Lundy Bancroft is an expert on abusive relationships and the author of Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds Of Angry and Controlling Men, a book I’ve found very helpful not only in understanding abusers but also in understanding the behavior and “activism” of Men’s Rights Activists.
In a recent post on his blog, he warns about the ways in which “Men’s Rights” ideologies can justify, and made worse, abusive behavior from men who are already abusive, or who have abusive tendencies.
In the post, entitled “The Abuser Crusade,” he writes
When a man has some unhealthy relationship patterns to begin with, the last thing he needs is to discover philosophies that actually back up the destructive aspects of how he thinks. Take a guy who is somewhat selfish and disrespectful to begin with, then add in a big dose of really negative influences, and you have a recipe for disaster. And the sad reality is that there are websites, books, and even organizations out there that encourage men to be at their worst rather than at their best when it comes to relating to women.
It’s not surprising that a philosophy rooted in male entitlement would appeal to men who already feel pretty entitled – and often quite bitter that the women in their lives, not to mention the world at large, doesn’t seem to regard them as quite so deserving of adulation as they think they are.
As I’ve mentioned before, I used to think it was unfair to label the Men’s Rights Movement “the abusers’ lobby,” as many domestic violence experts have done, because I felt that the movement did raise some issues that MRAs at least seem to sincerely believe reflect discrimination against men. But the more experience I’ve had with MRAs, the more I’ve begun to see the Men’s Rights Movement not only as an “abusers’ lobby” but as an abusers’ support group, and an abusive force in its own right, promoting forms of “activism” that are little more than semi-organized stalking and harassment of individual women.
It’s not that every MRA is literally a domestic abuser, though I wouldn’t be shocked to find domestic abusers seriously overrepresented in the Men’s Rights ranks; it’s that the Men’s Rights movement promotes abusive ways of thinking and behaving.
In case anyone had any doubt about which groups Bancroft is talking about, he gets specific:
Some of these groups come under the heading of what is known as “Men’s Rights” or “Father’s Rights” groups. Their writings spread the message that women are trying to control or humiliate men, or are mostly focused on taking men’s money. They also tend to promote the idea that women who want to keep primary custody of their children after divorce are evil. The irony is that we live in a country that has refused to pass an amendment to the constitution to guarantee equal rights for women; yet some men are still out there claiming that women have too many rights and that men don’t have enough.
Bancroft also warns about groups preaching a return to patriarchal values:
Other groups don’t use the language of “rights”, but promote abusive thinking by talking about the “natural” roles of men and women. These groups teach, for example, that men are biologically programmed to be the ones making the key decisions, and that women are just naturally the followers of men’s leadership. These philosophies sometimes teach that men and women are just too different to have really close relationships.
In the end, Bancroft urges women whose partners are picking up new philosophies that seem to be making their behavior worse rather than better to start researching the subject themselves, and reaching out to other women in the same situation, in order to better understand what their partners are getting into — and defend themselves against it.
I’m curious how many readers here have had personal experience with men who’ve embraced Men’s or Fathers’ Rights philosophies (or any of the varieties of backwards Manosphere philosophies), or who know of women whose partners have.
It’s also a great option if you have a bad cold and really want to clear those sinuses quickly.
@anarchonist
Thanks for the description 😀 I probably will try it sometime.
RE: MEZ
You’re just pissed because you can’t get under my skin.
No. I’m irritated because you see feminism as partially responsible for my behavior. No duh my behaviors doesn’t act in a vacuum, but that doesn’t mean I don’t take responsibility for my actions.
Also, it is my belief, as someone who used to be an asshole, that I had to choose not to be an asshole. I NEEDED people to call me out and tell me my behavior was unacceptable. Having my feelings coddled by people was the LAST thing I needed, and actually would’ve just infuriated me more (since on some level, I was aware that my behavior was douchey and shouldn’t be acceptable).
RE: cassandrakitty
I mean, don’t get me wrong, “not unhappy” is better than “unhappy”,
In my case, honestly, I would WAY rather be unhappy than meh, because ‘meh’ usually means I’m in a dissociative state and thereby not recognizing what a shitty situation I’m in. If I’m unhappy, I at least can find out what’s wrong and fix it. Not so when I’m that heavily spaced out.
One of my Dad’s favorite stories of his first business trip to Japan is how a bunch of his Japanese colleagues took him out to dinner and tricked him into eating a big mouthful of wasabi by claiming it was green tea ice cream.
Oh god, that happened to my poor grandmother. She mistook wasabi for guacamole, which she adored…
RE: Ally
I hope you know that trans men are also very much capable of exercising male privilege.
Not gonna lie, this is what I often worry that I’m doing here. : I generally rest in my faith that the Mammotheers will call me out if I start turning into some entitled douchenozzle.
trans men abusers are even less likely to be called out for abuse than cis men because they are perceived as “men lite”
Ugh, I really wish the whole “trans men are like hybrid Hummers — twice the mileage and half the guilt!” meme would just die. I’m not a magical fairy unicorn. I’m just someone who tries not to be a dick, gender and socialization be damned.
One of my little boys loves to munch wasabi peas as much as I do.
The rest of the family doesn’t approve of us eating them though.
I can’t imagine why.
(j/k it’s wasabi farts)
Aw man, Marie, I have to take wasabi in REALLY small doses. It’s not spicy, in the traditional sense of the word, but I have never encountered a substance more likely to fumigate my sinuses in five seconds flat.
So, lemme see if I got the gist here:
1. Feminists are supposed to be more deferential to men’s feelings, or they’ll drive them straight into the arms of the MRBM;
2. Women are supposed to put on a happy face, so that the home stays “harmonious”.
3. Male circumcision is somehow germane to domestic violence, and equivalent to female genital mutilation.
And all of this is non-toxic HOW?
