing the colon after the http, or is possessing of too much ‘http//’, depending on your perspective.

  34. Schala says

    I’d go for 1, minus the self-flagellation and “sorry for having a penis” part.

    and 2, 4, 5, 9, 11. It seems 8 is similar to 9, but is just more inflammatory.

    2 is my particular focus, although I aim for the end of harmful gender roles.

    Basically I think that gender roles are unavoidable, and that the current set is neither as bad nor as easy to replace as a lot of people seem to assume.

    Back before pants got invented, it was commonplace, and still is commonplace in many countries today, for men to wear skirted or dress-like garments, for work, for leisure, for everything. Including as army uniforms.

    Then pants, who look more like non-stretch tights, got invented to favor horseback, for men (women couldn’t show legs or ride with pants). Eventually, pants became a norm for men to wear for everyday life, for formal occasion, for work, etc. And dresses forbidden except before breeching (as a young kid – whereas everyone wore unisex clothing, meaning dresses).

    Feminism pushed to make pants a gender-neutral garment and to allow women to wear it at any time for any reason. And it worked. Nowadays, few people would even blink at a woman in pants.

    Now, it was part of their gender role to NOT wear pants, much like it’s part of men’s gender role to NOT wear skirts and dresses (with the tiny exception of kilts). Do you think it can’t change? That skirts cannot become a unisex garment much like pants? That it’s inevitable that the gender role dividing clothing in two (with a unisex-for-everyone there, and a women-only there) is definitely going to last?

    I think humanity can well go off without differentiating in clothing, hair length, wearing of jewelry or allowance for wearing make-up. At many times in history, those have been signifiers of being rich, not of being female. It is very recent that men have been forbidden, or found effeminate, for sporting the signifiers of being rich as fuck.

    Just look at Interview with a Vampire? Lestat and Louis “look gay” by our standards, even if you forget that they’re really half-lovers. I mean just their clothing, their aristocrat attitude, their make-up, their hair dos, all look gay to our modern eye. But it didn’t look gay back then, and not only because the concept of gay didn’t exist in words.

    It only looks gay now because of how extremely more narrow men’s gender expression allowance is today, as compared to then.

  35. carnation says

    @ RedPesto

    Sundried tomato pesto has it’s moment, but a lively green pesto is simply Devine.

    I remain puzzled by your initial message.

    @ Schala

    “Feminism pushed to make pants a gender-neutral garment”

    I’m not saying “feminism” didn’t do this, but got any proof???

    Also you say that “2 is my particular focus”.

    Could you explain why, given your support for the “mhrm”, a term associated with Paul Elam, it’s inaccurate to describe you as an MRA?

  36. inappropriate says

    Yeah, I don’t think there should be a men’s movement. At best it’s a necessary evil, a counterweight to feminism.

    What we really need is an unflinching yet nuanced post-feminism. Somewhere to attempt a synthesis of both sides’ narratives regardless of hurt feefees.

  37. Jacob Schmidt says

    A lot of these seem to be really similar. But let’s go through ‘em (this post is really long):

    1. A Men’s Liberation Movement
    A global[1] men’s liberation movement would be pro-feminist[2] and focussed on liberating men from rigid gender roles[3] on the past and helping men to address unhealthy male behaviours[4] and develop and promote healthy masculinity[5].

    1) This is just unrealistic in addition to being unwise. Men in Uganda face different problems than men in Chile who face different problems than men in the US. Not there isn’t any overlap, but any “Global” movement will likely end up focusing on WEIRD countries and, in turn, WEIRD problems. I’d rather have grass roots groups cooperating together than a global movement. In fact, since “global” comes up repeatedly, just insert this paragraph wherever necessary.

    2) I’m all for this, but I can see a massive amount of resistance, particularly because so many people think being pro feminists means being pro “everything that’s ever been done in the name of feminism”.

    3) YES

    4) YES

    5) I’d rather discard the whole “masculinity” thing entirely. It not necessary, it’s not helpful, it enables gender essentialism, it’s gotta go.

    2. A Men’s Human Rights Movement
    A global men’s human rights movement would tackle feminism[1] head on and address all the areas of life where men’s human rights are under attacked[2], with a particular focus on tackling laws, policies and initiatives that favour women and girls and discriminate against men and boys[3] in the process.

    1) My problem with attacking feminism is that (similar to above) it seems to turn into “attacking all feminism”. I’d have more respect for the MRM if it’s supporters didn’t have this annoying tendancy to say, “There’s no rape culture,” or, “What’s so bad about being objectified?” I’m fine with attacking a goup when it fucks up, but setting oneself or ones group in opposition to a specific (and very broad) group will lead to tribalism, in my opinion.

    2) Definitely

    3) This bit sets me on edge. Not that it doesn’t happen, but I see more people attacking initiatives to correct gender discrimination against women than I see people attacking gender discrimination against men. It can be done and it should be done, but the way it’s happening now needs to be fixed.

    3. A Men’s Rites of Passage Movement
    A Men’s Rites of Passage Movement would ensure that all men and boys had the opportunity to take part in rites of passage work with the support of other men and help every boy make a safe and healthy transition into manhood in the process.

    I dislike any sort of “Rite of Passage”. There’s no one way to enter adulthood or to be a man. I’m all for supporting men and boys as well as helping them be healthy.

    4. An Integral Men’s Movement
    An Integral Global Men’s Movement would seek to unite everyone committed to improving the lives of men and boys no matter what perspective they came from and seek out areas of common interest and opportunities to work together for the greater good.

    This is so broad that I couldn’t disagree with it. It also tells me nothing specific, so it’s hard to get excited about it.

    5. A Men’s Social Justice Movement
    A Men’s Social Justice Movement would focus on areas where men and boys experience inequality or problems with their health, education, family life, personal safety, social care needs etc and take action to find solutions to these issues.

    This is basically a rewording of 4, minus the “no matter the perspective bit” (although it looks to be implied). This one is more specific, so I’m a little more excited about this one, particularly the focus on personal safety and social care.

    6. A Religious Men’s Movement
    A Religious Men’s Movement would help to solve the problems that involve men and boys by actively working to bring more men to God—with a focus on one religion only (whatever that religion is).

    7. An Interfaith Men’s Movement
    An Interfaith Men’s Movement would work across religious boundaries to help solve the problems that involve men and boys by actively working to bring more men to a life of faith, no matter what that faith is.

    Given religion’s history of enforcing oppression, no. Given any measure of rationalism or skepicism, no.

    8. A Fathers’ Rights Movement

    A Fathers’ Rights Movement would seek to ensure that every child knows the love of their father by tackling the failings of the world’s legal systems which favour mothers particularly when parents are separated.

    This is waaaayy too short sighted. A huge part of the gender discrimination in family courts isn’t the policy of the courts themselves. Much of it comes from gender roles where the mother is the one taking care of the child and the father works. These roles are enforced by the assumption of male competence and female incompetence, hindering women’s attempts at being working mothers. If you want gender parity in family structures, all this needs to go.

    9. A Shared Parenting Movement
    A Shared Parenting Movement would work to unite mums and dads to help men and women equally share the responsibility of caring for their children, looking after the home and earning money through a rewarding career.

    So long as this is done as a whole, rather than encouraging it in all families, I’m all for it. Families should be able to decide their own structure, whether it’s “Mom works, dad stays home” or “Mom and dad work evenings, and take alternating evenings off to spend time with the kids” or whatever the fuck they want. This is what 8 should have been, though it’s still missing the bit about gender descrimination in the work force.

    10. A Men Go Their Own Way Movement
    A Men Go Their Own Way Movement would encourage and support men to “go their own way” and live their lives free from any problems associated with being in a long-term relationship with a women.

    I can almost see how this wouldn’t be misogyny, but really, who are we kidding?

    11. The men’s flank of the social justice movement.
    A movement that challenges male-specific issues and injustices from a holistic and humanitarian perspective, recognising that economic and social justice issues are interlinked, inseparable and intersectional.

    I like the focus on economics and inersectionality. Other than that, it’s just a rewording of 5, and I just noticed that you state as much.

  38. Schala says

    Is there something bad about doing this, carnation?

    tackle feminism head on and address all the areas of life where men’s human rights are under attacked, with a particular focus on tackling laws, policies and initiatives that favour women and girls and discriminate against men and boys in the process

    It’s “tackle feminism head on” where feminism got it wrong, or made things worse. Like rape, like DV, like custody. Not tackle feminism everywhere “for the lulz”. Only where it hurts equality.

    I’ll also tackle feminism where it is racist, sexist, transphobic, homohobic, and against sex worker rights (because they want sex work to “stop existing” or something).

    I’ll tackle mainstream MRAs I come into contact with, if they also exemplify those. And I’ll tackle the MRM itself if it comes to the same. I’m likely to miss some of the homophobic or racist stuff (not in my personal experience), but unlikely to miss the rest.

    I have sworn off The Spearhead itself, given how anti-trans it is.

  39. Schala says

    These roles are enforced by the assumption of male competence and female incompetence, hindering women’s attempts at being working mothers.

    You might have meant the opposite.

    Men are assumed to be incompetent, and even harmful, possibly evil (unlike women who are not possibly evil*) at being a parent.

    *When a woman kills her children, we justify it as being a rare occurrence, a fluke, and the result of past abuse. When a man kills his children, we see it as a man being evil, controlling, wanting to spite his wife/girlfriend, and a normal result of maleness at the high levels of it (ie toxic masculinity).

    Note that the mother CAN refuse sole or even joint custody. She’s then less likely to pay child support, less likely to pay as much for the same salary as he would, and less likely to be jailed if she doesn’t pay. It’s not something forced on her. It’s something feminists in the 19th century asked for, the Tender Years Doctrine, then extended to cover ALL minor children instead of young-age ones…then abandoned in law, yet kept in practice. It BECAME normal for the mother to get custody, it wasn’t originally so.

