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.
Wait, did MEZ just do a bunch of ‘splaining to freemage…about his penis?
To the folks who stepped up–no, I wasn’t particularly bothered by that bit, simply because MEZ’s opinions in general don’t matter much to me.
MEZ: Yes, I compared the long-term medical effects of douching to the long-term medical effects of circumcision. They’re both fringe-cases in terms of frequency, with a very small sliver of the population being genuinely left traumatized. They are Things That Should Not Happen, because they provide little to no benefit to the vast majority of the population, and do cause harm greater than the benefit they provide–and the severity of the medical consequences for those who ARE adversely affected are very similar.
As for the biology lesson… yes, I’m aware that the majority of the clitoris is inside the body. That’s part of the point. Many women require the portion that is externalized to be stimulated. Therefore, cutting off even a bit of that small portion is a major deal; for men, a sizeable portion of the sensitive regions is fully accessible outside the body, and so a similarly small cut is not going to produce the same limitations.
As for the bit about male circumcision in the third world–like it or not, there’s ample medical evidence showing that in Africa, at the very least, male infant circumcision reduces both AIDS transmission and infections rising from, yes, poor hygiene. STDs could be reduced by increased condom usage, and infections by improving access to running water, but until these steps have been taken, MIC at least has some medical benefit in that part of the world–and FGM, no matter what variety you care to focus on, does not. That is why the two are not comparable no matter which part of the world you’re in.
Fuck you. If you feel so bad, just fucking leave. You won’t be missed.
I’m sorry you had such a bad experience with other feminists, but if you were as much of an asshole there as you are here, I can see why that happened.
Just…fuck you.
:: applauds for freemage ::
…All of that contains a distinct lack of apologizing.
So basically MEZ is the feminist-hating feminist blog troll equivalent of PETA, and she’s going to attempt to shock and horrify everyone into agreeing with her.
I think MEZ got a LOT of pleasure out of her scenario. She entertained herself if no one else.
Actually you know what that comment made me think of?
Except that I quite like Steve Martin.
Mez keeps on not addressing my points on why you can’t blame an oppressed group for giving credibility to the oppressors.
Of course not. Not when she can still double down on the circumcision = FGM false equivalency!
Classic MRA troll move. Cling to strawmen while ignoring other commenters valid points!
Oh, and did anyone think she just told us that she knows Pecunium is traumatized by his circumcision even though he said otherwise. Between that and the creepy comment to Freemage, it looks like the only one being rude to non-asshole men around here is her!
I hope Freemage and Pecunium don’t decide to join the MRM now :/
So I go off and have a lovely day with my younger nephew, planting on my allotment, eating chinese food & talking the day away. I come back & what is happening:
Mez is still obsessed with circumcision, still making insulting comparisons with FGM which downplay FGM and still calling us a “screeching mob”. She has decided that the way to deal with disagreement is to go on the offensive, again, As in truly truly offensive. Dear gods, Mez, condemn us as heartless harpies one last time, wipe the dust from your shoes and GO AWAY! You will be happier for it and I know I will.
Ransompester is still apparently drunk posting and not yet recovered from the horror of being mistaken for another troll. Guess it hurt to realise he was just not that memorable. Maake sure you hydrate & take a couple of analgesics or you’ll regret it in the morning, RP.
Don’t be silly, of course she knows more about Pecunium’s genitalia than he does, and if he doesn’t feel bad about said genitalia now then hey, she’ll soon fix that (or at least try).
WWTH:
Yes! And its so fucking annoying!
Oh, the other thing she’s kind of reminding me of, though again, not nearly as cute or funny.
MEZ is done here. The violent comment directed at freemage was the final straw. Is is really that hard to make a point without resorting to violently threatening language directed at an individual? Apparently it is. Go derail discussions somewhere else.
Kate,
I’m glad you’re happy and in a better place now.
Weirwoodtreehugger,
I thought of another fictional guy would, though covered in skin, would still make a perect Men’s Rights Redditor.
Mr. Gone.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_EI_u8aF7NZg/TLNi4mEn9lI/AAAAAAAAAAk/Z2RsI3Cc_tU/s1600/Mr.+Gone.jpg
Julie: You, however, have a problem with women.
