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.
Are…you serious? Tell me you’re trolling tell me you’re trolling TELL ME YOU’RE TROLLING.
Quick anatomy lesson;
a). The clitoral hood is the foreskin of the clitoris. LITERALLY. The clitoris and penis are homogolous.
b. And here’s a less meaningful anatomy lesson since you seem to be mistaken; they never remove the whole clitoris. The clitoris is huge and extends deep inside the body of the woman. Not that this changes anything, as I’ve never thought that chopping off the entire head to my clitoris without anesthesia would be anything but bad and do anything but bad things to my sex life, but the more you know.
Yes, 3rd world men can’t be expected to wash under their foreskins before sex. Trufax.
The foreskin’s “job” is to protect the sensitive skin of the rest of the penis from getting calloused by constant rubbing and bumping. While removing the foreskin can temporarily increase the sensitivity of the penis (which isn’t of much benefits to infants), over decades this lack of protection can have a deadening effect even if it doesn’t lead to complete sexual dysfunction. But I will explain this more later! With statistics!
Is MGM as sexually damaging as female circumcision? Obviously not the more extreme forms. But I’ve been thinking about what some of the women here have said, and I’m prepared to admit that I’m wrong about the amount of sexual damage done by the less extreme forms as well, not that I ever thought it was good for sex. It’s something that I’ll do more reading on.
Holy shit, what’s in this douche that it permanently amputates part of my genitals? Granted I’ve never douched because I know it’s bad for my PH, but damn, I just always thought it was only saline solution and fragrance.
Well, I’ve never personally seen a commercial for douche, EVER, but that’s besides the point. Despite every major medical group saying that routine circumcision is not medically necessary, some doctors and society at large sell circumcision to parents. Why not; circumcision is a multimillion dollar industry. Which is more convincing…. a tv ad with a clear angle or your entire culture?
The rest will go under a trigger warning, for a brief surgery description.
[graphic description of tying down commenter here and circumcizing him removed by DF]
In return, you can give me a douche without anesthesia. Sound good?
That was longer than I thought. I will get those statistics-tomorrow. I don’t have to drive an hour to get behind a paywall to engage in an argument I’m feeling is meaningless this time. Also, I cut this out, maybe I should have left it in. I thought it would prompt “cool story bro” responses. It’s not important, but maybe it’ll explain my POV on this a little bit.
If it amuses you guys, I’ll tell you guys what partly inspired my opinion. I was in another feminist group, at another time, and from what I remember some other feminist had suggested/agreed to a compromise where a drop of blood would be ritually draw from a girls clitoris to satisfy the custom of “becoming a woman” that female circumcision represents to some cultures. She was being roundly ripped to shreds for this suggestion. Even one drop of blood was too much. I don’t remember specifically how male circumcision got brought up, (it wasn’t me), but I do remember that I left disgusted. It was basically like the argument from above; male circumcision is analogous to douching.
So now we’re responsible for random arguments you had with other feminists in the past? Damn, I knew you had a talent for holding grudges, but who knew they were transferable?
…How did douching get into this?
I think we’ve become the official outlet for every issue that MEZ has ever had with any feminist anywhere. Kind of makes sense why she gets so pissy when people say “I’m not your mom” now, huh?
I am sorry about the derail.
I thought it was a good example of what was being discussed in the thread before me- why some men feel more comfortable in the MRM. All I can see in intactivism is MRA-types, and it drives me fucking nuts. Now that I’ve come down off my obstinate asshole high I feel bad for trolling yesterday as well.
And that’s why you’ve been going at it for two days.
Gah, I see MEZ is back, and as tiresome as ever.
Stop being intentionally obtuse. It’s been pointed out that removing only the hood isn’t done often, and removing some of the clitoris is usually done. The clitoris extends deep inside the body, but I imagine that doesn’t matter because good god, I can’t reach most of my clitoris. massive TMI coming on, but I tend to only use the outer part I can reach when masturbating, and if it was removed, it’d be a fuck a lot harder to masturbate.
Also, please read Pencunium’s post, since he a) adressed your points and b) is a better person to respond to them, seeing as how he mentioned he had been circumcised.
Yeah, cuz vagina’s being nasty and icky (and needing to be douched) hasn’t been ingrained in our culture at all. *eye roll*
Cute how you totally ignore the person who was circumcised responding.
And good god, stop responding to people like you want to do violent things to them (that description, directed at someone, wtf). Can you try not to be a terrible human being for once.
Better idea, tomorrow just don’t come here, and leave us all alone.
@katz
Freemange said that circumcising boys was no worse than girl’s douching.
@MEZ
So… you’ll be leaving? Please say yes.
Are we supposed to care?
Seconded.
This is you off it?
Yeah, pretty obvious that I don’t care for this person in general so take this with plenty of salt grains, but that seems like a step into bannable territory to me. Way, way too much detail and way, way too much pleasure taken in the idea of physically torturing a person for the terrible sin of disagreeing with you.
@cassandra
Nope.
@Marie
Obviously I don’t want to do violent things to him. That’s a literal description of a circumcision procedure. I was contrasting it with douching.
@MEZ
You were directing it at someone, (you described “I do x to you”) and you seemed to take a disturbing amount of pleasure in it. It was very creepy. If freemage (that’s who I think you were talking to) isn’t bugged by it, I’ll back down.
@cassandra
I agree.
Oh, and Pecumium’s argument is that circumcision is okay because babies don’t remember and children don’t understand what circumcision is or is not.
a). Babies remember, even if it’s not a conscious memory. Every experience influences how their brain forms.
b). Even if they really didn’t remember, causing someone pain because “they won’t remember” is wrong. I don’t even want to make an analogy here, because any single one I would make would be horribly triggering.
c). Just because he’s learned to live with it, and maybe isn’t bothered by it, doesn’t mean it’s ok. If I found a woman that said FGM is ok because it didn’t effect her life, I would still think doing it to children is wrong.
If anyone would like something else to chew on, a troll just showed up at Feminist Borg.
One big difference between FGM and circumcision – I’ve never seen an online discussion by men on discouraging circumcision derailed by feminists who come in and demand “what about the women?”
The reverse, however, is depressingly common.
I hope freemage wasn’t too creeped out, but even if he wasn’t I’m not convinced that makes it OK.
@MEZ
Did you even read what he wrote? Go back and re-read it.
nobody is saying it is okay you are battling a strawman.
@cassandra
yeah, I don’t think it was okay either. But I’m probably not going to waste my energy arguing over it with MEZ if he’s okay with it.
I agree, reading about the procedure in explicit detail is very disturbing. That’s literally what they do, I put it under a trigger warning for a reason. Guess I made it too personal, I wanted him to see, front and clear, what happens during a circumcision. To really identify with it, and to realize that it was something more than douching.
I got ZERO pleasure. I wouldn’t circumcise a paramecium, never mind another person. I think circumcision is disgusting, remember?
@ Marie
Yeah, if she doesn’t instinctively get why that was crossing the line it would probably take a whole lot of effort to explain it in a way she would understand, and I’m not inclined to put in that effort with someone I’d rather just not deal with in the first place.
@MEZ
No shit.
Now can you fuck off, and not bother us anymore?
BTW, anyone who is feeling a bit creeped out, there’s brain bleach in the other thread.