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.
LOL I totally missed the “pour qui” myself.
Lol, you’re really talking out of your ass jayemgriffin, it would be really weird to say “vous” to someone below 50 in an informal situation.
I forgot a word in the sentence though, it must be “mais pour qui est-ce que tu te prends”. The verb prendre without a direct object, dear illustrious French grammarian, means in colloquial French “to regard himself as”, so the sentence means in English “who do you think you are”.
Fuck off, Brz.
I’ve never claimed to be an exchange student Howard Bannister, Pecunium made that up during one of his tantrums and you all took it for a fact when you could as well have asked me politely what was the purpose of my trip to Boston and I would have responded like the polite fellow I am.
I think it’s time to talk about anything else to cut off Brz’s attention supply.
Looking for a good pink nail polish, any recs?
Ahhhhh, she was being hostile to you, not sympathetic. How silly of me, assuming a woman would be nice to you. That was entirely my mistake; thank you for clearing that up with both your words and your behavior 🙂
@hellkell
Sorry, I don’t have any recs 🙁 but I am looking for good hair dye recs, if anyone has them.
Marie: what color are you wanting to do?
Wow, seems like trolls are just coming out of the woodwork today.
Not to doubt your story, Brz (*snicker snicker*) but since you typed the whole shit in English and suddenly reverted to French for a single quote, without explaining to those of us who can’t speak French what the hell the quote means in English, it just seems you’re trying to prove something to someone. What, and to whom, I don’t know*, but really, man. It’s pretty suspicious.
*Yes, I actually do, based on the comments of the regulars here, and by that passive-aggressive jab at pecunium, who isn’t present.
Idk, a really deep red? But I used to dye my hair a lot, I’m mostly looking for a good brand that 1) comes in lots of colors that aren’t just natural and 2) lasts at least six months without fading out. I got one I loved the color of once, but it only lasted about three weeks before fading 🙁
Reds fade super fast. Special Effects and Manic Panic have great colors, but the upkeep is hard to avoid.
Hellkell,
OPI is still the most long wearing polish I’ve come across. They have so many colors to choose from and most of them have funny names. I have not tried Urban Decay, but I’ve heard good things.
Marie,
Demi-permanent colors usually last longer than semi-permanent ones. I’ve also noticed that blues and greens will outlast reds, pinks and purples. I’m letting mine grow out now, but I’ve kept my hair technicolor for about a year now. I just use the strongest bleach I can find. (My hairdresser says it is better to use a strong one that you leave in for a shorter time than a weaker one that you leave in longer) Then I use Manic Panic. My hair is short, so a jar lasts a while and the colors mix well together. I put the color on and leave it on for as long as I can stand it. Then I “freshen” it once a week by combing a dollop through my hair to keep the color vibrant or pick a second color to put only on the tips for a two tone look. I think my favorite color is Cotton Candy (or is it Bubble Gum?) pink, but right now my hair is aqua from the Voodoo Blue fading out.
The only brand I would avoid is Ion. It washed right out of my hair.
There are better dyes and if you have know a hairdresser who will order it for you, you can get them. But, they’ll cost ya.
For nail polish, H&M has a great selection and is inexpensive. I don’t own pink, but I own deep purple, magenta, silver and turquoise glitter and am happy with all purchases.
For hair dye, Feria is my favorite brand. They have a lot of different reddish shades.
Marie,
Do not be fooled by how Manic Panic’s Vampire Red looks in the tub. You’d think it would turn out wine red, but it turned a bright tomato red on my daughter’s hair. It looked good, but it was not what she expected. Here is their website:
http://www.manicpanic.com/dyepage1.html
@hellkell, weirdwoodtreehugger, lea
Thanks for the suggestions :3
Thanks, Lea. I love me some OPI. I got a set of the Urban Decay Naked polish that I had to return–one bottle had dried out entirely, and the one I tried lasted three hours before chipping (with a top coat). The neon set I have from them is excellent.
WWTH: I wish we had an H&M here!
Beloved has been playing a lot of Fire Emblem lately and her muse has been singing.
So she came up with a precis for a similar game, set in a sword-and-musket era, based off an airship, and featuring persons of color and nonbinary folk. Like, the leader is the captain of the airship and is a woman of color and the roster includes a trans man and a person without a gender.
And then she got worried because she’s got all the privilege and she’s worried that it would be seen as speaking in the place of persons on the margin.
So I thought we might shop it around and ask some people, hey is this okay or grievously offensive and the first people that came to mind were you lovely folks. If you’d like to read a very rough script and notes, just drop me a line by clicking my handle and I’ll get it to you as soon as the babies let me.
Argenti’s busy with something, right? Is it the zine?
@misery
“. I worked as a volunteer at an organization that housed, say, “diagnosed people” and in that capacity I observed a lot of discussions between him and his best friend there.”
Um ‘diagnosed people’??? What do you mean?
“Of course it doesn’t excuse any support for abusers or any of the other bad things that MRA’s are involved with, and I also suppose it’s easier for me to empathize with them since I’m not one of their direct targets as the most they’ll call me is a white knight (such horror), but I think that on some level it’s still ideal to love even your enemy, if I can borrow a Christian phrase. :o”
You’re right, it is easier to empathize with people whenyou aren’t one of their targets. You can ‘love your enemy’ all you want, so long as you don’t expect the rest of us to.
@falconer
Sounds like a fun game 🙂 I don’t think I’d be a good proof reader tho, partly cuz my privilege (am white + cis) and also cuz my depressions been acting up a bunch and wouldn’t be able to guarantee hard working on it.