Mr. Gone: [scoff] How perceptive… did you figure that one out when I kidnapped you, or tied you up with leather straps? OF COURSE I’VE GOT A PROBLEM WITH WOMEN!
RE: contrapangloss
I feel for certain men’s issues, and I hate the ‘but my hurt is bigger than your hurt, so shut up about your problems and deal with mine’ things that occasionally crop up.
Here’s the thing. I’m an educator. I go around and constantly explain Multi 101 to folks. This is part of my life, I am mostly used to it, and I am generally totally okay with doing what I do. Sure, sometimes, I really have to bite my tongue when I hear yet another iteration of, “Are you dangerous? Because everyone knows multis are axe-murderers…” But it’s my topic, and I’m the educator, so I smile big and gently explain that there has never been a multi serial killer, and only one high-profile criminal who’s been proven multiple in all of recorded history, and I cite statistics, and then I go scream into my pillow at night.
Mammoth is the one place pretty much anywhere that I feel okay just saying, “No. You don’t get to ask me this shit.” So sometimes, these newbies who get crossfired are doing the equivalent of coming up to me and INSISTING that I explain that I’m not an axe-murderer to them RIGHT FUCKING NOW or I’m a meanie who doesn’t care about their feelings or sense of safety. Also, they might throw in how they knew this multi once who was a total asshole, so I’m under an onus to prove I’m not like that.
Replace ‘multi’ with ‘women’ and you basically have a bunch of the folks who get fried here. Only multi, at least you have the excuse that there’s not a lot of info about it. Women and feminism have tons. So yeah, of course we’re going to get pretty annoyed about having to educate. Mammoth ISN’T an education space. It’s a mockery space.
RE: katz
Is anyone else reading Saga?
I tried, but I’ve had to swear off Brian K. Vaughn for his penchant for “rocks fall, everyone dies” endings. Plus, Saga just really didn’t do it for me.
RE: MEZ
Now that I’ve come down off my obstinate asshole high I feel bad for trolling yesterday as well.
And yet, you are still here.
RE: Robert
I’ve never seen an online discussion by men on discouraging circumcision derailed by feminists who come in and demand “what about the women?”
I can’t believe I never noticed this.
The funny part being that they seem to think feminists are Cenobites.
OK, that made no sense with the comments in between. The Cenobite thing was in response to Lea.
THANK YOU, David. I just emailed you about that, so ignore it, you’re way ahead. 🙂
Thank you, David. I was pretty grossed out by the, “No, you ARE traumatized by this! I’m going to MAKE YOU realize how traumatized you are by this by going into it in DISTURBING DETAIL!”
I know some sexual assault survivors who did not see their assault as hugely traumatic. I may not understand this emotionally, but I’m not going to try and FUCKING TRAUMATIZE THEM to prove my fucking point. Only in some way this is worse because unless MEZ has a dick, she doesn’t have any business claiming any authority on the subject.
MEZ, congratulations. You’ve grossed me out.
RE: Lea
OMG MR. GONE. The Maxx was one of the first comics I ever read! It inhabits a special place of adolescent nostalgia for me! Sam Kieth = awesome.
I realise this is probably a bit late, but this jumped out at me as needing translation:
In plain english this means, “I wouldn’t have to argue if you were willing to agree with me”.
We can finally move on now? Awesome. Happy dance, everyone.
LBT, that’s totally fair.
My apologies if I’ve ever made you feel like you had to be in teacher-mode, here. It doesn’t sound fun. 🙁
A few weeks ago, I was talking to my younger son’s therapist, and mentioned something I’d read in a pro-circumcision piece – advocating it on the basis of ‘he’ll wonder why his penis doesn’t look like his father’s.’ How on Earth would that happen, I wondered; I myself have no idea if my father had a foreskin or not (odds are no, but still). She replied, with exquisite tact and diplomacy, “well, Robert, there are all sorts of families.”
I guess if the kid bathed with the dad they might notice, but I’m not sure why dad couldn’t just explain it away as adults looking different or something.