My Man Boobz staycation continues. Here as promised is an interesting video.
I’d also like to take the opportunity, while I’m off, to as you all, dear Man Boobz readers, some questions that I’m really interested in seeing your answers to.
The first one: Are MRAs right about anything?
My answer to that is “no,” but there are some issues they bring up that a real, non-misogynistic men’s movement could focus on. These are:
1) Prison rape. A troubling new survey suggests that it’s far more common than previously thought, and that the number of people raped inside prison (overwhelmingly male) is by some estimates nearly as great as the number of people raped outside of prison (overwhelmingly female). (Trying to break down the numbers to make clean comparisons between prison rape and rape outside of prison is difficult; Stephanie Zvan digs into the numbers here.) Of course, MRAs don’t seem to want to do anything about the problem except use the issue of male rape to attack feminists. And of course if they focused on prison rape they would have to acknowledge that female prisoners are also raped, and that LGBT folks are much, much more likely to be raped than straight cis men.
2) Disparities in prison sentences between men and women. Even after controlling for assorted relevant variables, men tend to get longer prison sentences than women for the same crimes. (I don’t have a citation handy, alas.) This is not driven by feminism; female judges tend to be harsher on women than male judges. And of course there are gigantic racial disparities in sentences as well. MRAs again have done nothing about this except use it as an excuse to circle-jerk about evil women getting a “pussy pass.”
3) Domestic violence against men should be taken more seriously. Needless to say, though, most of what MRAs say about this issue is repugnant nonsense, and they have done nothing to actually help men, instead trying to get resources taken away from women.
Thoughts, on these or on any other issues MRA might be kind of, sort of “right” about?
No, just no. This is a false equivalence.
neuroticbeagle: I pretty much like all Moore’s stuff.
neuroticbeagle – LOL love that pic!
Gillian, no, forcing a woman to risk her life or longterm health and to utterly change that life by having an unwanted child is not the same as making the man who sired the child contribute to its upkeep. Not pay wholly for, not give up his former life to rear, just to contribute to its support.
For those who are still wondering, Granny Weatherwax’s speech about sin starting with treating people as things is from Carpe Jugulum.
Discworld = win. Full stop.
My first real exposure to MRAs was on sites like Gaijinpot and Japan Today (and to a lesser extent in Real Life, ugh) where a lot of white dudes escaped their home countries because the women of their homelands were all country music lovers (if you catch my drift), bitches and whores. They would head off to Japan thinking that Japanese women were so docile and submissive and blah blah blah.
Until they married one. Then they found out that a lot of young Japanese women are actually people. (Shocker.) Cultures and cultural differences and expectations … are different in different countries! OH MY GOD. So suddenly it’s not “My country’s women are bitches,” it’s more like, “All women are bitches.” Because all women want to do what they want to do and not be controlled.
So they get divorced. Or are at least very unhappy. Then something like this might happen.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/american-children-abducted-japan-desperate-fathers-contact-children/story?id=12919762
This sort of thing isn’t totally uncommon, along with the Japanese spouse simply running off with the kids while still in-country. I agree that it’s a problem. And so do the MRAs. Except that A.) it happens to women with Japanese husbands too, and is an international issue, not a women/men issue, and B.) Sometimes the wife runs off because the guy is a total d-bag (Japan’s argument against signing onto the Hague thingy).
Like the Christopher Savoie case. I can’t exactly fault the wife for leaving with the kids, since he basically tried to trap her in Tennessee, cheating on her and divorcing right after he made her move to the US. (Or so I read.)
So on those sites the issue of custody was often brought up because women are almost always given custody of the kids in Japan (joint custody isn’t a thing). But it used to be that MEN always got custody because bitchez ain’t shit (oh, I’m sure there was some other reason), but I guess in recent years they realized that the dads never see their kids anyway, so maybe they should go to the parent that actually, I dunno, cares for them?
And there are a lot of serious problems here–the Hague thing, divorce and immigration issues, cultural expectations, custody, a culture where Dad barely knows his kids, etc. etc. …
But for MRAs it just boils down to “Women suck and won’t let me control them the way I want to.”
And it becomes hard to feel bad for them. They’re right?? But they’re so very, very wrong that it negates any right things they might end up saying.
@nerdypants Okay, I’m completely with you, the zygote/embryo and even fetus don’t have a “moral value” equivalent to the actual, living child. And I see how that differential moral weight calls for care, but it isn’t clear to me how you can compel someone who didn’t want or intend to bring a child into the world to continue to participate in its life afterward. Or even how that might be a good thing, given the amount of resentment that might be held toward that child.
If a mother can’t be compelled to provide that care (if she is free to have an abortion, or to give up a living child for adoption) how can the father be compelled to provide it in spite of himself?
I think the child support system in the US is broken, and even when it is enforced it provides nothing like the amount of financial support a child actually needs. (Which is why it’s so hilarious that MRAs talk about it like getting child support is like winning the lottery.) I’m a socialist, so I think the state should provide for children’s needs if the custodial parent(s) can’t.
