I found this hilarious faux-MRA rant on the Tweeter. I don’t know where exactly it’s from, but kudos to lordsteve, whoever he is.
My question today: Are MRAs inherently misogynistic?
I mean, obviously the people I write about regularly here are, but are there a significant number of MRAs out there who are actually well-meaning souls who’ve been taken in by MRA talking points? Or do you have to be a bit misogynistic to begin with in order to be swayed by MRA-logic?
Better.
More and more I’m coming to the belief that what is true for an aggregate of people cannot be true for every individual in the aggregate. Meaning, any generalization about a large group of people will inherently include individuals who do not meet the generalization.
That being said, I have yet to meet an MRA who didn’t hold a significant number of inaccurate, misogynistic beliefs. However, some of those beliefs (like the idea that women rule the world because men want to have sex with us) are actually mainstream beliefs and part of the cultural narrative, and thus it’s difficult for me to blame people having those beliefs on being MRAs; rather it appears like the general acceptance of those beliefs make it easier for otherwise compassionate people to become MRAs.
This is totally a tangent, since that’s how I roll, but what got me thinking about this was a comment made by a Conservative woman when talking about the difficulties in relating to her Liberal sister. Paraphrased, she said: “I don’t want to talk to her about politics because Liberals are Selfish, and I know my sister isn’t selfish, so I don’t understand why she’s Liberal.” Now some of us might jump right to “ask and find out, you coward!” or a similar condemnation of her trepidation, but I think the underlying fear is that she will discover her sister is selfish, or she will discover that her sister isn’t which implies that she is somehow selfish since Liberal and Conservative are opposites which share no commonalities.
One of the major underpinning flaws in our culture, I think, is this idea that opposites share nothing in common. One of the places you see it most clearly is with gender – men are not-women and women are not-men and any attempt to broaden women means men becomes that much narrower. I think a significant percentage of people buy into this belief unconsciously, even feminists, which contributes to the explicit issues you see with what could be otherwise unoffensive statements. Implicitly, people react as if when feminism is focused on making women “strong” that means it must also make men “weak” instead of taking the pov that all people are both strong and weak, depending on circumstances; the latter idea is very threatening to the self-image of a lot of people who don’t want to see themselves as weak, and thus you get the rationalized, emotional reactions we often see when feminism is brought up in formerly male-dominated arenas.
There’s a blog post in there, if I clean it up enough.
@Deoridhe
Or that she will have to confront that she already believes that her sister is selfish and doesn’t want to. This seems to be the case when my mother and I talk about politics (or seemingly non-political issues that got some weird Fox News spin). She believes enough that liberals are stupid and selfish and other horrible qualities that, when confronted with my sister’s or my politics, she then has to confront that as liberals, she thinks my sister and I are just like all other liberals. As her daughters, we mostly get along okay. It is probably a bit more complicated and the cognitive dissonance allows lots of little permutations, but my mother does believe we are everything she believes liberals are. She goes from thinking of us as her smart, kind, well-informed, technologically capable kids to dumb, selfish, immoral liberals who know nothing about the world, can’t use the internet enough to find original sources, etc. Some of it is probably just tit-for-tat because when politics come up she has to confront what my sister and I really think of her, but I know there is genuine belief in there too.
Yep. This is the thing that really irks me about the MRM. It isn’t that there aren’t legitimate concerns or that there aren’t ways to address those concerns. It’s that there are legitimate issues and legitimate ways to combat those issues and the MRAs are tainting something that could be progressive. Where I work we have a number of advisors on campus who work a lot with men one on one and in groups to talk about issues of masculinity and how perceptions of manhood can be damaging and need to change, but DON’T turn around and blame feminism for the problems (and more often than not, point to feminist themes as a means of combating harmful gender roles). It’s a super positive thing and they dress it up with goofy mustache lolipops and whatnot in order to show that it doesn’t have to be super serious. It’s a really good thing for our male students to see some of these successful, confident, older men unafraid to challenge traditional, kyriarchal bullshit narratives of what men are “supposed to be like”.
I guess I have more annoyance for the MRM in some ways just because I’ve seen some people do it right, and it hurts my head to see some people do it just so hideously, horribly wrong and dismiss those who have the right idea as “not real men” (as I’m sure they would of many of my male coworkers solely for being more feminist leaning).
So to answer David’s question, I’ll say, in agreement with others that, no, one is not necessarily misogynist to think there are real men’s issues that need to be addressed, but the way so much of the online MRAs present so much bullshit, woman-blaming garbage in response to those issues, I’d say the chances of not being at least a bit sexist and a follower (not in jest or horror) of any one of those blogs are pretty darn low. Particularly because, as others have said, the MRM exists within an already pretty sexist global society that only reinforces their sexism.
Mm. I tend to think that much like how ingrained racism is in western cultures, everyone absorbs a certain amount of misogyny, and it takes an actual effort to recognise and move away from that.
So obviously women have more at stake and are more likely to do so; equally, men, especially if privileged on other axes, find it easier to take the step into overt and entrenched misogyny. If that makes sense.
