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.
I kinda feel like I’m staring into an abyss of moral relativism and it’s staring back.
Shocked bird is shocked
http://www.gifbin.com/983533
Woah now, fella. That’s the natural rate of unemployment. Now, I don’t have a model for it exactly, and it’s more like a vision or if you will, an idea, but if you allow me to draw some graphs and talk for a good three hours, I can convince you of the truth of this particular situation, yessir.
If she tries to come back and be all “I am best feminist, heed my guidance” after the Nazi thing I’m going to be like this cat.
https://mtc.cdn.vine.co/r/videos/A68E9F1C001013398054847627264_14e13292177.4.3.5697370323804148627_Z7UPKSpZPk5FO9XKQQG2SBQXrjpu2JbSW0AAereM1J_cUyLBC0Tw_77Bx_THMbHb.mp4?versionId=0CteFxd.Kq77LC6uw3mRsh9WH3vSuLTu
That should include a “[Wears a Friedman hat]”
I am super pleased Mez enjoyed my boot metaphor. Granted, zie didn’t get it (I’m going with zie since I haven’t actually seen zir preferred pronouns), and laughed off the idea that zie could have enough internalized misogyny to promote being kind to protoMRAs (the ‘nice, decent’ people who are sadly been driven to join hate groups) just so they won’t actually go and join the hate group. Nevermind that they already share that mindset. Nevermind that they’re happy to promote the patriarchy and rape culture without being officially MRAs. Nope, being kind to them will totally make them think women are people too, and not just take it for granted that of course women will be nice to them!
I’m content to know that the metaphor dinged that super smug ego, since Mez clearly remembers it. Though it is daunting to know that that’s the level of metaphor it takes to get zir attention.
@cassandrakitty I clicked on your cat video link, and it asked me to open a file?
Oops, sorry. It should have just played a short video clip.
Wait, wait, I’m still trying to figure this out. Yes, honestly, I’m not being snarky at this moment.
So if feminism is partly to blame/acclaim for my actions… then feminism should change, right? Because no action in a vacuum and all that.
But feminism is made of people, whose actions also aren’t in a vacuum. So why are THEY expected to change, but I’m not? Why is my behavior partly their responsibility, and not entirely mine? Doesn’t that mean their responsibility to change would only be partly theirs?
I’m getting confused.
As a cis white man, I have absolutely no problem with women-only spaces, trans-only spaces, and PoC-only spaces. There are a number of entirely valid reasons for each. Anyone who does not understand that has a personal responsibility to educate hirself.
Also, almost all wasabi encountered in North America is actually green horseradish. True wasabi is relatively uncommon in Japan, and very little is exported.
Thank you for giving me another author to read! Went online to my library and put a hold on this today. My mother is definitely into forced positivity (& it’s very stressful!) and I think this is something I need to read. Hopefully I can get her to read it too.
I read ‘Why Does He Do That?’ because it was so highly recommended on this site, and I’m very glad it exists! I haven’t had a relationship with an abuser (I was in a relationship with a manipulator, but it never tipped into abuse), but I’ve seen friends date horriblly abusive men, and now I get a better idea of why.
That should have been ‘have a better idea of why.’ Gah. (and that extra ‘L’ in horribly… sigh).
A nice companion piece to Mez’s posts is this Jezebel article about the not all men meme. So many whiney defensive bros who completely missed the point in the comments section. Mez would feel right at home! http://jezebel.com/your-guide-to-not-all-men-the-best-meme-on-the-interne-1573535818/all
FUCK. ME.
MEZ just said that. MEZ totally just said that.
I can’t… I have no words.
Okay, I’ll be nice to MEZ and assume for a second that they know what the word ‘scapegoat’ means and that they didn’t mean it this way.
But if you don’t mean it that way, if you don’t mean to imply that those damned Jews brought it on themselves by being so mean to nasty, nasty Germans, then, FUCK, your point kills itself.
FEMINISTS CAN BE AS NICE AS THEY LIKE, BUT THOSE SCAPEGOATING THEM FOR SOCIETIES’ ILLS WILL NOT STOP AND IT WILL NOT STOP THE ADVANCE OF HATE GROUPS DRIVEN BY A FEELING OF ENTITLEMENT AND DISENFRANCHISEMENT.
(maybe I should bold that, or blow it up to a bigger font?)
(Mental illness and suicide talk ahead, head’s up!
