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.
@weirwoodtreehugger Ah you ninja’d me. Without turning this thread into a debate about circumcision, (unless you guys want to), there’s different “types” of female circumcision, and male circumcision is not all rosey. It’s a surgery, with risks, and men can be mutilated by it.
@MEZ
“And that’s my point. The MRM is needed to support the changes that men need to make in society, but it’s being increasingly radicalized, and IMO feminism is contributing to it. As long as men stay the same, gender roles in general will stay the same.”
Um wow okay I would reaaaallly like to hear why you think the mrm is needed. Because that begs explanation.
“I never said “we must coddle and do the work for teh menz”, a sexist belief on it’s own. I said “we shouldn’t poo-poo men’s issues”, which does happen. For ONE example, I gave the Oppression Olympics that can occur over circumcision.”
Yes, but feminism isn’t about men’s issues. And I don’t think people have collected research on this, but personal anecdote here seems so far that there are way more men bringing circumcision in as a derail that women poo pooing it.
“”If a feminist being mean to them drives them to the mrm, they weren’t worth having as an ally anyway.”
Good luck making changes to society with those sour grapes.”
Cute. So me not wanting to coddle little fucks like the mrm is sour grapes. Troll harder, little man.
MEZ paraphrased: without turning this thread into a debate about circumcision, let me ramble about circumsicion
I have known a few people vaguely hostile to feminism, one who turned MRA, immersed himself in the Spearhead and AVFM. But he burned out after about a year.
Quite pathetic really, conspiracy theorist, heavy drinker, no confidence with women, a bit immature. I think there are plenty of MRAs like him who stick around longer.
In a sense, some MRA theory is quite clever – take guys who have no confidence and drum into them that evil feminists hold that they have privilege. They don’t feel privileged, they feel scared of women. Tell inadequate guys that the sexual rejection that they feel isn’t their fault, it’s women’s – they just want alpha guys.
It’s lowest common denominator stuff, but it works.
But, and this is a bit but, when almost the entirety of your movement is comprised of people with confidence and inadequacy issues, then your movement isn’t going anywhere fast.
If you look at the most prominent MRAs about today, quite a few are failed writers. They only audience that they can get is amongst an anonymous crowd of embittered online troll.
The calibre of person involved in the MRM is exceptionally low. The puerile antics, badly organised events, preposterous theories – it’s just a clusterfuck of stupidity.
And that’s why the movement doesn’t really exist in the real world. And that’s why so few “activists” actually do anything.
I was actually referring to the first sentence I quoted:
Saying “I think” doesn’t excuse you if you’re providing a statement that can be easily proven as false.
Did you read the article up there? “Domestic violence expert says MRM philosphy makes violent men more violent”?
This means feminism is already better at addressing men’s issues even by doing nothing at all . Not fueling misogyny is infintely better than fueling it. Period.
Apart from that, it’s usually feminists who fight to get assisstance centers for victims of violence, which might not be specifically targeted for men, but male victims are usually welcome (I dare you to find a headline of a guy being kicked out of a rape crisis center for being a guy).
So the onus is on you to prove you have even the slightest reason to believe “the MRM is often the biggest gig in town when it comes to actually addressing men’s issues. “
Having just read this thread, I want to point this out:
The MRA supporters here are whining that women just don’t pay enough attention to them and that they don’t feel welcome to vent their anger and frustration at women, poor widdle babbies. They argue that MRA is great, because it confirms their victim mentality and how mean and alien women are.
The feminists are pointing out that the people who have ABUSED them used MRA talking points and even if they were not identified as MRAs, they shared the misogynistic and erroneous worldview MRAs promote.
I’m completely disgusted that these assholes would read this post and comments and STILL have the nerve to whine that they just have it sooooo hard and women just don’t do enough for them. Fuck those guys.
I don’t think anyone should be circumcised as an infant. But, so help me glob, if MEZ starts claiming that FGM is remotely like male circumcision and isn’t all that bad, I will come unglued.
@Bon again,
Um, yes, every parent should do this. This is neither an unfair expectation nor a specifically male one.
“It’s not that I’m wrong, it’s just the women don’t like having their beliefs challenged!” Can you hear yourself when you say shit like this?
Many men have things of value to say. Dismissing MRAs =/= dismissing men.
@MEZ
Do they actually argue that it’s not as bad, or do they just point out that bringing it up in discussions of FGM is a derail? ‘Cause I’ve seen a lot of the latter, but never the former.
Do you even understand feminism?
Tone argument with a side of threat. Good job, buddy.
You do realize this is just another variant of forcing feminists to prove they don’t hate men, right?
So it’s feminism’s job to keep men from staying the same?
Says the person arguing that feminism is making me become reactionary misogynist MRAs. Sour grapes all around, I guess?
Not enough nopes in the world for this statement. You are placing the blame on the marginalized group for not deferring to the privileged group enough. That’s crap.