But as I don’t believe a socialist utopia is imminent, I think child support is a lesser evil than, you know, kids starving on street corners.
how dare you bring these up! men deserve everything they get!! prison rape?! that doesn’t happen. domestic violence against men?? no way, ALL men are violent, and oppressive beasts!! disparity is prison sentences?? all men deserve to be in jail!!!!!!
@cloudiah
I think the state should step in as well.
@Gillian
If men aren’t required to pay child support and the state won’t do it, that is itself coercive. In a perfect world, economics wouldn’t dictate whether or not a woman has an abortion. They do, but we don’t need to add to that by allowing men “paper abortions.” There are a bunch of issues involved, but primary is bodily autonomy. That is why consent to have sex is not and can never be consent to pregnancy. However, it can be consent to financial costs (be they the cost of an abortion, the cost of pregnancy, the cost of child support, the cost of raising a child). No bodily autonomy is violated as long as consent is something that can be given and revoked.* This should be free from coercion, but often isn’t.* The next issue of importance is the right of a child to be taken care of. This is violated by men having a “paper abortion’” but met by child support or adoption.* Then, I think would be that sex without consequences is something that would be nice, but can never be a right.
*These things are imperfect. We should try to fix them.
Oh look, everybody, somebody needs a nap.
Probably should read the whole thread before I comment, but I’m really flighty today
@freemage:
ugh, they say that? 🙁
what’d they do? (if you don’t mind answering) somehow I missed :/
nvm (typing as I go…..)
really? I believe you, I just…how does that make sense?
@ghost betty:
I, uh, I’ve never really heard anyone trying to get deliberatly knocked up w/o telling the guy. That whole argument seems….like has it happened? or happened that often? I’d normally just assume it was a contraception failure, because having babies requires a looooot of planning and money, so I seriously doubt the goal would be to trick someone into having one.
I’m iffy about the child support thing. I mean, I guess if it was an accident for them and she decided to keep it… but child support isn’t to punish dudes, it’s to make sure the child’s needs are actually being paid for.
…that is partly on him. I mean, I guess I get what you mean, but he could have helped the kid and stayed around people… I mean it’s just, ick, who doesn’t help a toddler.
@Gillian: We compel people all the time to do things that they do not necessarily want to do. We do that when the rights of someone else trump the cost in liberty to our selves in terms of being forced to take a certain action. For example, I am compelled to have a roadworthy care for the safety of others. I must pay more money for my car because the rights of other road users trumps my freedom to choose for myself the car I wish to drive. In the case of a child, the intentions of the parents are trumped by the child’s rights. I guess as a society we’ve decided that a child has a right to some level of minimal care from its biological parents, regardless of whether the parents want to provide that or not.
I’m not sure what to say about the resentment point. I suppose a parent may resent caring for a child that they wish did not exist. That’s a fucked-up situation. But I don’t see how that translates into an argument for allowing parents to neglect their kids.
Let me split the final one up as it seems two separate situations:
If a mother can’t be compelled to provide that care (if she is free to have an abortion…) how can the father be compelled to provide it in spite of himself?
The difference is that the first situation is rights of a fetus vs rights of a person, and the second is rights of a child vs rights of a person. Once the child is there, its rights trump the interests of the biological parents, both parents are compelled to provide care.
If a mother can’t be compelled to provide that care (… or to give up a living child for adoption) how can the father be compelled to provide it in spite of himself?
I don’t think adoption is really a case of society saying, ‘you are not obliged to care for your children’. Rather, society is faced with the fact that some people simply cannot do their duty, and so that the child is better off with someone else. As to adopting-out one’s child-support payments, I suppose that happens every time a deadbeat parent neglects their payments and the community foots the bill.
Bullying is another big one, although I long ago came to the realization how much of the abuse I received was based on patriarchal views of masculinity, and how much harder it made it to get help.
But yeah. Looking to MRAs to actually fix these problems is a little like looking to an arsonist for home renovations; the only tool in their kit is flame, and it’s never appropriate for the task at hand.
Yeah, the issue with “abortion” vs “child support” is that one is about a woman’s body, and the other is about a child’s life. In all actuality, child support is for the children, not the caregiver of the children, and thus it’s different than having/not having an abortion.
There is a way in which it seems uneven because in one case there is never a child, and in the other case there is a child, but there literally is no way to make it “equal”. A “financial abortion” doesn’t make sense because the child continues to exist, for example.
I honestly think a more socialist society would contribute to this being less or an issue for any number of reasons, including more reliable health care, more supports for single parents, etc… which is part of why I am a socialist, but perfect worlds, not in one, etc…
Re: Male birth control, I think they’re in the final testing stages, but there is this “use harmless substance to block vas defrens which can be removed with sterilized water” birth control method which honestly looks awesome. I wish fallopian tubes were closer to the surface so this was a possible choice for women.
@cloudiah Yes, on the MRA propaganda vs. the reality of child support.