Yeah, I’m not into forced positivity at all. Most of y’all know this already, but I’m a dissociative. My brain took “forced positivity” very seriously as a coping mechanism, enforcing it through manipulation of my emotions and memory, and the results are FUCKING TERRIFYING.
Because if I get pushed too far, mentally… I just stop noticing. Nothing hurts anymore. Everything is fine. I am completely impervious to emotional suffering or pain. You can do whatever you want with me in this state, because my neurochemistry won’t let me notice anything bad.
When I was younger, I would actually work to put myself into this state on a regular basis, because I thought it meant I was getting “stronger.” I always saw myself as an overemotional crybaby, so being in a serene emotional morphine haze seemed a vast improvement.
I try not to do that anymore, just because things get really dangerous when I’m in that state. If any predator is around, I’m incapable of defending myself from them. Also, I lose track of reality so badly that I might try jumping off a bridge because I’m incapable of realizing what might happen.
Somehow, I don’t think that’s what people mean when they say you should “stay positive.”
@lea
Nice try with that one. I was obviously making fun of the idea that people join hate groups because they are bad people and not because they are manipulated. (Although some are truly bad people, I’m going with most of them are misled).
There is little to no similarity between antisemitism and sexism. Although if the Jews went around and habitually ripped off Germans, (pro-tip, they didn’t), I would say maybe there could be a comparison between it and my point.
@hellkell
Because I specifically said that prioritizing your own wants/needs/feelings/whatever is self-defense while dismissing someone else for their feelings is aggression, while you said that I said that not prioritizing men’s feelings is aggression.
They’re quite different arguments.
@moldybrehd
Keep telling yourself that. Keep on, sister.
@LBT
Yes indeed, feminists actions are influenced by feminism. And should you change? I dunno what you believe.
The judgy screeching eagle is my new favorite. Maybe I should put a quarter in a jar every time I’m creatively insulted. Come on people, I want to go see a movie.
Come on, Mez! Post something even more clueless. My friends here like to be entertained!
(Raises eyebrows)
@MEZ
wowwwwowowow gonna try to get through this.
It was so obviously, no one could tell what you were talking about. But you know. Obvious. How often are you going to convince yourself that every single person here is misrepresenting your arguments before you admit that your arguments are real unclear.
most of them are misled? Okay, you’re in desperate need of a citation, because this sounds like bullshit to me.
……aaaannnnddd you seem to think women go around antagonizing men. You’re a sexist, plain and simple. Fuck off.
First, I asked that, not hellkell. We’re not the same person. And I can’t even make out the logic in this sentence. You’ve repeatedly made it clear that you think feminists are somehow responsible for the actions of men. You’ve repeatedly said that we aren’t being nice to men, we’re dismissing their concerns (something you’ve said without evidence) and that when, IIRC Cassandra, said she wasn’t there to baby them and be their mommy, you said that was aggression. Which it’s not.
Also, MEZ’s shtic seems to be “if a marginalized group is mean to their oppressors, they deserve to be oppressed”.
Fuck off MEZ.
Yes indeed, feminists actions are influenced by feminism. And should you change? I dunno what you believe.
Then what exactly makes feminism? It’s not like it popped out of the ground somewhere. It was created by people, who also don’t act in a vacuum. So you’re talking about how feminism is partly responsible for guys taking their balls and going home, but not about how their assholery is also partly responsible for feminism.
I’m not even sure what you’re arguing anymore.
MEZ,
http://media4.onsugar.com/files/2014/02/25/861/n/1922398/7a2b990915de37a2_3.gif.xxxlarge/i/Sure-Whatever-You-Say.gif
Me too! Wasabi and horseradish (and horseradish that’s sold as “wasabi”) are more of a mustardy spiciness than a capsaiciny chili-pepper spiciness. And yes, both wasabi and horseradish are great for a stuffy nose.
Now you’re arguing that hate groups only exist because people are mean to each other? Even ignoring that hate groups tend to be reactionary movements to (perceived) loss of privilege, even if it’s true that the KKK only exists because some black people are assholes, it would still be racist to start targeting all black people because some of them are jerks. If you’re being bullied by a black person and you decide it’s his blackness that’s the problem, you’re still racist. Hope that fucking helps.
Wait, wait, how are feminists constantly ripping off men?
GUYS I AM SO CONFUSED SOMEONE EXPLAIN.