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.
Yes, you care so much you’re accusing feminists of driving men to the MRM and scolding them for not being nice enough. Good thing it’s not a popularity contest, because you are completely full of shit.
@Anarchonist
Don’t stop your rambling a on my account, I like them 🙂 (tho stop if u want to, obviously)
I also had some weird nice guy shit internalized, tho thankfully I grew out of it. But I had a pretty skewed idea on what a romantic relationship should look like, and am glad I wasn’t in one in that period of my life.
Fuck you. Just fuck you. You’re false equivalency bullshit is just that, you pompous ass. You want to derail this discussion of women being abused and MRAs promoting that abuse to try to make Female Genital Mutilation that purposefully causes horrific damage to the body, life long pain and death to the things that occasionally go wrong from removal of the foreskin. That’s disgustingly dishonest.
Meanwhile, notice that I did not claim that infant male circumcision needed to be just as bad as FGM in order to be wrong. It’s not as bad. Men can still have orgasms. They do not suffer from tearing, sepsis, etc. It is not usually preformed with rusty razor blades or broken bottles. It is not done to men to control their sexuality and make them fear and have pain in sex. It is still wrong.
Not that you care. As long as you can divert out attention to you and what you want to talk about, you’re happy. As long as you get to minimize women’s suffering so that you can pretend that we’re doing something awful to men, you’re happy. You are forgetting of course that male circumcision is not an invention of feminism. It was not created and furthered by women. It is literally mandated by patriarchal societies and religions. You want to put an end to infant male circumcision? Then stop wanking off about how great MRM is and start smashing the patriarchy, you, useless,dishonest, sexist piece of shit.
Marie, no need to apologize. I was amused 🙂
Lea:http://www.reactiongifs.com/tag/orson-welles/
“Sexism is different than racism”
No, it isn’t.
::applause for all of what Lea just said::
So, according to you, pointing out that men are more privileged than women is bad because it’s playing oppression Olympics, but it’s OK for you to decide that racism is worse and more indefensible than misogyny? Fuck that.
You also sidestepped my point which is that it’s never OK to blame marginalized groups for their oppression. The blame lies squarely on those doing the oppressing. Just because there are problems that men face, doesn’t mean male privilege isn’t a thing and it doesn’t mean feminism is to blame for misogyny.
White people can be hurt by racism. What about interracial couples that didn’t used to be able to get married? And hey, my fair skin is a problem when it gets sunburned. That doesn’t happen to people with dark skin. None of that erases the fact that white privilege exists and none of that makes racism OK. So yes, it is a valid comparison.
Except it’s not. The MRM does none of the activism that feminists have spent decades performing — raising money for domestic violence victims, running shelters, seeking research grants, lobbying their elected officials for changes in laws, etc. And not only do they do no activism, they claim that all the work feminist activists have done for decades is “misandrist” because they don’t devote the time to men and men’s issues.
The MRM is a group of men who sit on the internet looking for women to be pissed at for the purpose of stalking, harassing, and terrorizing them, when they’re not busy sitting on the internet discussing how every major crime story can somehow be attributed to female misbehavior, or how most women are asking to be raped, or how women who are murdered had it coming, etc.
I’ve never commented on this site before, but wanted to after reading this one. My fiance was down in the dumps and looking for some solidarity when he came across a MRM group. I’m an avid feminist. We have an agreement to avoid political discussions, and this applied, so I avoided the issue. After getting in the trenches of the MRM, he realized very quickly how backward it was and asked why I hadn’t pointed out the problems with the “movement” before. At the end of the day, I think it boils down to the fact that a prince will typically act like a prince and a toad will act like a toad. All women know they can’t fix the men they’re in relationships with, so if you’re involved with someone who shows a real informed interest in these groups and wants to change your relationship dynamics to fit an MRM ideal, please realize that while you probably deserve a prince you are stuck with a toad. If pointing out the toadiness of his alliances doesn’t correct the problem, it may be time to leave. Nobody deserves to be stuck in a relationship with dynamics that prevent individual choice or agency. NOBODY! If that’s what he’s asking for, find someone who loves you for you and supports the person YOU want to be, rather than the person they want to be. Same for men who want an MRM ideal relationship. You can’t force a woman into that, but feel free to try and find someone who has the same ideals as you. She most likely doesn’t exist, but go ahead and try, and let your current partner do the same in peace.
@wierdwoodtreehugger
Eh. I’m not big on arguing whether white ppl can be hurt by racism. Tho I think your point is that even if a white person is affected negatively by something racist (not being able to marry someone) it’s because ppl though POC were lesser, and the solution shouldn’t be about helping white ppl? Like even if men aren’t seen as emotional, it’s because being emotional is seen as a womanly trait and men being like women would be bad by the patriarchy? But the solution still shouldn’t focus on men’s feelings. Idk did that make sense?