    And no, it is NOT based on her being less ABLE to work. It’s based on her being less FORCED to work. Society seems much less wrong with a woman being supported by a husband, boyfriend, brother, than a man supported that way. Not because she’s presumed incompetent, but because she’s presumed worthy of the support by virtue of her sex. Something men are not. HE will be presumed incompetent, lazy, deadbeat for not working, even if he’s a SAHD. He’s presumed UNWORTHY of the support.

    Privileges are afforded to people who are judged worthy, not simply bestowed on people you pity or judge too incompetent. You give your best table in the restaurant to the VIP, not the homeless.

    And similarly, men seem to want to protect women more than they do other men, regardless of the size of the woman in question, their relationship, etc. Something they would not do for a similar-sized man. They want to protect them not necessarily because they risk more harm, but because they think they should NOT be harmed at all (in his conscience it hurts him more, like punting kittens and eating babies – regardless of how they can defend themselves).

    TL;DR

    An anonymous man’s death brings less emotion to people than an anonymous woman’s death. Regardless of their size, their ability to fight back or how scared they were. This is NOT about judging women as weaker, but as more worthy of protection. We also judge children that way, even if they’re twice our size and can destroy our face with their fists.

    People then rationalize it as being about weakness AFTER THE FACT, to feel better about maleness or something. Of the “Hey, I’m better in this, I have value (am not fungible), wee”.

  40. carnation says

    @ Schala

    I’m eagerly awaiting the citations regarding feminism and pants (trousers for Brits).

    The mhrm “tackles feminism head on” through the unusual methods of maintaining blogs and invading comments sections. Oh, and “doxxing” other bloggers and students.

    And actually it’s “tackle feminism head on *and* adress…”

    So the emphasis is on tackling feminism, no matter what. Spearhead, avfm, angryharry, etc Dont differentiate between feminisms. Indeed, avfm chastise anyone attempting to make this nuanced argument.

    You cannot support the “mhrm” and not be an MRA, it’s really that simple.

  41. Gjenganger says

    @35 Schala
    Depends what you are on about. Could we have men in skirts, and with more colours in their wardrobe? Can’t see why not, although I personally could not care less. Should we move to indistinguishable clothing for both sexes? Bad idea. We will have the gender roles, which means that we treat people differently based on their sex. As long as tha holds, it is useful that the sex is signalled and easy to discern.

  42. Gjenganger says

    @ Jacob schmidt 39

    A huge part of the gender discrimination in family courts isn’t the policy of the courts themselves. Much of it comes from gender roles

    Very true

    If you want gender parity in family structures, all this needs to go.

    Which it won’t. So I would not hold my breath for gender parity in family structures.

  43. Schala says

    “What’s so bad about being objectified?”

    A feminist on The Good Men Project tried to defend her use of objectification as different from the common usage, the wiki usage, the dictionary usage and even the feminist usage.

    Essentially, it only ever applied to women, and only ever sexually.

    Men having abs? Well, it’s not sexual, it’s a male power fantasy. Double standards for everyone, here cheers!

    Essentially, the normal feminist usage of objectification is about reducing someone to how useful they can be to you, ignoring their personhood.

    And we do this all the time, in every possible context. We objectify our subordinates, bosses, family members, spouses, children and every service worker that ever existed.

    I like my pizza delivery guy example.

    I call the pizza parlor, ask for a pizza to my liking, they tell me what it’s going to cost. 20 minutes later, someone rings my home. I open, take the pizza, pay the price and some agreed-upon social convention of what tip is appropriate, then close the door, and go eat my pizza.

    Nowhere in this interaction have I ever cared about the personhood of pizza delivery guy. Never. I didn’t think if he had kids, or liked snowboarding, or had a nice personality. I only cared about his use to me – getting the pizza from over there to my home.

    I will do the same at the grocery store. I’ll bring my stuff to the cashier, ring them up, pay, leave. I won’t care one bit about the cashier’s life. I might care about low wage jobs and how these conditions should be improved, but at that moment where I rang my stuff, I didn’t care one bit about that particular cashier, their situation or their personhood.

    Making abstraction of someone’s personhood can be justified as practical (worrying about everyone you ever meet will make you kill yourself within a year).

    It’s only bad when it leads to malicious actions, like discrimination, violence, abuse of any other kind. Looking at someone and thinking they have nice “insert characteristic here” isn’t in the malicious actions category. Raping them is. Catcalling them is already on the offensive list. Looking at them for 5 seconds isn’t. And whatever you imagine in your head about it even less.

  44. Jacob Schmidt says

    Schala

    You might have meant the opposite.

    No. Men are assumed to be more competent in their careers. Women are assumed to be more incompetent. This makes it harder for women work, so it makes it harder for them to work while being a parent. It makes it harder for women to take the role of “providor” as opposed to “care-giver”.

    When a woman kills her children, we justify it as being a rare occurrence, a fluke, and the result of past abuse. When a man kills his children, we see it as a man being evil, controlling, wanting to spite his wife/girlfriend, and a normal result of maleness at the high levels of it (ie toxic masculinity).

    Where’d you get this from?

    It’s based on her being less FORCED to work.

    At this point I’m certain you’ve seen the data that shows women do, in fact, have a harder time getting jobs, even with equal qualifications. In addition to less social pressure to work, there is pressure for her not to work. The whole point is that there are multiple biases at play, and they all need to go, not just the ones that directly affect men.

    Gjenganger

    We will have the gender roles, which means that we treat people differently based on their sex. As long as tha holds, it is useful that the sex is signalled and easy to discern.

    You still, after many requests, have failed to show why gender roles are both necessary and a good thing. Even if there will always be roles, that doesn’t mean they help us. gender roles should be undermined.

  45. maudell says

    I am surprised by the comments by men who are pro-gender roles. Of course men aren’t a monolithic group, but it strikes me as particularly difficult for men to be themselves outside of a fairly small box. The embarrassing amount of ‘man up’ and ‘must not get laid’ comments all over the Internet are just a mirror of something entrenched in (‘western’) society. On many aspects, we are harsher with men than on women when it comes to ‘acting your gender.’ In my personal experience anyway.

    It doesn’t strike me as anti-man to fight against this tendency, since breaking gender roles to ban masculinity would just bring another set of gender roles. I’m not sure it’s possible (see many feminists not accepting trad women’s decisions), but it seems to me that it would help men in so many areas. Family, education, mental health and physical threat/male disposability issues might be less harsh on men if we had looser gender roles, no?

  46. Schala says

    Should we move to indistinguishable clothing for both sexes? Bad idea.

    I don’t think it’s a bad idea. We already have more or less easily identifiable dimorphic secondary sex characteristics and traits. No need to restrict clothing choice, hair length or make-up usage.

    I am an exception. Dress me in male clothing, and people will go “Huh? What?” in their head when looking at me. I look androgynous. I’m rare in this regards, as most people go through a modicum of puberty. In female clothing (including female-cut jeans), I look female enough for people to not notice or care. And people can just fucking deal.

    which means that we treat people differently based on their sex.

    Unless you judge every member of one sex (and not the other) as possibly suitable sex partner, I see no reason to do so. In a platonic context I see no reason to discriminate in any way. To give a favorable “go climb trees boys” or unfavorable “dolls are for girls, you sissy” allowance is nonsensical to me. Note that this isn’t femmephobia. Female mechanics gets chided with the “you won’t ever find a husband” trope. If masculinity was a greater good to society, no one would find fault with her doing mechanics.

  47. Schala says

    Where’d you get this from?

    From media and social media response when it does happen. It’s extremely polarized. Everyone wants to excuse her, and to lock him up.

  48. Jacob Schmidt says

    Unless you judge every member of one sex (and not the other) as possibly suitable sex partner…

    Even that’s generally a bad idea. There’s more to sex than the in and out.

    If masculinity was a greater good to society, no one would find fault with her doing mechanics.

    “If education was a greater good, no one would find fault with slaves learning to read.”

    Seriously, that reasoning is terrible.

  49. inappropriate says

    Imagine the set containing all plausible theories or observations about human gender and sexuality.

    Feminism forms a subset. The line between theories / observations that are included and those that are excluded is defined by how women feel about them. If something reflects badly on women or makes them feel bad, it’s out.

    Some ‘manosphere’ communities are just a mirror image – anything goes as long as it’s vaguely supportable and makes men feel better about themselves, which is counterproductive weak sauce.

    Some others, however, are more like a photographic negative. They’ve evolved into a de facto home for all the gender theory that feminism has deliberately ignored. As someone interested in the bigger picture, they can be a useful resource.

  50. Gjenganger says

    @Jakob Schmidt46

    You still, after many requests, have failed to show why gender roles are both necessary and a good thing. Even if there will always be roles, that doesn’t mean they help us. gender roles should be undermined.

    Have you made any requests? If so I apologise – all I remember noticing are categorical statements of disagreement. Anyway, I answered you inthis post.

    Not that I can see much point in undermining gender roles if you cannot get rid of them anyway. Why not try to improve them instead?

  51. redpesto says

    Okay, here goes – I’m sure any or all of the options would work for some men, but here’s my take:

    1. A Men’s Liberation Movement

    Was tried in the ’80s. Gave us the ‘male feminist’ the ‘New Man’ and the ‘Sensitive New Age Guy’. None of which worked, and none of which were taken seriously by feminists. Key text: Stoltenberg’s ‘Refusing to be a Man.’ Often resulted in men hating on football and working out how gay men could be potential role models while ignoring the fact that gay men fancied other men. As Susie Bright put it: ‘Go hate your penis someplace else.’

    2. A Men’s Human Rights Movement

    Highly contentious. Does not exist – or rather, cannot exist – according to some feminists, because such discrimination is not a ‘thing’. Also suffers from the ‘default’ or taken-for-granted status of men which is supposedly already covered by human rights legislation.