Basically, I don’t think that all people in the MRM are necessarily that much more misogynist than your average person. But of course it’s far more likely and the stats are well skewed toward actually despising women.
@AK – Hunh? “Misogyny” means “hatred of women.” Kind of literally. What are you thinking is a “general sense” definition of it?
The Macquarie Dictionary is broadening its definition of misogyny to include entrenched prejudice against women after PM Gillard’s speech in which she called the Opposition Leader a misogynist:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/misogyny-definition-to-change-after-gillard-speech-20121017-27q22.html
I’m inclined to agree that it’s more than visceral hatred or revulsion against women, but also a stronger term than sexism.
@drst–the dictionary definition of misogyny is a hatred of women, yes, but it is also often used to describe behaviors and attitudes that aren’t an overt hatred of women. For example, men who put their girlfriend on a pedestal and think she can do no wrong are objectifying her, which is often considered a form of misogyny, even though they certainly don’t hate her–they just don’t really see her a full, complex person. Does that make sense?
@tedthefed – That Cracked article is really interesting. I sent it to my brother and asked him what he thought about it. He thinks it’s “a load of bullshit”, but that he knows “guys that really do buy into all that – and they’re assholes”.
He also said that while there’s a grain of truth in the article regarding societal and media pressures and norms, and that he does feel that to a certain extent they skew people’s expectations – both men’s and women’s – he feels it’s like the arguments about cartoon violence inciting violence in people: basically, he’s an adult and can tell the difference between fantasy and reality.
He also said that he doesn’t feel that he thinks about sex any more or less often than most other men, but that (once again) he’s an adult and can control his own mind, and if it’s not an appropriate time, place or circumstance to think about sex, then he doesn’t think about sex.
I love my brother. He’s awesome.
I think that some of the men who get drawn in to the MRA movement probaby have only the usual amount of sexism everyone picks up from the culture, but there’s an added component.
Some of the men I’ve met online seem like generally well meaning people, but their experiences in life, particularly with women in their life have been extremely damaging. Some of them are genuinely angry, and for good reason. Often they just come across as hurt and bewildered. In these instances, if you listen, they will tell you horrible stories of women who abused them, often early in life. In these instances, I’m inclined towards greater empathy and kindness not only because, well people hurt that way deserve kind treatment, but also because its easier to see why their world view has been twisted that way. The misogyny these men perpetuate is more like a defense mechanism to prevent being hurt again, and the end result is a great deal of lonliness. I don’t think these guys are looking to be hurtful towards women, but they’ve learned through experience that it hurts to think better of women as a group or as individuals. And sometimes, they get caught in the cycle of abuse where lonliness forces them to overlook the redflags and choose to place their confidence or hearts in the wrong type of woman.
One thing I have never seen addressed about mens needs is the fact that boys and men also need to be taught about having good personal boundaries and how to recognize and deal with people who blatantly ignore boundaries or look for partners to abuse. This is part of toxic masculinty, but gets pushed to the side all too often.
Also, I think more needs to be said about how to handle disappointments and heartbreak in terms of intimate relationships. Or how to create intimate but nonsexual relationships with others. I know far too many (older) men who’s only source for managing their disappointments is either their mother or their wife. Which leads to huge issues in the event of death or divorce.
I can’t really answer this question, because I don’t know any MRAs. The only contact I have is with the trolls, and they’re extreme misogynists.
You have to be misogynistic to believe that in the first place.
In other news, anyone remember Tropes vs. Men, the film project about “misandry in video games” that some MRAs set up in response to Anna Sarkeesian’s inexplicably controversial Tropes vs. Women in Video Games project? Anyone familiar with MRAs will be shocked, shocked to learn that, after raising $3,000 on IndieGoGo, the organizers vanished, producing nothing to date except for three charity letters which may be forgeries.
http://www.gameranx.com/features/id/13224/article/the-mystery-and-fraud-of-tropes-vs-men-in-videogames/
Elsewhere, the first installment of Tropes vs. Women in Video Games went up today:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/7/4076560/watch-first-episode-of-tropes-vs-women-by-anita-sarkeesian
I absolutely agree with you in general, but I do think there’s an exception for defining features of a group of people. For instance, “all Trekkies like Star Trek.” So the question is whether misogyny is such a defining feature of the MRM that someone who isn’t a misogynist is, by definition, not an MRA. (I cautiously don’t think so, but I understand why one might.)
Shocked, I tell you! It cracks me up that someone actually put “mystery” into that headline, as though “someone gets gullible people to give him money and then just takes it” is just a baffling occurrence.
Woot! Watching immediately.
@Shaenon
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Ugh. That TV Tropes forum discussion I mentioned earlier? One of the major players on the MRA-ish side is making the claim that past oppression of women wasn’t oppression at all – no, men instinctively value women’s lives above their own, and things like not permitting women to have paid jobs just prove how noble and self-sacrificing men are, doing all the horrid work themselves so the ladies can be safe at home!