We live in a misogynistic culture. That’s why we needed feminism in the first place. That’s why there is a backlash against feminism. It isn’t my fault some men are misogynists. It’s their fault.
You sound like the kind of person who thinks anti-black racism will magically disappear if black people will just stop wearing saggy pants and listening to rap groups.
I meant rap music. No idea why I typed groups.
This is exactly what I wanted to say, particularly in response to the circumcision comment. Because I guarantee that Mez is glossing over how those discussions actually go down. This is how they invariably happen. The topic of discussion is female genital mutilation, and the derailer completely ignores the points being made and launches instead into a tirade about male circumcision in Western countries. Any attempt to steer the conversation back to FGM is immediately shut down by the derailer, who then will later report that “feminists think there is nothing wrong with male circumcision.” In actuality, feminists are tired of our discussions being derailed and usurped. It is a known silencing tactic, and we don’t have to put up with it.
I think the biggest problem with the MRM
The biggest problem with the MRM is the same as the biggest problem with the “National Association for the Advancement of White People” and the “Christian Defense League” and the people behind the “Straight Pride” parades.
They’re all reactionary movements dedicated to preservation of the status quo, or to rolling things back to a mythical past that would be even worse. Then they try to hide this by using the rhetoric of progressive groups, and they get upset when it’s pointed out that they’re not fooling anyone.
is that the MRM is often the biggest gig in town when it comes to actually addressing men’s issues.
Because it seeks to preserve the status quo, the MRM is incapable of addressing men’s issues.
For example, I’ve heard many feminists argue with MRA-types over male circumcision being “not as bad” as ANY type of female circumcision
This is a good example. There are organizations that are actively working to stop male circumcision. The MRM has nothing do to with those organizations. Their sole contribution is to try to hijack discussions of female circumcision by demanding that everyone talk about male circumcision instead. Like I said, they’re not fooling anybody.
Marie, I think your autocorrect went a bit rogue on you. It took me a bit to figure out what “breve ritzy” was, but I got “chili vary” right away. Oh, Apple. You have the strangest ideas of what words people use.
The MRM never has and never will be needed because men are not oppressed. It’s just that some men suffer from the side-effects of patriarchal gender roles. Of course there can (and should) be men’s shelters, men’s support groups, support for male victims of sexual violence and/or abuse, meaningful dialogue about male circumcision rather than uncritical cultural acceptance of the practice, etc. But none of that needs to be contained under the umbrella of a movement.
@jayemgriffin
Yeah, sorry about that. I got some of the autocorrections, but couldn’t catch them all 😉
I want to spam every MRM board with this.
The argument that men are mistreated because they cannot stay in DV shelters is such a dishonest gripe. I’ve been on the board of a DV shelter. No, men don’t stay ten to a room in a shelter where other people’s crying babies can keep them up. They and any kids with them get a hotel room to themselves until such time as they can be placed in an apartment of their own. They receive all of the counseling, vocational rehab, etc that the women get. That’s hardly a disadvantage.
Wow are they ever missing the point… The effects of a strict and vicious patriarchy are a major theme throughout the series. How the hell can they miss that?
YES.
@Lea
Ah, here it is, I was waiting for this. This one isn’t an opinion; demonstratively male circumcision absolutely can have the terrible consequences that female circumcision can have. This is especially true in the West where level 1 FGM’s consequences to childbirth can be treated. That you assumed that I was going to say that female circumcision was “not that bad” by comparing it to male circumcision demonstrates one of two things; either a. you are unaware of terrible consequences that male circumcision can have, or b. you don’t care because it effects men. I’m guessing that it’s (a.) more than (b.), but in that case why even bother join the argument? Yes, shit like this does make it look like feminism hates/doesn’t care about men.
And, in case you missed my point; I’m saying that both male and female genital mutilation are fucking TERRIBLE, and should not be done to infants. An argument about which one is “worse” is obnoxious.
@emily
Most often they’re arguing about a derail, which is obviously a fair point. I do the same-tell “what about teh menz” to shut it. However, occasionally I see feminists flat out say that MGM < FGM, usually as an response to a derail, and occasionally just because they're asses. They're terrible people either way, and the day that feminism in general comes down on their hateful ass, the happier I will be. You guys are obviously free to disagree (and some of you will).
Didn’t realize you were a guy, emily. 🙂 Maybe not specifically you, but you have to admit that male feminists are rare in this society. Why is that? Protecting privilege is obviously part of it, but is there anything else?
Also, I’m not an MRA (as it stands today), and not even a man. Not being a MRA (as it stands today) is a good thing, so certainly no sour grapes here!
@Luzbelitx
Because it’s the only movement that is specifically addressing men’s issues. Let me be clear- I do no support the current version of the MRM that is all about privilege and supporting abuse. But I do think that as a society we need a MRM in general, because I think that men need groups to support them as they change their gender roles. And, IMO, men do need to change their gender roles, otherwise women are limited in how much we can change ours. Unless we all go our own way, or something, which I don’t think many feminists have advocated since the 70s.
