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.
Thank you, Tracy 🙂
to Kim: “Being happy is not being unhappy.”
Kate, that’s an interesting quotation; do you know where it’s from? It seems to set the bar for happiness very low. I never think of happiness and unhappiness as an either/or – more like points on a spectrum, with different states between – contentment, neutrality, apathy, discontentment are a few that come to mind.
Damn, I shouldn’t start asking questions this late at night!
I’m going to go ahead and aim for something better than “not totally miserable” regardless of how Kate may feel about that decision.
@kitteh
Never said it was a monolith, we’re both examples of that. But IMO there’s a definite trend that it’s taking place right now. I’m not going to rehash the whole argument. 🙂
@Cassandra
“Why won’t she stop posting back to us!” they lament as they misquote her again and again. Like I’m going to sit there and allow my arguments to be misrepresented. And there’s no reason for circumcision to start a brawl, and I dropped it when asked. Although if you think I’m trolling for attention, there’s an easy fix for that-ignore me. Problem fixed.
You’re just pissed because you can’t get under my skin. After watching several other people get skewered during the past year over small shit and not being some raging misogynist troll I’ve figured out how some in this place roll. You’re bullies. You hide behind calling other people “tone trolls” when people point out that you’re being unreasonably aggressive and excuse it by saying that you’re tiiiirrrred of explaining things again and again and again. You dismiss criticisms as “men’s feels” and refuse to look at your own behavior. You are the perfect example of how the bullied can become the bullies. And, much like others in this forum, I’ve found the best way to deal with bullies is to continue feeding them until their brains run from their ears.
Quick, gather together, lick your wounds, and tell each other it’s not so! Find some way to dismiss me and my character, which OF COURSE means that you don’t have to look at yourself! Quick, quick, quick! I can be the biggest asshole in the world, but banned, dismissed, or whatever, I’m not going to be the last “tone troll” that comes here, and that has nothing at all to do with me.
And by all means continue mocking me. Calling me a FeMRA just makes me laugh at you. Although the winner is the person who said that I’m just trying “to lessen the weight of my master’s boot”. That’s given me enough giggling material to last me at least a year. Thanks.
Damn, that’s quite the grudge you’re holding there. I guess we really did get under your skin last time, huh?
Yeah, just being “not unhappy” isn’t good enough. I had years of being not actively unhappy (most of the time) vis-a-vis Mr K, and being generally meh/mildly happy about life in general, and no way would I go back to that after knowing what being actively happy is like.
::Plays world’s smallest violin::
If we’re such bullies, etc, etc, why do you bother coming back? You’re not going to change this site to suit yourself. Or is it that you have a real problem with boundaries? You know you’re not wanted and we think you’re just another pompous wanker, yet you just have to keep coming back.
@ Kittehs
I mean, don’t get me wrong, “not unhappy” is better than “unhappy”, I’m just not seeing any reason to promote that as the best someone can realistically hope for.
Already downloaded it! (thanks to LBT 🙂 )
Oh, absolutely, I got what you were saying; I was trying to agree. 😛 It’s a very low bar to set.
Setting the bar very low, even.
Hehe, why does this sound like every bully’s worst nightmare?
LOL nice one, Luzbelitx!
Merci, kittehserf *bows*
Also, I just found a Facebook page with a description of the abuser’s profiles in Bancroft’s book: https://www.facebook.com/notes/becka-nan-amos/abuser-profiles-from-why-does-he-do-that-by-lundy-bancroft/480862655302912
I find it fascinating, then a little scary, then fascinating again… I’m thinking of making a blog post about this, maybe also about how it matches the trolls’ behavior.
Feminist blogs seem to be like catnip for The Victim.
@Kate, I am glad that your relationship works for you, but I take major issue with this:
That may be your role in your relationship, but that does not make it every woman’s role in every relationship — not all of which, by the way, are monogamous, and not all of which are mixed-gender. In my relationship, it’s my partner who cooks and myself who does the dishes. Would it be reasonable for me to claim “a man’s role in the relationship and in the house is to cook. He has an obligation to make healthy meals because the health of the rest of the house is affected, for better or worse, by him”? Of course not.
MEZ: if you want to criticize feminism, fine. Just stop using MRA talking points to do it.
That was a lot of words to tell us we didn’t get under skin. It’s almost like…we got under your skin.
Did I wake up in 1955?
Wow, mezzy’s message is basically — bitches should be making sandwiches! And women are responsible for a man’s fee-fees!
Yeah, we know what a MRA dudebro sounds like, errr thanks.
Apart from all the other levels of stupid in the quote from Kate’s blog, feeling obligated to be in a good mood all the time sounds like a really good way to ensure that the person in question will often be in a very bad mood.
@Kate
I am all for your decision to structure your household and relationship however it may suit you and your partner’s needs, but I do take issue with describing this as an imperative for all women and their roles. I do not think I am solely responsible for establishing the tone of happiness in a relationship or a household. I expect equal contribution from my partner in pretty much all aspects. That dynamic you are describing places far too much responsibility on one person when a relationship is about both individuals involved, which to me sets up a scary situation where one person takes all the blame for anything wrong in a relationship.
It’s funny that MEZ’s err “arguments” have devolved into “nananananana I’m not leaving and you can’t make me!!”
@LBT
eeeeeeeeeeeeee
Thank you so much! ^_^
That’s a really good point. It’s essentially impossible to be happy all of the time, even by Kate’s (rather depressing) standard of “not unhappy.” What is more achievable is hiding your feelings from your partner and putting on a happy face. No thank you.
@cassandra
Nice serve back to me, but this isn’t about me. Hell, I’d even be willing to agree that I deserve everything I’ve got. This is about a pattern on your part, and on some other’s here, and in feminism in general. Take that kid that was blown up on the other day and then dismissed when he complained that his feelings were hurt. There’s a difference between aggressively defending against someone’s overstep and becoming the aggressor yourself. There’s a pattern here of “tone trolls” well beyond me. Wonder why.
@Shiraz
Yes, that is exactly my argument. Word for word. Also, “I don’t care about your ‘fee-fees’ but please take my feelings/voice into account” is exactly how the world works.
@hellkell
MRA’s aren’t stupid; they don’t pull their talking points from thin air. The use the things that are easily verified such as “feminists are often dismissive of men’s ‘fee-fees'” to build credibility on more controversial points.