@howard
I can see how this got lost in the midst. My original post in this thread was a complaint about some feminists who went off about ANY comparison between MGM and ANY FGM, including the relatively minor ones. Either they aren’t aware how terrible MGM is, or they don’t care because, hey, men.
Even if you say that most complications aren’t “serious”, I’m going to look at ANY complication to a man’s genitals that originated from an unnecessary operation undertook as a matter of custom and looks as a VERY BAD THING.
What is a “serious” complication of circumcision anyway? Severe scarring? Mutilation? What? At the very least, most infants don’t receive anesthesia during the procedure, and that alone is harmful. Not too long ago there was a discussion going on here about the harms that spanking does to children, what about strapping a baby boy down and cutting off a nerve-filled chunk of his penis? “He’s too young to remember” my ass.
@fade
Not at all. I mentioned that the issues with childbirth could be mitigated because we’re comparing a procedure done on men to a procedure done on women, and men can’t give birth. Mentioning childbirth was a way to show that the fact that only women give birth doesn’t change things, not to show that FGM was somehow “not that bad”. I’ve repeatedly said that I view MGM as terrible BECAUSE I view FGM as terrible.
Am I clear now? I’m not always great at social skilling either. 🙂
@ weirwoodtreehugger
Yes, feminists are to blame, not “all women”. I think that feminists who scoff about men’s issues are partly to blame for the growth and the radicalization of the MRM. Yes, obviously feminism didn’t hold a gun to these men’s heads and force them to become assholes, but feminism makes men vulnerable to the MRM’s lies when it convinces men that it’s antagonistic to them.
Also, feminists shouldn’t have to devote ANY time to men’s issues; feminism is about women, not men. I’m criticizing feminists whom are openly antagonistic to men’s issues, not saying that they “should” devote more time to men’s issues. Did you miss the reasons why I said a MRM is needed?
Also, there’s no reason why we have to be nice to men’s “feels”. Kissing ass will never change anyone’s minds, it’s just a way to get more of the same. See lea’s story. But there’s a difference between an open discussion, with criticism and the like, and just completely shutting down the discussion by playing Oppression Olympics and blasting the other person.
I said it’s often the main gig addressing men’s issues, I didn’t say it was doing a good job, or even helping them. It’s a sad thing to say that the main movement trying to address men is actively hurting them and all the women around them as well.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
Why is the MRM needed? You never did answer that. What are these pressing issues that make an abuser’s lobby so necessary?
Feminists are the ones playing Oppression Olympics? Really? Strangely, I had thought that the people doing that were the “What about the Menz”
And why the fuck should women not shut down the discussion if it’s a discussion they’ve had over and over and over and ……over and over again. Because the Menz won’t bloody shut up! It isn’t a discussion feminists NEED TO HAVE!
I’m not quite sure that either Elam or Thomas Ball is completely equivalent to Hugo S. Manipulative narcissists? Check. But after all, once feminists figured out what a shit Hugo was, they tossed him out of the clubhouse. Elam still has lots of supporters, whom he’s still happily exploiting, and Ball is still treated as a martyr, despite his history as an abuser and that whole terrorist manifesto thing,
Maybe Peter Andrew Nolan? Though MRAs are still happy to use the doxxing info on his website to harass women.
@MEZ
” My original post in this thread was a complaint about some feminists who went off about ANY comparison between MGM and ANY FGM, including the relatively minor ones. Either they aren’t aware how terrible MGM is, or they don’t care because, hey, men.”
Troll to English translator: my original point was some feminists, somewhere, did something I don’t like, so I had to derail ths whole thread with it.
“Even if you say that most complications aren’t “serious”, I’m going to look at ANY complication to a man’s genitals that originated from an unnecessary operation undertook as a matter of custom and looks as a VERY BAD THING.”
Keep on fighting those strawman.
“At the very least, most infants don’t receive anesthesia during the procedure, and that alone is harmfu”
Yes, and nobody has said it wasn’t harmful. Ffs.
“Not at all. I mentioned that the issues with childbirth could be mitigated because we’re comparing a procedure done on men to a procedure done on women, and men can’t give birth.”
Cis men can’t give birth. Trans people, like, exist, you know. If you want to say cis men can’t give birth you should probably clarify who you’re talking about, so there’s not so much erasure.
“’m criticizing feminists whom are openly antagonistic to men’s issues, not saying that they “should” devote more time to men’s issues. ”
Okay, I do not think this is a thing that happens. I do believe feminists can be dismissive towards men’s issues, in that feminists are people and people can be jerks, but it seems like you are talking about a secrecy group of feminists who tease men, and I have yet to find them.
Ps, all your wanking about how you don’t blame feminists for men joining the mrm doesn’t mean that you aren’t blaming them. Because you total are. Either you don’t get what you’re words are implying, or you do, and are just trying to keep up some plausible deniability here so everyone doesn’t see you as a raging misogyist.
“Did you miss the reasons why I said a MRM is needed?”
No, didn’t miss it. Otherwise I might be taking you a smidgen more seriously.
@MEZ No one here has stated that male circumcision is a good thing, but you treat greater concern over female circumcision *as the same thing* as being okay with MGM. Disingenuous bullshit.
Right… no further argument necessary – here’s a clear statement of your stance. The MRA is totes the fault of feminism, and not toxic masculinity. Not going to bother reading anything else you post here – your lack of empathy for women’s oppression is clear. To quote Lea, ‘fuck you’. You’re just a concern troll, hoping to make other people’s lives more miserable (assuming you actually consider women human) in hopes that your master’s boot won’t be as heavy. Again, fuck you.