I left teaching for technical writing a couple of years ago (’cause that’s where the big bucks are, lol) and now I spend all my time with male engineers and computer programmers. And I wonder what that does to your head after a while. They are all libertarians who overwhelmingly cling to a negative conception of liberty, and an idiosyncratic understanding of what constitutes a representative case. Apropos of my comment to ellex, I think I might have MRA goo on me…
@spleeny The only thing better than the Death of Rats himself is when the Raven comes along for the ride…
[socialist fist bump with Deoridhe]
feminizm rulez bro!: I know your trolling, but dude… prison rape is seriously not cool, nor is prison violence. No one should be a victim of domestic violence, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. I personally think a lot fewer people deserve to be in jail than are in them, but I’m also pro-legalized-drugs. On violence, I’d argue all humans have the potential to be violent, and men are socialized and expected to be violent in a way women are not, and that’s majorly fucked up and should change both for the damage it does to men (I cannot imagine being expected to be violent all the time and how that would affect my self-image; as someone with a rather bad temper, I would guess it would make keeping it harder) and the damage it does to society, since this socialization leads men to not develop less violent ways of expressing themselves and solving problems.
re: ‘paper abortions’
yeah, the only way it’d make sense to ‘abort’ a kid financially is if some other aid would come in, like the govt, so the actual kid could be taken care of.
@Deoridhe One of my ongoing frustrations with the MRA sphere is their idea that they need to focus on increasing the pool of acceptable victims, rather than address the damage that violence does to the perpetrators as well (and therefore the need to reduce violence of all kinds).
@Gillian: Perhaps we permit the adopting-out of direct care for a child because it would be a terrible idea to disincentivise something that is of benefit to the child. However parents whose sole contribution is financial are punished when they neglect their payments because all money is the same, whether it comes from a parent paying child support or from our taxes. So that might partially answer the resentment point.
Marie: “I, uh, I’ve never really heard anyone trying to get deliberatly knocked up w/o telling the guy. That whole argument seems….like has it happened? or happened that often?”
Alas, I know of more than one case of anecdata each for this happening for “having a baby will make him stay with me, even though he says he doesn’t want to be that serious” purposes and “having a baby will get me benefits through the father” purposes.
One of my best friends actually has a half-brother due to the former logic (ironically, the huge betrayal of trust that was the girlfriend stopping the pill without telling him was what made the father in question leave the relationship, although he made sure to take care of the child).
The latter logic is nowhere near as common as MRA and rightwing asshat “welfare mother” panicmongers want to make it seem, and certainly nowhere near as lucrative as they claim. In fact, given the cost of raising a child, it’s bound to be a money-losing situation, not an actual way to get money, but it seems some women don’t exactly do the long-term math on this. I suspect I have severe oversampling on this, though, because my partner is in the military (in a job that deals pretty directly with potential fallout from such situations), where this might be more common than elsewhere – with the incentive apparently being military parental benefits moreso than run-of-the-mill child support payments.
As I said, I still think it’s far, far less common than the scare myths we are told from many sources. But instead of saying “this never, ever happens”, it might be a better approach to say “yes, this happens, but a) it’s nowhere near as common as some people claim, b) woen don’t exactly end up eating caviar and drinking champagne as a result, c) (in the case of “OMG welfare mothers” BS) it still costs society a fraction of what, say, corporate welfare costs, and d) here’s a reasonable way to deal with it, while trying to respect everyone’s rights as much as possible, when it does happen”.
opium4themasses: “…they often bewilderingly blame feminism for enforcing traditional gender roles.”
The only way I can explain this notion (which, you’re right, “bewildering” is the word) is that they conflate “anything any women ever do” with “feminism”.
Because, yeah, there are indeed women who enforce traditional gender roles. Some quite aggressively. What MRAs don’t seem to get is that these women are not feminists. Because not all women are feminists. (Their utter inability to grasp this last point is probably also why they can simultaneously claim that “feminism wants women to enter the workplace and steal our jobs!” and “feminism wants to force men to support women while they stay at home and eat bonbons!”)
Let’s not even get into the fact that there are different schools of feminism, and not all feminists believe/want the same things. Their (MRA’s) heads might explode.
@nerdypants No, you are completely right and I was channeling the mra goo. When a woman decides to place her baby for adoption, even then she is more often than not thinking more of the child than of herself. I can’t believe that someone allows her child to be adopted for her own convenience. I can’t honestly see how it would happen. But I have seen men walk away from families and potential families…
The moral of the story is never let your coworkers set you up on blind dates. Trust me on this.
@Neuri
I’ve looked before for female on male reproductive coercion and been unable to find numbers. Male on female reproductive coercion is far too common. I found a good paper that argued that reproductive coercion was a form of domestic violence and posited that this probably means that female on male reproductive coercion is lower, but I am tired. So, this time I am just linking to Wikipedia for the numbers on male on female reproductive coercion.
@Neurite
Sorry. I seem to have deleted half your name. I am so sorry.
@Gillian: Your coworkers set you up on a blind date with an MRA? I’m so sorry.
It’s my impression too that men are more likely to walk away from their kids than women and do so more easily. I wonder if my impression is correct, and if so, why that’s the case.