    3. A Men’s Rites of Passage Movement

    …aka ‘Iron John’ Revisited. I’m not sure that going ‘out drumming with the lads’ is really appropriate way of dealing with growing up in a post-industrial liberal democracy.

    4. An Integral Men’s Movement

    …aka ‘Kumbaya’. In other words, what conferences are for.

    5. A Men’s Social Justice Movement

    Would only work as an ‘aggregation’ of campaigns on appropriate issues (e.g. underachieving boys and education). May be more strongly linked in some cases to class/economic inequality or ethnicity than gender. Faces a headwind of feminist criticism.

    6. A Religious Men’s Movement

    Statement is the wrong way round and implies that gaining male religious recruits/converts is the main aim. Instead, religious groups would need to develop ways of understanding masculinity that are both compatible with the faith held by the individual and progressive in terms of contemporary attitudes to both men themselves as well as to others (male and female). Difficult given some doctrinal views (e.g. on homosexuality).

    7. An Interfaith Men’s Movement

    See response to option 6. This sounds more appropriate in the context of conflict resolution/community cohesion.

    8. A Fathers’ Rights Movement

    A significant issue, but currently suffering from an image problem/reputational damage/accusations of being a misogynist front. Repeatedly undermined by ‘family values’ campaigners and conservative politicians (e.g. Iain Duncan Smith). There’s no political/social interest in the idea that 50% of single parents could/should be male.

    9. A Shared Parenting Movement

    Trade unions should be all over this one as a employee/workplace rights issue, as should left/liberal politicians and opinion-formers. More common pattern, however, is for the role of fathers to be added in as an afterthought once the affordable childcare/work-life balance issues have been worked out so the mother can work/get promoted/raise a child as if without any male parental input whatsoever (see also ‘stay-at-home’ dads).

    10. A Men Go Their Own Way Movement

    This is known as ‘being single.’ No ‘movement’ required.

    In summary, whilst I remain unconvinced about a ‘movement’ model, options 5, 8 and 9 would enable specific issues to be addressed through focused campigns, while 6 and 7 could be added in the context of faith groups, if relevant/required. Ally’s Awakward 11 (while sounding like a Fantasy Football team) would underpin the approach of any or all of those options (‘My men’s movement will be intersectional, or it will be bullshit’, as it were).

  52. Gjenganger says

    @Schala 48

    Unless you judge every member of one sex (and not the other) as possibly suitable sex partner, I see no reason to do so.[treat people differently based on their sex.]

    I have no idea what would be the reason to do so. I just notice that I do it automatically, and I suspect that nothing short of constant vigilance (Mad-Eye Moody) could avoid it.

  53. Jacob Schmidt says

    Ginko, why did you link that over.

    Can’t speak for Ginkgo, but I found it hilarious. I love how MGTOW (and their supporters) talk about themselves as if women all want them, and their punishing women by refusing to be with them. The most common response I’ve seen from women upon learning about MGTOW is, “Good riddance.’

  54. Schala says

    “If education was a greater good, no one would find fault with slaves learning to read.”

    Seriously, that reasoning is terrible.

    With a female mechanic, they don’t go “oh noes, less useful to me!” they go “oh noes, not conforming to gender roles! how outlandish!”.

    Which is the exact same reason for thinking dolls, dancing, artistry should not be done by boys.

  55. Schala says

    I have no idea what would be the reason to do so. I just notice that I do it automatically, and I suspect that nothing short of constant vigilance (Mad-Eye Moody) could avoid it.

    I don’t do it by default. Why? Because I questioned why people would, why people should, and find no compelling reason, so I never did. Free thought, critical thinking. I must have fallen into it when I was little.

  56. Jacob Schmidt says

    With a female mechanic, they don’t go “oh noes, less useful to me!” they go “oh noes, not conforming to gender roles! how outlandish!”.

    Right. And in not conforming to her role as a women, she’s seen as less usefull as a women.

    You know when england banned women from the mines? You know why? Because it made women less fit to be wives and mothers. Because it made them less usefull to men.

    Now will you stop pretending the the only biases that exist are the ones you like to talk about?

  57. Copyleft says

    #1 and #2 seem to directly contradict each other, unless you’re employing two different sense of the word “feminism” in rapid succession. #1 should probably read “pro-egalitarian” to avoid confusion.

    #10 is definitely needed because of the intense quantities of scorn and hatred that are heaped on MGTOW when they adopt a ‘refusal to serve’ lifestyle. Surely no one’s forgotten the notorious Kay Hymowitz articles, the “men who refuse to grow up” phony crisis, the old “Peter-Pan Syndrome” complaints, etc. etc.? The fact that men are opting out of long-term commitments , not to mention marriage, in growing numbers should be significant–and based on the vitriol thrown their way, it apparently is.

  58. Schala says

    You know when england banned women from the mines? You know why? Because it made women less fit to be wives and mothers. Because it made them less usefull to men.

    By making them die?

    Let the men die, that’s their work! Right?

  59. Schala says

    It’s obvious that mining is taxing, often even deadly work, without factoring cave ins. It wrecks your lungs, and in the past it had near zero security measures.

    It got women and children away from it to protect them, for their own good. Ergo: They get to live, and have healthy lungs and all.

    Now, you can think it’s oppression to be judged more worthy to be kept alive and healthy, but that’s like arguing actual conscription is worse for women, even though the drafted men die. It’s so horrible to be valued so highly! I want to go die too! Why can’t I be normal like those meat-to-the-slaughter men???*

    *Parodying the Cheerleader in Heroes.

  60. Schala says

    And yes, I agree every position should be open to everyone, no favoritism. But to think it was male privilege, or men being given a favor, what the fuck?

  61. Jacob Schmidt says

    It got women and children away from it to protect them, for their own good.

    For the good of their husbands. They banned women who wanted to work, not women who didn’t.

    But to think it was male privilege, or men being given a favor, what the fuck?

    You’re still pretending that only one bias is at play.

    But to think it was male privilege, or men being given a favor, what the fuck?

    It is indeed male privilege when a cooperate office assumes that men are more competent. Or did you think this only applied to mines?

  62. Ginkgo says

    JS @ 58 – ” I love how MGTOW (and their supporters) talk about themselves as if women all want them, and their punishing women by refusing to be with them.”

    So no one has ever called MGTOWS misogynist for avoiding women? Pull the other one.

    ” The most common response I’ve seen from women upon learning about MGTOW is, “Good riddance.’”

    Well, your attention is quite selective then. I wouldn’t rely on it, if I were you.

    That wasn’t hanna rosin’s reaction to the trend. http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/B00D9TA4VY

    And she is hardly an outlier. Remember Carol Hanisch?
    http://womenshistory.about.com/od/feminism/a/carol_hanisch.htm

    Back in 1976 John Lauritsen quoted her:
    http://paganpressbooks.com/jpl/DTF.HTM

    ” “Men’s liberationists always bring up ‘confronting their own feelings about men’ by which they mean homosexuality. Male homosexuality is an extension of the reactionary club (meaning both group and weapon). The growth of gay liberation carries contempt for women to the ultimate: total segregation. The desire of men to ‘explore their homosexuality’ really means encouraging the possibility of homosexuality as a reaction against feminist demands. This is the reason the movement for “gay rights” received much more support only after women’s liberation became a mass movement.”

    There it is: “The growth of gay liberation carries contempt for women to the ultimate: total segregation. ”

    Men ignoring women is “total contempt”. Because women have a right to relationships with men, to men’s bodies, and men are woman-haters if they don’t comply.

    She goes beyond simple disgusting homophobia to full-blown man-hatred, the suppurating bag of pus.

    So there’s you “good riddance” you pulled right out of your ass.

  63. firsttimereader says

    @67 Jacob Schmidt

    I quickly googled this and from the first page, you can see some direct accounts which seems to show that the mine owners found the women more competent than the men, and the “husbands” didn’t object to them working. (I saw a story of a husband beating his wife for being late at work.)

    What seems to have happened is that the reformists saw the women and children as in need of protection.

    One particular section I found funny was the shock of the Victorian reformers that both miners operated in mixed environments in a state of near nudity!

  64. carnation says

    @ Copyleft 62

    Anyone who thinks mgtow represent anything other than a group of troll bloggers should really ask themselves some pertinent questions.

    They are a lunatic fringe of a lunatic fringe collective of bloggers. They have no presence other than a few forums. They troll the “mhrm” as much as anyone else. I listened to a video of one of the forum admins the other day, it amounts to his ex tried to stop him seeing his daughter, he went to court, got access, decided not to,have any contact with women ever again, and then started blogging. Interestingly, he was involved with F4J for a time.

  65. carnation says

    @ Gingko. 68

    What trend?! What are you talking about?!

    A few bloggers doesn’t make a movement…

  66. Jacob Schmidt says

    firsttimereader

    I quickly googled this and from the first page, you can see some direct accounts which seems to show that the mine owners found the women more competent than the men, and the “husbands” didn’t object to them working.

    The competency thing is a seperate issue. I brought up the mines in post 61 to combat the idea that women aren’t seen as less useful when they deviate from their gender roles. I don’t doubt that the mines found them competent; they obviously hired enough of them for their deaths to spur legislation from on high.

    From the wiki:
    Lord Ashley deliberately appealed to Victorian prudery, focussing on girls and women wearing trousers and working bare breasted in the presence of boys and men which “made girls unsuitable for marriage and unfit to be mothers”.

    Women in need of protection, sure, but not for their benefit.

    Ginkgo

    So no one has ever called MGTOWS misogynist for avoiding women?

    Uh… I did. In this thread (though not for avoiding women, but for their reason for doing so). What the fuck do you think you’re contradicting?

    Well, your attention is quite selective then. I wouldn’t rely on it, if I were you.