Mostly, I’m lamenting my belief that the MRM needs to get it’s act together, focus more on social justice and less on HATE. It can happen, not to many feminists mar art or burn down buildings anymore. I think feminism feeds into this dichotomy that fuels the radicalization of the MRM.
@Marie
Fair enough point. I was feeling out if there was room in this thread for a discussion of circumcision or if people wanted to leave it be.
And it doesn’t bother me any if you guys want to call my opinions “assfax”. 😉 I’m looking for a discussion in this, as I care about feminism. I’m not looking for some popularity contest. 🙂
@mez
“They’re terrible people either way, and the day that feminism in general comes down on their hateful ass, the happier I will be”
Dude, you may find ppl saying fgm is worse than mgm tactless, but that doesn’t make them terrible ppl.
“Didn’t realize you were a guy, emily. 🙂 Maybe not specifically you, but you have to admit that male feminists are rare in this society. Why is that? Protecting privilege is obviously part of it, but is there anything else?”
First part of that: ???? Second part: protecting privilege, not thinking it’s their problem because it doesn’t affect men, misunderstanding what feminism is about, or having valid complaints (ie, mainstream feminism focusing more on white cishet abled women). Plenty of reasons for men, or anyone, not to call themselves a feminist. Why is this relevant?
@weirwoodtreehugger
Not at all. Sexism is different than racism, and society uses different carrots different sticks to enforce it. There was never any real disadvantage or harm to white people from keeping blacks as slaves, hilarious rants about “the white man’s burden” aside. On the other hand, gender roles DO hurt men, so it’s a pretty poor comparison.
@Luzbelitx
if you’re still around can I ask you a questions?
So I have to admit to not really knowing much about BDSM or the kink community but my former roommate was pretty involved in the subculture socially (participated in online community, had friends in real life and online that where also kinky, attended ‘munches’ with them etc.) So I met a bunch of self-identifying kinky ppl irl and heard alot about ppl online.
Anyways I noticed this weird trend, specifically in ‘dominate men’ (I got schooled on mistakes in gendered terms like dominatrix and dom…..or was it dome…..anyways…). There seemed to be this recurring theme of men who always had reasons to naturalize their kinky-ness, specifically their dominate-ness. A few of them would speak very insistently of how unnatural ‘submission’ was for them and why(often extending it to men at large). Among them some seemed to be trying to ‘shrug’ their ‘dominate responsibilities’ with their ‘natural inclination for violence’ (this came up in a convo with my roomie’s boyfriend’s friend when I mentioned being ‘on top’ seemed to require a degree of responsibility and care on their part in order to be safe).
Of course this didn’t go for everyone I met, most of the people where great and all cool ‘sane, safe, consensual’ type people.
Obviously I don’t have the most experience with this stuff and was wondering what you observed?
Thanks, kittehserf, marie and emilygoddess! Trying my best.
And count me in with the people who don’t see the MRM bringing anything positive to the table. For a very short, very self-absorbed, very embarassing period in my life, I actually believed some of the so-called Nice Guy rhetoric. When some meeeeeeaaaan feminists didn’t care about my fee-fees and told me I was full of shit, I was totally shoved into the arms of the MRM and totally became a bitter, misogynistic asshole and that’s totally the fault of feminists who didn’t care about my manly tears.
No, wait, that’s not what happened at all. Because I’m not an asshole unwilling to see fault in myself and incapable of changing my ways, I took their words to heart, took a long, hard look at myself and thought: “They’re right, I’m full of shit.” And then I made an effort to change, and I changed, because that’s what halfway decent people do when made to see their full-of-shitness. They don’t start blaming others for their unwillingness to change. My point is, the MRM would only have told me I was feeling as I did because women are evil. Then they would have told me to “man up” and made me donate money to Paul Elam. They are the ones promoting a victim mentality.
Funny thing with that is, I’m fairly convinced that most of men’s issues in society actually somehow relate to misogyny. So, despite feminism not being about men, it does a whole lot of good for men as a side effect. Certainly more than the conservative, reactive Abusers’ Lobby ever will.
And now I will stop these random ramblings on this thread.
@MEZ
“On the other hand, gender roles DO hurt men, so it’s a pretty poor comparison.”
::judging the fuck out of you:: yes, sexism and racism are different, and comparing them doesn’t always work well. But to your point: GENDER ROLES HAVE NOWHERE NEAR THE BAD AFFECT ON MEN AS THEY DO ON WOMEN. It’s like saying you hurt your hand punching someone. Maybe it hurts you, but you hurt someone else a lot more, amd the whole action was yours to do. (Replace ‘you’ with ‘men’ and the punch is patriarchy. W/e. I’m not good at analogies)
MEZ, I understand where you’re coming from, but I don’t think the MRM as it exists now can be reformed. All of the groups that I’m aware of that specifically address male issues in a non-sexist way have to specifically distance themselves from the MRM, which doesn’t bode well for its rehabilitation. Better to let it collapse and build something new.