@pillow in hell
A friend of mine fits your description fairly well. After two relationships that did not end well he got very angry and bitter. And he stayed angry for a long time. His third relationship was sabotaged due to his own jealousy. After many years he has eventually managed to have a healthy relationship again. Yet, he still has a very defensive mra-esque streak. If a conversation is about sexism in gaming he loves to derail it with things like “women objectify men too”, “men are provided unreasonable expectations and role models for masculinity”. some of it is complete crap, some of it, he would almost have a point if he wasn’t just swinging wild because of his defensiveness.
When i read the cracked article I was confused, initially, about where it went astray. The first two points were 1. Men have been raised to have unreasonable expectations about romantic partners, and view women as a reward. 2. Men are trained to see women as decoration. From what I could tell, up to that point, it seemed liked the author was trying to explain, and pinpoint, the ways in which misogyny was socially shaped. And then his next three points hit and each one was worse than the last. The article descends into pseudo/evo-psych They also sounded increasingly defensive about genetic programming, as if to say – “Hey, cut us some slack it’s really difficult to not be a jerk, because of genetics.” So what started as a good idea, talking about the relationship between society/men/misogyny, took a left turn into defending the male “genetic code”. Somehow I see this as a metaphor for the entire mra movement.
To follow up on what Katz said: I think they are not inherently mysogynistic… but I think it’s pretty likely nowadays.
There was a great history (I think it was on XYOnline) which explained (new to me) how there was actually a REAL Men’s Rights Movement in the 1980s (in the US at least). Like the Feminists, there was a vocal group of men who wanted to break gender stereotypes about their gender that were harming them. Things like “be big and strong”, “don’t play with dolls”, “don’t show your emotions”, “if you’re young and don’t have sex every night in one nights stands, you’re not really virile”, etc.
But over the course of the next 15-20 years they, uh… “won”, for lack of a better word. Between changes in the law (e.g. Family and Medical Leave, additions to the VAWA that made it even more gender neutral) and cultural changes (reflected in the TV shows like Frasier and Cheers) the stereotypes softened. They are still with us, but bucking them is not nearly as big a deal as it was in the 1960s.
Which means now the people who flock to the moniker of Men’s Rights, who still thinking their “rights” are being infringed, are what the original movement would consider the fringe. They have taken the label for their own purposes (e.g. the legal right to abuse or trap their exes) which ARE inherently mysogynistic.
One of the things I smirk whenever I read is the claim that feminists now are “going too far”; the women have “won,” and now they are are starting to take rights away from men by continuing to push. Ironically, the way I see it, that’s one interpretation of what the current Men’s “Rights” Movement is, at its core.
The idea of “Men’s Rights” is inherently problematic. Civil rights groups assert the rights of the disempowered under hegemonic systems that oppress them. Feminism takes on the patriarchy, what hegemony is MRM taking on? Patriarchy is the solution to all their complaints, so they are really fighting for old oppressive systems to remain the same, not for progressive change. They’re reactionary. I think unless patriarchy is their target, they’re misogynists. If the villain can’t ever be masculine, it makes sense it is always women. Misogyny is quite culturally entrenched here in Australia.The MRM has given the usual suspects a peg to hang their bigotry on.
I’ve been staying away from AVfM, but I knew there was another event at U of Toronto and I figured they’d be losing their shit so I checked it out. In the comments on the thread about the event, I saw this one from Dean Esmay that nearly made my head explode:
Wut?
So 6 million African Americans moved out of the South during the 20th century because things were so great there? Is that kind of like how women organized a feminist movement because things were so great for us too? Or is that African Americans, like women, were just too stupid to see how great they had it?
0_o
I’m sorry, I’m just going to continue my rant for a second. I wrote my thesis on a woman whose family moved to LA from Florida in 1906 precisely to escape Jim Crow laws. She managed to become a well-respected professional in her field, but continually faced pressure from white folks to go back to the South to help “her people.” She pointed out that plenty of “her people” were right there in LA, and that her parents had left the South for a very good reason. She dated a man who was instrumental in overturning restrictive racial covenants (that kept blacks out of certain neighborhoods in LA), so she was well aware of the more “covert” forms that racism took outside the South.
What a stupid asshat Dean Esmay is. And isn’t he supposed to be the “liberal” one?
I have seen a crapton of racism denial, often in regards to the south. I once had a co-worker, upon learning I was studying history, start needling me to say that slavery wasn’t the cause of the civil war. he didn’t really care about history, he just wanted someone to tell him what he wanted to hear.
I have also seen a lot of people say “Well, there was a lot of racism up north, even more than in the youth” the same way you might hear a “men are victimized by abuse from women as often, or more than women are victimized.” both arguments are …. less than academically rigorous and are usually just a magic trick to make the . conversation disappear.
Hey, white USian dudes thinking of lecturing African Americans about racism? Seriously, don’t do that.
Although actually I guess Dean Esmay is safe there, since AVfM is OVERWHELMINGLY white.
That wasn’t My God Its Full Of Stars, was it? Because it sounds like him.