    Right. I can’t have honestly seen this; I must be ignoring the truth.

    Now tell me how a few quotes from feminists 40 years ago (you actually only provided 1) is supposed to be represent the thoughts of the women I’ve spoken to in the past few years.

  67. Ally Fogg says

    johngreg 70

    I think you basically break your own First Directive. Perhaps the First Directive needs to be rewritten and softened, or made more specific, somewhat.

    I introduce you to the First Directive First Exemption:

    In cases where the poster generalises about all movements equally without discrimination, the First Directive shall be held inapplicable.”

  68. johngreg says

    I introduce you to the First Directive First Exemption:

    In cases where the poster generalises about all movements equally without discrimination, the First Directive shall be held inapplicable.”

    HAHAHAHA. I can buy that.

  69. Schala says

    Women in need of protection, sure, but not for their benefit.

    You need to brush up on Victorianism. While it mostly gave upper class white women benefits, it was definitely aimed at giving women more benefit at the expense of men and lower-class-everyone. It started the stay-at-home trend, where it’s actually ‘viable’ financially, but I think the upper class white women “outsourced” their work to maids and nannies.

    Just see an example of 50 years later in Mary Poppins. The father works outside the home. The mother is a housewife…yet has no housework, since they have 4+ paid house staff to do that kind of stuff. And she doesn’t do childcare either. She gets a much much better life than me (I’m on welfare, and don’t have staff doing everything for me as far as housekeeping – while living the rich lifestyle), while having fools like you think she’s oppressed for living like a princess.

  70. carnation says

    @ Schala

    Still waiting on the citation for feminism’s role in the advent of women wearing pants/trousers?

    And how one can support the “mhrm” whilst not being an MRA?

  71. Tamen says

    carnation: I guess the name Amelie Bloomer doesn’t ring a bell. Feminists and the first women to start wearing pants: http://womens-fashion.lovetoknow.com/First_Woman_to_Wear_Pants

    and more recent: http://jezebel.com/5967794/mormon-feminists-under-fire-for-encouraging-women-to-wear-pants-to-church
    http://www.thenewagenda.net/2009/01/14/wearing-pants-to-work-is-a-feminist-act/

    Article printed in 1970 mentioning Women’s lib as one reason for the increase in sales of pants for women: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SfgLQMAEqB0/UNRiNDrJiSI/AAAAAAAAEBE/GXQyeUenoFI/s1600/pants.editorial.JPG

  72. mildlymagnificent says

    Gjenganger #28

    A movement that works towards a sensible organisation of society that is fair to men and women both.

    But you never know how different groups will interpret things as fair or otherwise. Not quite 40 years ago there was a proposal to introduce a radical new concept into the Australian public service. Part time work!!! Initially it was from the unions. Huge outcry from hundreds if not thousands of men about how terrible it would be to try and organise work to the advantage of women, who ought to be at home with their children anyway. But not where I worked.

    The blokes I worked with were entirely bemused by the idea that this had anything to do with women or families at all. They wanted the option of part-time work for themselves for career reasons. The sooner they qualified in particular areas, the sooner they were eligible for better jobs. We had a huge requirement for professional qualifications and these people were absolutely thrilled with the idea of getting their various degrees a few years quicker and without the dreaded prospect of neverending years of nights and weekends sacrificed to study and assignments. It also made the option of additional / advanced degrees more achievable, and the option of even better jobs more attainable more quickly.

    I’m pretty certain that other people can think of similar notions that many people presume to be advantageous to one group that is seen in the opposite/ completely different light by others – and entirely irrelevant to many more.

  73. AndrewV69, Visiting MRA, Purveyor of Piffle & Woo says

    @redpesto , #54

    10. A Men Go Their Own Way Movement

    This is known as ‘being single.’ No ‘movement’ required.

    I tend to agree. I know a few MGTOW in real life and although they have “relationships”, they just will not allow a woman to live with them and only one has children. This exception has two daughters with the same woman, but he will not live with her.

    When I asked why, he responded that he owned his own home and he was not going to risk a divorce.

    A couple of other things I found interesting was that all these men not only never heard of MGTOW, but they all worked with their hands. Building carpenter, gardener, auto mechanic, and plumber. No white collar workers among them at all.

  74. Gjenganger says

    @mildlymagnificient 80
    i completely agree – why would I not? Fairness can be hard to define. But then, I was not hinting at any particular monstrous injustice. I wanted to say that while a men’s movement should identify and promote the interests of men, like the early feminists did for women, we should aim for a compromise that considered (and balanced) the interests of everybody. Not just “this is for me and fuck the rest”.

  75. Gjenganger says

    @jacob schmidt 67
    Well, maintaining gender roles (which were seen as useful and necessary for society) surely came into it. But really:

    For the good of their husbands. They banned women who wanted to work, not women who didn’t.

    They also banned children who wanted to work. Would that have been for the good of the parents, then?

  76. Gjenganger says

    @AndrewV69 81
    Good point. Making a movement of it smacks of a childish reaction to being hurt. Deciding that on current social conditions the costs of a live-in relationship outweigh the benefits is just a legitimate choice (if slightly sad).

  77. firsttimereader says

    @73 Jacob.

    The competency thing is a seperate issue.

    It is indeed male privilege when a cooperate office assumes that men are more competent. Or did you think this only applied to mines?

    You seem to contradict yourself. it doesn’t affect the issue at hand very much, and anyway it’s a bit off topic.

    Regarding the Wiki. Follow the article and you will find that Lord Ashley is “pulling the heart strings” by pointing to the fact that female children are working semi naked amongst naked grown men. That did offend the sensibilities of the time, and he seems to say that these girls were going to be corrupted by this. I’m sure this got him some votes. It is also clear that “the men” were going to be very unhappy if their wives and daughters were prevented from working, and also the mill owners. It is not the fact that they were working that was offensive, it was the nakedness. That quote was pulled out from a long speech primarily aimed at stopping child labor. I’m still unconvinced that this represents “the men” oppressing “the women” by ensuring that they stayed at home.

  78. summerblues says

    What do men want? What do men need? What are men’s issues?

    These are rhetorical questions. I’m not looking for answers right now.

    I would very much like to see women taken out of the conversation (what women get, the perks, the special snowflake treatment, how they behave, etc). Who cares? What does this have to do with men focusing on themselves, taking care of themselves?

    A woman’s opinion of MGTOW: at it’s core, it’s a good thing. It appears that they are fed up, pissed off and saying “fuck it” to something that isn’t working, that doesn’t benefit them. Whether the bonds around them are society-imposed or self-imposed, break them. What I would like to see next, if they haven’t already started, is less focus of the energy from that anger toward women and feminists and more focus on themselves.

    The piece that was linked over from AVfM, I was left with the following: Door’s over there, don’t let it hit you in the ass on the way out.

  79. carnation says

    @ Glen Poole 10

    Hi Glen,

    We exchanged emails some time ago, I was going to attend one of the conferences. I’m going to give you a bit of background into my decision not to do research before offering my analysis.

    I had obviously put Glen Poole in my unofficial memory bank as a “potential ally”. But I did a quick search for you and noted that you had submitted articles to avfm. At that point, I thought it best to write what I was going to and investigate later, which I duly did. Interesting blog, good points, and I feel my first thoughts of you as a potential ally were correct.

    I also noted that avfm seem to regard you, like Ally, as some sort of enemy now.

    The mhrm/mgtow and most father’rights groups are the enemies of all other progressive men’s movements, in my opinion. Some feminisms and progressive social justice men’s groups can coexist on a micro level, even cooperate. The extremes are the extremes, and never the twain shall meet.

  80. says

    Hi Carnation

    Thanks for the message—I don’t know your real name so can’t currently connect this message to an email correspondence we’ve had—-thanks for the background though

    On AVFM and AVFM regarding me as an enemy

    No movement is a monolith and different members of different movements regard me differently at different times

    I am an integralist and committed to a world that works for everyone, men and boys included—and my particular focus in terms of gender is the men and boys bit

    I believe that all individuals have good intentions and so I’m really interested to find out what good intentions motivate people and I encourage others to do the same

    The National Conference for Men and Boys invites people who think differently about men and boys to focus on what unites us, not what divides us, to find out what we agree on not what we disagree on

    You’ll find me writing at the anti-feminist AVFM and the pro-feminist Good Men Project —-and I am neither anti, nor pro feminist

    You’ll find me writing at the right wing Telegraph and left wing Guardian and New Statesman — and I am neither left-wing nor right-wing

    You’ll find me speaking at Christian Men’s Conferences–and I’m not Christian

    You’ll find me hosting mythopoetic men’s rites of passage events—though I’m not a mytho-poet

    You’ll find me training public sector workers on how to work effectively with men and boys—and I’m not a public sector worker

    I’m an integralist—my “prime directive” is to help all humans live long happy, healthy lives and help all men’s movements be healthy

    I’m more interested in how healthy a movement is than how “progressive” it is—a less “progressive” individual can be more healthy than a more “progressive” individual

    As would be expected, many anti-feminists contacted me to tell me bad and wrong feminism and feminists are as a result of this poll. I also had pro-feminists telling me how bad and wrong anti-fems, christians and men’s rites of passage movements are.

    Well I count pro-fems, anti-fems, christians and men’s rites of passage practitioners in my network of people making a huge difference for men and boys and have enormous love and respect for them all

    My biggest criticism of people who call themselves “progressive” is how judgmental, at times hateful progressives can be towards people who don’t fit their definition of progressive and how they can champion “equality and diversity” whilst excluding those who don’t meet their own views and values—they are not aligned to the values they preach

    My biggest criticism of Christians is how unlike Christ they can be — they are not aligned to the values they preach

    I ran an event a few years ago where I brought “men of spirit and faith together” and there were gay spiritual men and Christians who were “anti-gay” and one of the Christian elders said to one of the gay men, “this is the first time I’ve experienced our communities interacting without there being friction”

    We gave them a space where they could embrace equality, diversity and universal love for a few hours —- all of which aligned to their highest values — and they were able to go beyond the labels and focus on what united them not what divided them and what they agreed on not what they disagreed on

    That’s me—as an integralist—at my healthiest best—I have the ability to both identify and bring out the best in people. And at my unhealthiest worst I can focus on “what’s wrong” about everyone and alienate people in the process—–from pleasing everyone to pleasing nobody (including myself)—those are my unhealthy extremes.