@marie, definitely try it. I think of it as being a cold burn as opposed to the hot burn you get from chilli or curry so, as Anarchonist says, refreshing rather than warming. Just be aware it’s potent so try a very very small amount. Let us know what you think. 🙂
@titian
Yeah, I struggle with this same programming as well. This stubbornness? I’ve learned it from dealing with misogynists. I’ve learned how to wear them down, until they call me a man-hating bitch and run away. But there’s a difference between “I will not prioritize your wants, needs, opinions, and experiences over my own” and “Fuck you and your ‘fee-fees’ because I’m not your mommy!!!!” One is self-defense, and one is stepping over the line to become the aggressor.
@Skye
I was being sarcastic. I never said anything about care taking men, making them food, or even care taking men’s feelings. And plenty of feminists will, after getting done screeching about “fuck ur fee-fees cause I’m not your mommy”, turn right around and expect men to care about our feelings when we talk about Schrödinger’s rapist, and etc. etc. Yeah, this isn’t how the world works.
If it was the other way around; if a guy dismissed my feelings with “what about your feelings, I’m not your daddy”, I would think he was a complete bully and a complete ass. He would have no credibility.
There were a couple of posts that were so long that I skimmed through, sorry. Two points;
a. I don’t think I’m being bullied. I never mentioned myself in this whole thread (well except to answer questions) so stop making it about me. Should I go away? It’s explicitly not a safe place. I learn a lot from being here, and I’m not particularly bothered by criticism, so I like it here. Hey, the other day I learned why transwoman =/= trans woman. It made sense once explained, and stuff like that is invaluable to me. 🙂
b. Several people are waiting for a melt-down. Since I don’t want to disappoint, and I even have my own caramel popcorn and ice tea ready, let me see if I can perform;
BRAINNS, BRAIINS, I WANT TO LICK YOUR BRAINS FROM YOUR EARS!!!!!!
How was that? Eh, I’ve done better.
No, see, what’s toxic is looking at statements like the above and telling the person who made them that they’re full of shit. The statements themselves are “feminism”.
Are some of you are confusing me with whatever dipshit said that it was the woman’s job to keep the home “harmonious”?
MEZ,
Yes, you should go away.
cloudiah:
Hey, let’s apply MEZ’s logic to the KKK! “The Civil Rights movement is partially to blame for driving white people into the KKK! If only the NAACP did more for white people’s issues and black people weren’t such bullies toward white people, there wouldn’t be any racists!”
Nope, just doesn’t work.
No, MEZ. We know which derailing troll you are.
Actually that’s true. The “ladies must be happy to create harmony in the home” person may be wrong about everything, but at least she’s honest and not trying to piss on anyone’s leg and tell them it’s raining.
This is so disingenuous. We don’t tell all tell men to shut up when they are expressing their emotions. We say that to the sad sack variety of misogynist who wants to come in here and use the commenters on this blog as free therapists while complaining about how horrible women are because he was dumped one time.
Nobody here has a problem with men who have and express feelings as long as they aren’t either using those negative feelings as an excuse for misogyny or trying to talk over everyone else.
@Titanblue
Sweet. I’ll try to remember to tell you :3
@MEZ
Dude. You literally just said saying you won’t prioritize men’s feelings makes someone the agressor. Do you even listen to the shit that you say?
Um, ….riiiigggghhtttt. Citation needed, pathetic troll. I don’t want men to coddle my feelings. I want them to stay the fuck away from me*. Do you even know what schrodinger’s rapist is, or is this just the part of your trolling you start whining about it?
*present company of non-trolls excluded. I actually do like hanging around some men. but in general, I’m not looking to talk to men about my feelings in feminist discussions.
this depends largley on what he’s dismissing, but aparently you hate context, so….
Now, now Sparky. We learned from Mez yesterday that that comparison is wrong because men are hurt by patriarchy too. Therefore it’s totally acceptable men join misogynistic hate groups if feminists aren’t nice enough.
@sparky
Stop co-opting racism. It’s already been explained why it doesn’t work. Yes, sexists are usually racists, because people who like to marginalize one group often like to marginalize others, but that doesn’t mean that there’s similarities here. White privilege, much?
But lets pretend that there are similarities. Let’s pretend that white people really, somehow, are hurt by racism. Would the NAACP being filled by a bunch of bullies hurt civil rights and help the KKK? Absolutely. Intolerance fuels intolerance.
Bullshit. Like I’ve said, you are more than welcome to coddle the butthurt when they come in here wanting us to fix their lives.
Bullshit and you know it. Do you even read what you type?
Yes, you should go away. You’re a giant fucking liar and a shitty person.
So not tone-trolling at all. Just saying that when an entitled man comes into a feminist space, feminists should be polite in their own self defence. Exactly how many exclamation points are we allowed before we’ve become screechy?
And the difference is context. One is a response to an unreasonable demand from a particular entitled man, a member of the priviledged population making demands. The other is a request for justice and respect by the oppressed of the oppressor.
Yep, “screeching”. I’m anticipating you’ll get some kickback on that choice of word.
Stop co-opting social justice terms. You clearly didn’t understand Sparky’s point, to the surprise of no one here.
Wait, are we hysterical too?
Are we harpies?
Counts how many times I’ve been ninja’d. Oh dear.
I’m singing “screeching hysterical harpies” to the tune of “lions and tigers and bears” from The Wizard of Oz. Who wants to join me? Hellkell and I can share the role of the Wicked Witch.