    I’m interested in individuals and movements becoming aware of their own healthy and unhealthy extremes—as well as the healthy and unhealthy extremes of others—so people can become more effective at resolving some of the many problems the world faces

    My ideal men’s movement is driven by love for all humanity and seeks to empower and enable all humans to flourish and prosper and realise their potential (and they don’t have to)—-and it seeks to include all movements in the process—which is radical because most men’s movements don’t want to include the other movements

    How do you include everyone where everyone doesn’t want to be included—-when the people you seek to include consider you an enemy because you include their “enemy”?

    I haven’t got the answer to that, but from my experience so far it starts by seeking out the individuals who are prepared to spend at least some time considering the merits of other movements

    Yes a number of men’s rights activists and the AVFM community decided I was their enemy a few months ago because I wrote this comment in The Guardian:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/23/women-only-gym-not-a-feminist-plot

    I was also on A Voice For Men Radio recently and on question we considered is which feminists are doing good work? And the two presenters pointed to an all-women, shared parenting initiative which they said brought together anti-feminist, non-feminist and pro-feminist women in pursuit of a common goal

    Anything is possible

    Thanks for your message

    Glen

  81. Genghis says

    All well intentioned if a little vague and contradictory, in places. Overall though it looks as though you’re touting for work.

  82. freja says

    @40, Schala

    I’ll tackle mainstream MRAs I come into contact with, if they also exemplify those. And I’ll tackle the MRM itself if it comes to the same. I’m likely to miss some of the homophobic or racist stuff (not in my personal experience), but unlikely to miss the rest.

    But A Voice for Men doesn’t count?

    I have sworn off The Spearhead itself, given how anti-trans it is.

    So you don’t actually tackle MRAs head on for exemplifying what you’re against?

    @41

    *When a woman kills her children, we justify it as being a rare occurrence, a fluke, and the result of past abuse. When a man kills his children, we see it as a man being evil, controlling, wanting to spite his wife/girlfriend, and a normal result of maleness at the high levels of it (ie toxic masculinity).

    Examples? Evidence?

    Note that the mother CAN refuse sole or even joint custody. She’s then less likely to pay child support, less likely to pay as much for the same salary as he would, and less likely to be jailed if she doesn’t pay. It’s not something forced on her.

    Examples? Evidence?

    And similarly, men seem to want to protect women more than they do other men, regardless of the size of the woman in question, their relationship, etc.

    Examples? Evidence?

    @45

    I like my pizza delivery guy example.

    In which case you don’t focus on him as a person in relation to the pizza he delivers. That’s a bit different from not seeing someone as a person in relation to themselves.

    It’s only bad when it leads to malicious actions, like discrimination, violence, abuse of any other kind. Looking at someone and thinking they have nice “insert characteristic here” isn’t in the malicious actions category. Raping them is.

    And yet you don’t tackle MRAs head on when they excuse rape. Why not?

    @65

    Now, you can think it’s oppression to be judged more worthy to be kept alive and healthy, but that’s like arguing actual conscription is worse for women, even though the drafted men die. It’s so horrible to be valued so highly! I want to go die too! Why can’t I be normal like those meat-to-the-slaughter men???*

    *Parodying the Cheerleader in Heroes.

    I think you’re missing the crucial aspect of choice. Not drafting women isn’t oppression, not allowing them to voluntarily join the army is.

    And I hardly think men in ivory towers rearranging the lives of the poor to make it fit the theoretical model of gender roles which pleases the men in ivory towers is an issue of caring about women. Women were banned from safer and better paid positions when it interfered with their assigned gender role too. Again, choice. For someone who previously said she valued freedom over protection, you seem very indifferent to the plight of people who are denied their freedom. Being treated like a child or a person with severe mental disabilities isn’t a privilege, and there is plenty of evidence of it resulting in all kinds of abuse.

    @76, Schala

    Just see an example of 50 years later in Mary Poppins. The father works outside the home. The mother is a housewife…yet has no housework, since they have 4+ paid house staff to do that kind of stuff. And she doesn’t do childcare either. She gets a much much better life than me (I’m on welfare, and don’t have staff doing everything for me as far as housekeeping – while living the rich lifestyle), while having fools like you think she’s oppressed for living like a princess.

    Did you just imply that not having the right to vote or own property is a privilege?

  83. Schala says

    freja

    Since you’re apparently even more obtuse than I ever could dream of being, I will heretofore refuse to answer any of your comments.

    Reading comprehension is something people should learn in elementary school *regardless of language* (it can easily later be applied to further languages you learn).

  84. summerblues says

    Schala, that’s hardly a rebuttal. Provide evidence to back up your claims

    “Mary Poppins” is a movie. What does that have to do with real life? Is “Harry Potter” real, too”?

    I believe throughout history that women and children have joined in battles and died as well. If not, then they were taken as slaves or killed after the lands were defeated. No one has it good during wars, not even the victors.

    Only from personal experience, I’ve come across men who do break the traditions of wearing boring colors (hair, clothing), wear makeup, etc. and they are at minimum eyed suspiciously by men. Not by women. I’m biased. I totally support men wearing colors, dresses and skirts and makeup – the very things I enjoy.

  85. Ginkgo says

    JS @ 93 – “Now tell me how a few quotes from feminists 40 years ago (you actually only provided 1) is supposed to be represent the thoughts of the women I’ve spoken to in the past few years.”

    So a foundational member of the woman’s movement doesn’t count. Okay. More recent? Just google “commitmentphobic men” or “where are all the good men?” Oh, and I notice you didn’t say anything about Hanna Rosin’s book and the attention it receieved.

    Bottom line, you are pushing a rock up a hill trying to make the case that women don’t care about the MGTOW thing.

    freja @ 90
    “*When a woman kills her children, we justify it as being a rare occurrence, a fluke, and the result of past abuse. When a man kills his children, we see it as a man being evil, controlling, wanting to spite his wife/girlfriend, and a normal result of maleness at the high levels of it (ie toxic masculinity).

    Examples? Evidence?”

    Andrea Yates.

    This murderousmother : http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/13/us-drowning-family-idUSTRE73C4CH20110413

    You can begin our research there.

  86. freja says

    @92, Schala

    freja

    Since you’re apparently even more obtuse than I ever could dream of being, I will heretofore refuse to answer any of your comments.

    Reading comprehension is something people should learn in elementary school *regardless of language* (it can easily later be applied to further languages you learn).

    I was being very specific about what your claims had been (the few that were concrete enough to address), and asked you very clear questions. If it bothers you so much to not be able to get away with filling the threads with random crap without being called out on it, that’s your loss. But blaming it on me for being specific instead of making unsupported blanket statements like “Women were protected under the Taliban” is a terrible excuse.

  87. freja says

    @94, Ginkgo

    Andrea Yates.

    This murderousmother : http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/13/us-drowning-family-idUSTRE73C4CH20110413

    You can begin our research there.

    What about it? A woman commits suicide and takes her children with her, people say it’s a tragedy. Where exactly is it different from when a man kills his children? I shouldn’t have to do research to prove Schala’s point for her. Then again, neither should you, but I guess it’s unrealistic to expect Schala to provide any evidence for her many unsupported claims, so having someone who agrees with her provide the examples is probably the best solution.

  88. Schala says

    “Mary Poppins” is a movie. What does that have to do with real life? Is “Harry Potter” real, too”?

    We can have a social critic of the setting. In the Mary Poppins setting, the mother is middle upper class to rich, and doesn’t work, either outside or inside the home, having house staff to do what would otherwise be her role, while still benefiting from the great familial wealth (today to have 4+ staff in a house you’d need to make 200k+ household income).

    Many a 1st wave feminist have complained about being oppressed while being in this position. And their complaints were not always about the vote or property. I believe it often was about being bored and forced into this position of being protected and at home.

    Here, something I found on the net:

    Black men also have not prevented black women from seeking roles outside the home in large part due to economic reality. Black males, unlike their white peers, didn’t have the money to fund the stay-at-home mom lifestyle so many white women felt “oppressed” by during the mid-century prior to the second wave feminist explosion in the sixties. While white women were reading “The Feminine Mystique” and ruminating about the “oppressive” nature of their role as pampered suburban housewives, black women were working in what were usually less than ideal conditions.

    See, first world problem. I’m oppressed because the richness of my culture has allowed me a pampered spot that few other cultures could ever afford… Please, complain about being a Roman Empire Senator while you’re at it. Oh noes, I have to take baths and saunas and then have to talk to a bunch of guys in togas…woe is me.

    Now, it wasn’t all positive – EVERY thing that ever existed has drawbacks. Even being rich. Note that its status and roles that have advantages and drawbacks, not necessarily stuff like femaleness or whiteness. It’s the culture surrounding them and the status and roles attributed to them that has advantages and drawbacks. And it’s region and culture-specific (being white in Japan is not the same as being white in Canada). Being overprotected because you (as in your culture) can economically afford to, will limit your economical and intellectual opportunities. Not being protected because you can’t afford to, means you can die on your job, get exhausted and many more things. Regardless of your sex.

    But feminist theory has always presented outside work as always necessarily and objectively better. The grass isn’t always greener.

    As for Harry Potter, it can be a social critic based on foster parents being possibly crappy parents who do the bare minimum and treat their their foster kid like crap because they didn’t choose it, or it’s not their own kid. And everyone finding it normal (the government isn’t intervening).

    Only from personal experience, I’ve come across men who do break the traditions of wearing boring colors (hair, clothing), wear makeup, etc. and they are at minimum eyed suspiciously by men. Not by women. I’m biased. I totally support men wearing colors, dresses and skirts and makeup – the very things I enjoy.

    Is this the “stop hitting yourself” argument where men are “doing it to themselves”.

    Maybe body image stuff can truly fall under that (as it’s often self-criticism), but I doubt being beaten by someone who also has a penis makes you feel better about it.

    Oh and note that most partners of male cross-dressers generally don’t like it if they get to know. They think he’s gay, that he’s unmanly, that he’s going to steal their clothing, that he’s ugly and some even say (maybe jokingly) that they can’t take having their husband or boyfriend “compete” on the beauty axis, that they’ll be prettier than them.

    Most female partners of trans women who were together pre-transition, do not remain together afterwards. And many have very homophobic reasons for it.

    And a tangential point, pegging (anal on a man by a woman) is seen as gay, by both the man and the woman, for the majority of people. If a man asks to be pegged by his partner, she will ask if he is gay. I’m sure the reverse also provokes questioning. Gay in this context is used as an euphemism for unmasculine, undesirable heterosexually for a woman.*

    And a further tangential point: Bisexual men get even MORE of this. Ever had sex with a man? You’re a gay man who can’t assume himself, on top of being insatiable sexually (since you want from more than one sex). This is the one-drop rule, where a man having any previous experience with a man makes him gay forever. This rule doesn’t apply to lesbian women. Being bisexual taints bisexual women, but only for the insatiable cannot-satisfy-only-with-one-sex reason, not for the “been with a woman before, then you’re REALLY lesbian” reason. So in short, bisexual men also gets emasculated as “really feminine” regardless of the truth.

    Note that some gay men and lesbian women are purists and have biphobia. They will reject anyone who has been with both sexes recently as being a traitor or “someone who can’t choose”.

    And to get back to my hierarchy of sex. Trans women are assumed to want even more than bisexual men. They’re assumed to want sex with any partner, in any position, including hardcore BDSM, because trans women are considered “sexually hardcore” at the very base anyway.

    *J Michael Bailey ran a small sample study with gay men to “prove” that they were feminine in childhood, without exception, and that it correlated with them being gay. That those who aren’t feminine now and say they weren’t in childhood are just in denial. He’s also a fan of using his gaydar.

  89. Schala says

    If it bothers you so much to not be able to get away with filling the threads with random crap without being called out on it, that’s your loss

    I said I would not cite stuff for stats. I don’t know where to find them after I’ve seen them. I don’t have a database and am generally crap at searching the stuff. Be certain that I’m still stating facts anyways.

    You think women cannot refuse custody? That they’re just as likely to pay child support? Just as likely to pay the same % of income? Just as likely to be jailed for non-payment? From what planet are you from?

  90. summerblues says

    Schala, I’m not sure what you were reading into my last comment but it wasn’t whatever-it-is that you just wrote. I was agreeing that men should be able to dress and make-up and be whoever they wish to be. Wear color, makeup, color their hair, ..if that’s what they want. And they should be able to do so without being shamed for it. (what difference should it make if a man is straight or gay if he wants to wear this stuff?)

  91. summerblues says

    The folks I come across, myself included, are wondering why she had to take the kids with her. And we are pissed off about it. Same thing for men who kill their kids and then themselves.

  92. Schala says

    And they should be able to do so without being shamed for it. (what difference should it make if a man is straight or gay if he wants to wear this stuff?)

    Mentioning that shaming is happening is fine. Mentioning that it’s mostly men doing it does nothing for those men though. They can’t petition at the Men Borg collective to change the rule. They have to suck it up. Or soldier on (do it anyway) and face the consequences. There is no alternative.

  93. summerblues says

    That has only been my experience, Schala. I’m not saying that women don’t shame men for being different or shun them. I don’t have a problem with it.

    “They can’t petition at the Men Borg collective to change the rule. They have to suck it up. Or soldier on (do it anyway) and face the consequences. There is no alternative.”

    Yeah, that sounds about right.

  94. Zeuel says

    There is something so tragic in seeing a trans woman anti-feminist. I can only imagine the events that lead there.

  95. freja says

    I think I have a comment stuck in spam. I posted it several times but didn’t get the usual “Your comment is awaiting moderation” and it didn’t show up.

  96. Schala says

    There is something so tragic in seeing a trans woman anti-feminist. I can only imagine the events that lead there.

    You mean being egalitarian? Rejecting dogma? Rejecting stupid theory that doesn’t even conform to reality for even a large minority of people? It’s called critical thinking, this is what led me there.

  97. Sans-sanity says

    @Zeuel, Considering that trans women cop it coming (experience of living with society treating them as a man) and going (experience of the F’ed up way TERFs treat trans women), I consider it less a tragedy and more a triumph of self awareness and self preservation over knee-jerk tribalism.

  98. Ginkgo says

    Freja @ 96 – “What about it? A woman commits suicide and takes her children with her, people say it’s a tragedy. Where exactly is it different from when a man kills his children?”

    So you obviously didn’t read the article. So you didn’t see the part where the police are questioning the *father* for his supposed part in the tragedy.

    Show me one example of a mother being treated the same way when the father commits a similar crime. I’m not holding my breath.

    But this is of a piece with all oyur other denialism about men’s issues. Never mind.

    zeuel @ 103 – “There is something so tragic in seeing a trans woman anti-feminist. I can only imagine the events that lead there.”

    Jill Filipovic set me straight on that when I ventured to say that feminists had led the way on trans acceptance. She pointed out the huge resistance and outright bigotry a lot of feminists have shown trans women. I take her as pretty authoritative on the subject.

    And if it’s tragic when trans women are anti-feminist, what is it when cis woemn are anti-feminist? Anti-feminist women themselves call it liberating.

  99. carnation says

    @ Schala 105

    You say ” Rejecting stupid theory that doesn’t even conform to reality for even a large minority of people? It’s called critical thinking, this is what led me there”

    Interesting.

    I’ll repeat my question again.

    Given that you have confirmed that you are a supporter of the “MHRM”, could you explain why you claim NOT to be an MRA?

  100. FloraPoste says

    Gingko – i read the article. It says the father was being sought for questioning.You don’t think the police interview other family members when there’s a murder-suicide? Given that he was involved in a domestic dispute at the home half an hour before the murder-suicide and that he had a conviction for reckless endangerment of one of the children – should they not have interviewed him at all? I googled other stories about the incident – the incident happened Tuesday, he was interviewed Wednesday, and police announced Thursday that no one else could be held criminally liable for the children’s deaths. I don’t see this as anything other than police and journalists doing their jobs.

    If you are claiming that the mom would never be interviewed by police in a similar case with roles reversed, I think it’s you who have the extraordinary claim.But just to throw you a bone, here’s a similar case where the mom’s whereabouts during the crime are thought worthy of mention:

    http://fox40.com/2013/02/03/father-kills-his-two-teenage-children-in-apparent-murder-suicide/

    The fact that the mom’s whereabouts were worthy of including indicates that it is an automatic reaction on most people’s parts to inquire where the other parent was, what they know, etc. when something like this happens.

    Yes, in child abuse and murder cases investigators have to suspect and interview people who may have no role in the crime, and it is very painful indeed to be suspected of harming your children when you are innocent. This happens to moms as well as dads. But what is your alternative?

  101. FloraPoste says

    @Schala 98

    I said I would not cite stuff for stats. I don’t know where to find them after I’ve seen them. I don’t have a database and am generally crap at searching the stuff. Be certain that I’m still stating facts anyways.

    This made me laugh quite a lot. “Trust me, I read it somewhere and it’s all trooooooooo!”

    Schala, your combined word count on almost every thread is usually many times longer than the original thread, full of vapid posturing, sweeping generalizations and hand-waving and lots of details about your personal life. You’re a walking, talking, typing example of the tragedy of the commons. You’re monopolizing a common space and filling it with garbage. Does it ever occur to you that other people might have a genuine interest in your sources? Asking for cites is not a trick to make you look stupid; you need no help in that department. The concept that some people might actually want to learn stuff that surprises or contradicts their worldview is obviously completely alien to you.

  102. Schala says

    Does it ever occur to you that other people might have a genuine interest in your sources?

    Then they can find them, date them, marry them and have children with them. I don’t care about the sources.

  103. says

    Schala,

    Providing sources is vital to discourse. It allows others to double check your assertions ad gives you a LOT more credibility. I would like to encourage you to keep track of your sources and to provide them if needed.

  104. Schala says

    I would like to encourage you to keep track of your sources and to provide them if needed.

    I have over 1000 bookmarks, not even 1/6 of them are direct sources (most are just stuff I found memorable and “maybe want to see again”).

    I am not a researcher, and my google-fu sucks.

    I can find stuff I KNOW where to find easily. Like TERFs, and proofs of their stupidity and hatred. I can’t find the latest report on DV by obscure organization x. I wouldn’t know where to look.

  105. says

    Schala,

    You coudl try to save important sources in a txt document that you order by topics /I do that) and to save important pdf documents on your hard drive.

  106. summerblues says

    Ginko, you either believe that the police are stupid (they only look at the one with the penis) or they are smart (DV cases where they are fully aware that the woman is lying that the man instigated it but their hands are tied by the law). I’m going with “the police aren’t stupid”. I believe both the father and the brother of the Newtown shooter were questioned even though they were nowhere near the scene. Cops and detectives aren’t perfect but they do seek evidence and follow where the evidence goes. (This does not mean they don’t have biases: see Steubenville rape case).

  107. Lucy says

    The family court system favours the PRIMARY CARER. If men want to be the primary carer after divorce, be the primary carer BEFORE the divorce.

  108. says

    Lucy

    Men don’t have equal parental rights prior to divorce or separation which is part of the reason men are treated unequally after separation

    All mothers have automatic parental rights for any children they have

    Fathers do not have automatic parental rights and go any gain such rights by being granted them by mother or the state

    Mothers can grant fathers parental rights in two ways, by marrying them or if they are unmarried by allowing the father to sign the birth certificate

    In the absence of mother granting father parental rights he has to go to court and apply to be given parental rights

    If you read the tragic case of the Welsh father whose partner died in childbirth and was no legally allowed to leave the hospital with his baby until he had gone to court to be granted the legal right to be a father

    Not only do mothers have the power to grant men parental rights or not (and even the power to grant parental rights to men who are not the biological father which is truly bizarre) — mothers also get to say whether fathers get parental leave or not

    We don’t have equal parental leave in the UK, in fact until recently we have one of the most unequal parental leave systems in the world—not we have a transferable model which means mum can give some of her leave time to dad if she wants to, but dad has not automatic right to have equal parental leave

    Further, 15% of fathers are not living with mum at time of birth—-they do not have an equal right to share care of their child or an unequal opportunity to be the primary carer—-their right to be involved is not automatic, it can only be granted by the mother or court—-as is the case for a couple who were together and then split up—-dad’s right to be involved is not automatic and, in practice, he can only be involved if mum allows it or if a court orders it

    On top of all that whilst the majority of parents now share care to a greater or lesser extent all the benefits and financial supports are only given to one parent, so even where mum and dad split up and share care 50:50 only one parent gets child benefit, housing benefit, tax credits etc

    So this is how parental equality looks in the 2013:

    1. Mums have automatic parental rights dads do not
    2. Mums have automatic parental leave rights to help them be primary carer in year one, dads do not
    3. Mums who are single at time of birth have automatic right to be the primary carer, dads do not—nor do they have an automatic right to be involved
    4. At the point of separation all benefits and supports go to one parent only which is the mum in the majority of cases

    And finally, even when dad has been the primary carer, it doesn’t automatically mean he’ll be primary carer after separation—the sexist assumptions (held by men and women) that mums not best means that mums who want custody are still favoured in practice even where dad has been primary carer

    I’ve been working with separated families for 14 years in the UK since I went through the court as a male primary carer myself and deciding to help other families navigate a system that doesn’t work

    For first hand experience, the family court system is a mess it makes it harder not easier in general for couples to find resolution and a big part of the problem is that family policy is sexist and a bizarre alliance of women’s groups, big business, arch traditionalists and feminist progressives conspire to prevent change happen in three key areas— parental rights, parental leave rights and the rights of separated parents

    Final note, some people say it’s not a bout parents’ rights it’s about what’s best for children—and the two are not inseparable—parents have rights and giving parents unequal rights based on their sex is not in the best interests of children

    Regards

    Glen Poole

  109. nathanaelnerode says

    Too vague.

    I’d start with core, practical, identified problems, and most of these are about the treatment of boys.

    1. Boys and men MUST be allowed to cry, and otherwise be not-traditionally-masculine. This includes an end to gender-role forcing of all sorts: yes, skirts should be gender-neutral too.
    2. Aggressive and unmotivated (rather than self-defense) violence against boys, even if committed by other boys or by girls, should not be treated as “boys will be boys” or as “character-building” but treated as the criminal and antisocial behavior which it is.
    3. Forced sex-segregated sitautions should be eliminated, because, among other things, male-only environments have been a breeding ground for severe male-on-male abuse.

    The women’s rights movement, since 1840, has taken on one major challenge at a time, even while viewing the problems as an intersecting whole.

    And I’d like to start by creating a world where a boy doesn’t get beaten up for wearing a skirt to school, or mocked for crying when he is sad. That would go a damn long way towards changing things for the better.

    And this is something we can do rather straightforwardly, unlike fixing the problem with assault of adult men by other men, which is harder, because the predators are an isolated social group over whom we have no influence and little power. The current situation with regard to children is tolerated and allowed to persist by adults, who have massive power over children. If decent adults prevent indecent adults from allowing this sort of “enforced masculinity” to happen to children, we will succeed.


    As for family court, it’s a mess in many countries. The correct standard is “primary caregiver”, except of course where the child testifies that the child is scared stiff of the primary caregiver due to abuse or whatever. I don’t actually believe that parents have rights at all, and I’m suspicious of people who phrase things that way. Children have rights, which are rarely respected. Parents have *duties* and *obligations*; they may have rights against the rest of the world, but only on behalf of the child.

  110. Glen Poole says

    Very quick response to one point

    Parents have rights whether we like it or not —- the point is right now that parental rights are defined not by one’s ability to parent by one’s sex—- which is sexist

    One way — not the only way—to break down rigid gender roles is to afford all people equal rights iin all appropriate areas irrespective of gender

    One are where it is appropriate is in the area of parental rights

    Oh damn, just spotted another point, two points then

    Children’s rights are also differentiated by sex, namely genital autonomy—with boys and intersex children not being protected in law in the way that girl children currently are—- again sexism against men and boys at play

    If we want to create a non-sexist culture where all individuals are free to express their gender in whatever legal way they want to —then we need to address all the systemic sexisms that exists including laws that discriminate against men and boys

    Just written a post on four ways we discriminate against dads if you’re interested:

    http://goodmenproject.com/international-mens-movement/immfour-ways-great-dads-are-discriminated-against-and-what-we-can-do-about-it/

    Best

    Glen

  111. Deep Think says

    I am seeking information as to what the mens movement is doing if anything to resolve the most serious crisis facing men today which is the Gender Gap in education Please read the below article
    “Something Wicked This Way Comes” Why the Gender Gap Must Be closed?”

    The Blogger known as Deep Think

    Please contact me at deepthink70@gmail.com
    603-893-5020 EST
    Thanks

    Its happening all across the country and around the world. Its as infectious as the common cold. Wherever women congregate out of ear shot of males they are asking Why do we need men any more!!!. When one gender begins to ask why do they need the other gender something wicked this way comes. Warning bells should be sounding and red lights flashing there is danger here. This question has never been asked historically before.The male gender never asked this question.Why? Because of the sexual nature of the reason men are attracted to women, which makes women the greatest source of delight for men and of course women are needed for procreation but as we shall see these two factors do not apply to females. More on this latter. But for now the factors involved in male attraction for females made it impossible for males to have it entered into the minds of men to consider weather or not they needed women the sexual attraction alone was enough to block any such inquiry from arising within the consciousnesses of men. This question for men was and is simply unthinkable.

    The question then is why has this unthinkable for men question become thinkable for women?How can anyone view the rising of this question by women as to why they need men as anything the least bit positive or healthy? Is this not an indication of something going horribly awry? This question should not be taken lightly for the probable negative consequences to society should women not be able to find reasons why they need men could lead all the way to the extinction of the male gender! Why? What do we as people do with things we decide we don’t need? We may give such things away.We might sell them or store them away but in one way or another we get rid of things not needed. Thus when our women begin to ponder why do they need men men should have every right to feel threatened!

    But what has led women to be asking this question? To understand the basis for this question we must consider why women have ever thought they needed men. What formed the basis of female attraction for males or what made men attractive to women? Women historically found men attractive not for sexual reasons as formed the basis of males desiring females but on three pillars hence forth in this article refereed to as the three P s. Provision, protection, and procreation formed the underpinning of why women felt they needed men. Lets see what is now in the modern area happening to these three pillars and why?

    The root cause for the crumbling of the three P s that historically have formed the basis of female attraction for males and is giving rise to women asking why do they need men any more is the current gender gap in education. In these times our girls are out performing academically our boys from K-12. Not only are girls getting better grades but a much higher percentage of girls are on the honor role. More class presidents are females.Often At award ceremonies no boys get an award! Some high schools have had to go back ten or more years to find the last time a boy was valedictorian! Some of our college campuses today have 70 % female enrolment and is predicted to climb even higher!

    Why does all this matter? It matters because if females out perform males academically they in time will inevitably out compete males for the best paying jobs. In deed this was the argument put forth by the women’s movent back in the 80’s when it was discovered that girls were being out performed academically by boys. The women’s movement and men agreed that our society can not achieve equality and parity between the genders which both males and females agreed should be the goal society should aim for when males out perform girls academically.

    Thus back in the early 90’s the educational system was reformed to make the system gender neural because it was alleged that the system favored the ways boys learn. Take note that at that time nobody blamed girls for being behind. It was the system that was blamed but fast forward some twenty five years and we see that the gender gap in education has not been closed. It has been reversed! The interesting thing is that whereas in the 80’s there was a huge out cry deploring the situation but today there is barely a whisper about our boys lagging behind. Why? Because in the 80’s there was a women’s movement who drew public attention to the injustice whereas today there is no equivalent men’s movement to create a raucous such as the women’s movement caused and you can’t expect the women’s movement concerned primarily as it is with the welfare of girls to be concerned about the plight of our boys.

    To the contrary the women’s movement is delighted with the fact that girls are doing so well and this attitude cast dispersions on their claim that they are seeking equality and parity with males. If this were true than the women’s movement should realize that if women continue to out perform males academically they will out compete males for the best paying jobs which will lead in time to inequality and certainly not parity between the genders. In fact if the gender gap is not closed we can expect to see a future in which there are hundreds of thousands of young angry,frustrated,and jobless or males in low paying jobs having been able to get only those jobs women don’t want which will be the lower paying jobs.

    To make matters even worse for society there is some indication that unlike men who were in the past willing to marry down because a woman’s ability to provide was not important to men women are not willing to marry down and are snubbing less educated males because women’s libido’s are hardwired to find Strong men able to provide sexy.As men loose their provision abilities they become less attractive to females and some women are going so far as to label men as the weaker sex.If women in the past were attracted to strong men then what will happen when men are perceived as the weaker gender?Already we see that generation Y women just entering the work place are out earning generation y men. there is no reason not to believe that as more and more generation Y females and males inter the work force that women will not continue to out compete males for the best paying jobs if the gender gap in education continues and, thus females become the chief bread winners in families if there will be many marriages at all!

    Now right hear some might think that I am against women making more money than men because I hate women. True I am fearful that women making more money than men is leading already to fewer marriages as we see that marriage rate is in a sharp decline.What has to be considered here is that as women make enough money to buy the house and raise kids, independently of men it is causing one of the three P s written about above to crumble. The pillar of provision which was one of the attractions that attracted women to men is crumbling. Women have or are becoming the mighty hunters able to provide for herself and any children she might elect to have thus women becoming independent of men while on the surface would be seen as a good thing has a down side to it because women’s independence is causing women to question their need for these weaker far less efficient hunters in the modern era.

    Well they certainly don’t need men for provision as they gain financial independence. So you see its not that I don’t like women and want to keep them dependent upon men but the delima is neither do I want women to be asking the question why do we need men any more?The very survival of the male gender could be at stake! More on this latter.So this has nothing to do with hating women and everything to do with preventing the probable negative unintended consequences to society if women no longer feel they need men.Thus while we would all like to see women liberated from dependency upon men we must also realize that women’s independence has some very real negative consequences that must be dealt with.There is nothing wrong with women making more money than men or becoming the heads of households but there is something wrong if this financial independence from men causes women to think they don’t need men any more. this is the reason I am concerned and down right alarmed with women gaining independence because of what we already see happening. The very fact that women themselves are asking why do they need men is a harbinger of something very wicked this way coming.

    Lets now consider another of the three P s that formed the underpinning of women’s attraction for men which is the pillar of protection. True enough in ancient times women needed men to protect her when she was vulnerable during pregnancies and the children from wild animals and marauding tribes. It was then that women started finding strong males able to protect her and provide for her as sexy this was when her libido was being hardwired for strong men. But in today’s world what or who do women need protection from? It is the wars that men create and domestic violence. Thus it can hardly be argued that women should need men for protection when it is men that women need protection from! Thus the pillar of protection is also crumbling.

    But surely the third pillar of procreation is still intact isn’t it? Unfortunately no! Technology is rapidly being developed that will produce female sperm from female bone marrow that when added to a uterus will produce a female only child completely by passing any thing male. This will give women the ability to people the world with only girls and needing no man to accomplish this.The reader should google “End Of Men” Atlantic Monthly Magazine by Hanna Rosin to see a frightful picture of a world filled with only girls. As for needing a man’s embrace one can read numerous accounts on the web of women saying their sex toys easily and inexpensively purchased can satisfy them sexually better than any man! Wow! is it any wonder that many males today are suffering from low self esteem when they read and they will such women comparing men to sex toys and sex toys coming out as the winner in this comparison! Or read these women’s claims that it takes a women to know how to make love to a woman. Thus lesbianism is currently on the rise along with women choosing to live alone rather than with a man. The root cause of all these negative things is the gender gap in education and why it must must be closed before it closes out men and makes males obsolete and therefor no longer needed!

    Thus we see that as women gain financial independence from men that although on the surface one would think this would have no negative consequences we see the following things starting to manifest already all stemming and being made possible by the gender gap in education.

    1. females out performing males in education leading to females making more money than men causing women to loose attraction for males coupled with the ability to create female sperm from bone marrow enabling women to procreate without males and thinking they don’t need men thus marriage one of the historical bed rocks of society is in free fall.Marriage rate is in decline is huge for many social scientist believe that marriage has a great civilizing effect on men. Men they argue need marriage as a civilizing agent that without marriage men become savages.

    2. Because the future for girls looks brighter than for boys a preference for girl babies is rising.Already at clinics where the sex of the child can be guaranteed 70 % of prospective mothers are opting for girls and there is no apparent reason why this 70% preference for girls will not climb much higher as males continue to fall further and further behind girls loosing more and more of their appeal to women and making the future look brighter and brighter for females thus any prospective mother concerned about giving her child the best possible chance for a bright future have a moral as well as a logical justification for choosing girls over boys!!

    3. Maleness itself is being identified by both male and female social scientist as the chief reason why there is so much violence in the world as well as poverty.Recent Archaeological discoveries of the most ancient societies reveal that they were matriarchal
    societies and they were peaceful and prosperous with no evidence of warfare fortifications or weapons found. The argument is being postulated that what is needed if we want a peaceful prosperous world is not a new world order but a restoration of the old world order which was societies ruled by women.Thus the argument is being advanced that societies had it right from the start. It was only when female Goddesses were overthrown and societies started worshiping male deities that wars erupted on the stage of history.

    In the very near future we will hear political slogans stating a vote for a woman is a vote for peace and prosperity. Thus in the future one can readily entertain the possibility of women asking other women why allow any more violence causing poverty producing males into the world since our goal is to achieve a peaceful prosperous world and males are the chief culprit in why the world is not peaceful and prosperous?

    4. Perhaps the most negative consequence at least as seen through male eyes is the end of men. Women would not see this as a negative consequence because maleness is considered as the chief cause of wars,domestic violence, and poverty. Since women will no longer need men for procreation and the goal is a peaceful prosperous world than getting rid of men would be seen as a good thing. So lets take a look at the gathering storm to put an end to men.What are the ingredients of such a storm?

    1.Surprisingly there is only one ingredient necessary We would need people with the power and motivation to eliminate men. Women have that power because they have power over their reproduction. Women decide if their going to have children and now thanks to technology they decide what the gender will be and men have no say under existing law to either force women to have children or what gender the children will be or even are necessary for procreation.So we see women have the power to selectively breed men out of existence and with maleness being identified as the chief cause of wars violence in general to include domestic violence and poverty women have the motivation and justification to put an end to men. Therefor the fact that women are asking why do we need men anymore should be cause for great alarm for the male gender.

    As has been stated in this article the cause for why women are asking the question why do we need men anymore is a flawed educational system that is enabling woman to out perform males academically and hence out compete males for best paying jobs which in turn is encouraging women to feel they no longer need men because as written above the three pillars formed the basis for female attraction for males have all been largely severed.In addition many women think their greater educational achievement in comparison to males proves their superiority. If the educational system were not flawed and truly gender neutral women would not be out performing males and consequently feeling so very superior to males.

    The agenda is for those wanting a peaceful world free from wars and poverty is replace male rule with female rule. This could only be accomplished if females out perform males in education. Thus the plan is first rig the educational system so females out perform males in education(already accomplished) which will lead to females out competeing males for best paying jobs(already starting to happen) which in turn will lead to females becoming the chief breadwinners and become heads of house holds(already happening) which in turn will lead to more and more women gaining leadership positions which will effectively overthrow male rule. This is all being done under the deception that all they want is equality and parity with males but feeling themselves to be superior female supremicist really don’t want equality with those they feel are inferior. We all know what happens to those thought to be inferior when people believing themselves to be superior come into power. Think what happened to black people and red peoples when white supremicy ruled America!!

    So lets examine why I say the educational system is flawed. Before course work was introduced into the system girls were not out performing boys. Shortly after its introduction boys began falling behind. This should give a strong hint that course work is playing a role in girls superior performance . And the fact that 70% which is the lion’s share of a student’s grade value was assigned to course work makes it highly suspicious that this was deliberately done so as to give girls an advantaged because girls were lagging behind boys in academic performance. Of course this will be denied but why then did they feel the need to attach 70% value to course work and only 30% to exams which it was alleged favored boys?So why than did they only assign 30% to what boys were alleged to be better at while assigning a whopping 70% to what girls are better at unless they wanted to give girls an edge? Why would educators want to give girls an edge? Because girls it was alleged had been the victims of a flawed educational system that favored boys for decades so giving girls an advantage was seen as justified as it would enable girls to close the gender gap which was the desired objective or so they claimed. But as stated earlier the silence that the women’s movement is displaying now that its boys who are lagging behind academically gives rise to the suspicion that the true objective of the women’s movement was not to close the gender gap but to reverse it!
    But even if my allegations are not justified and this was not done deliberately for it was not known at the time course work was introduced that girls would be better at than boys they certainly know it now! Since they now know that girls are better at course work than boys then why not reduce course work’s grade value to 50% and elevate exams from 30% to 50% and thus have equal grade value for something girls are better at and something boys are better at?

    Still another reason for girls excelling in education is and it is constantly being brought up whenever the gender gap is discussed is that girls work harder than boys. What is not brought up is why do girls work harder than boys? I think I found the answer. The answer is that girls are constantly being told that there is an ole boy’s net work in place so that if girls don’t out shine boys academically they are wasting their education for males will still get the best paying jobs. This also explains why the majority of awards receiptenents are females. Why because girls are being coached that one of the ways to to out shine boys is to participate in community projects where awards are awarded. Because boys have such few support groups and by the way this is another reason for girls excelling over boys is a multitude of supports for girls and very little for boys.Because no one is encouraging boys to get awards is it any wonder that at award ceremonies the majority go to girls? Thus girls are fear motivated to work harder than boys for fear of loosing out on best paying jobs. Thus we have a case where girls are highly motivated and boys are not thus girls work harder than boys. The solution is simple. Boys need to be made aware that they are in competion with girls and if they don’t do as well as girls in education they will not only loose out on their fair share of high paying jobs but girls will see little need for them!

    It is not my purpose to list all the many factors that lie at the heart of the gender gap in education but hopefully what has been written here is sufficient to alert us that if the educational system is not reformed in a manner so as to make the system truly gender neural along with more support for boys then is now available to boys the gender gap in education will lead to the potential for some very serious unintended negative consequences. One thing for sure when women ask why do they need men any more something wicked this way is coming.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>