And that whole example was an intersectional fail on my part, since part of why is think racism and sexism don’t work great as a comparison is because it can make it sound like an either or, whenWOC experience both.
Yeah, did anyone else get skeeved out by the “well they can fix the complications to childbirth some of the time in some of the places” thing MEZ said in about fgm. It’s like, ignoring any other pain/complications (tho they care about the pain/complications cis men who were circumcised experience), b/c aren’t cis women* just good for babies?
*I’ve only ever heard circumcision/ fgm talked about in terms of cis people, so idk what the consequences for trans men or trans women who get circumcised or genital mutilated are.
btw, this is Fade. I hope it remembered my gravatar thingie, but if it didn’t i shall be kittyless.
@jayemgriffin
That may be true.
@hellkell
Let’s clarify; I don’t care how nice or mean feminists are to men and their “fee-fees”. I’m scolding some feminists for being out-right antagonistic to men’s issues, and the rest of feminism for not coming down on their asses. In the same way that I would scold the MRM for not coming down on the asses of the hateful bigots in it’s mist. (Probably mostly because the MRM has driven out anyone and everyone that is moderate).
@Marie
WHO CARES, it was not the point. The point was that she made a bad comparison. This is the kind of shit I was pointing out. “BUT WOMEN HAVE IT WORSE” when it’s not even relevant, or is outright obnoxious, to the discussion. I’m a woman, I know all about experiencing sexism, but I also know that automatically responding “I HAVE IT WORSE” is a great way to shut down discussion as now everyone fights over who, indeed, HAS IT WORSE.
You’re right, maybe calling them “terrible people” is an overstatement. I’ll think about this.
*why I think, not why is think
@anarchonist- excellent post!
@Bon O Bol
You’re talking out your ass.
Bancroft specifically points out in his book that in his work with abusive men that abusive mothers were not a factor but abusive fathers were a huge one. Which is not to say that abusive mothers are not toxic, in deference to you and all the other MRA illogical thinkers, but that they tend to cause different problems. It also is a complete fallacy that men abuse because of a bad childhood or bad experiences with women in the past, but you can read the evidence cited for yourself. Not that I think you would.
Ugh, so sick of people that believe that just because they “think” something it makes it true.
@fade
“Yeah, did anyone else get skeeved out by the “well they can fix the complications to childbirth some of the time in some of the places” thing MEZ said in about fgm. It’s like, ignoring any other pain/complications”
Yeah I agree that it is as skeevy as fuck.
@MEZ
“’m scolding some feminists for being out-right antagonistic to men’s issues, and the rest of feminism for not coming down on their asses. ”
Ah yes tell me more about how we should have a long conversation about how sometimes some feminists are mean to men. This is clearly most important issue. Priority.
““BUT WOMEN HAVE IT WORSE” when it’s not even relevant, or is outright obnoxious, to the discussion.”
Kid, your argument started that feminists aren’t nice nough to men. That we don’t devote enough time to men’s issues. I’ve never seen someone butt in a conversation about men’s issues with ‘but women’ but have experienced so many people (including you) interrupt with ‘but men.’ But sure, keep fighting that strawman.
Save your scolding because exactly none of the feminists need to hear it.
You’re so fair and balanced you’re about to disappear up your own ass.
I agree with you Marie, I was just pointing out the absurdity of Mez’s point that it’s OK to blame women for misogyny but not OK to blame other marginalized groups for the bigotry against them. See also: The people who say “I don’t hate gay people and don’t care about what they do in private, but why do they have to shove it my face?” or “maybe if you don’t want to be fat shamed you should go on a diet?”
I don’t really think racism and sexism are the same and should always be compared. I just think it’s wrong to blame the victim of any type of bigotry and made a really narrow and specific comparison if that makes sense?
I apologize if that was offensive though.
@
Didn’t say racism was “worse”. It was such a bad metaphor that I was honestly unsure what your point was and thought it was probably an ad hominem. If your metaphor was to point out that marginalized groups should not be “blamed” for their victimization, then yes, I agree. I don’t know where you got that I think women should be “blamed” for sexism, my point, again, is that feminism/women should not poo-poo men’s issues.
@fade
I just LOVE how comparing FGM to MGM “ignores” the pain of FGM. Obviously MGM is painless, and causes no damage, right, right? The childbirth comment was because that is the complication of Level1 FGM that can’t be compared to MGM; an increase in complications during natural childbirth. It has nothing to do with the nonsense about cis women “being just good for babies”.
Not an ad hominem. Not even close.
@weirdwoodtreehugger
“I agree with you Marie, I was just pointing out the absurdity of Mez’s point that it’s OK to blame women for misogyny but not OK to blame other marginalized groups for the bigotry against them”
That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying :3
“he people who say “I don’t hate gay people and don’t care about what they do in private, but why do they have to shove it my face?” ”
AKA my stepmom :/
“I don’t really think racism and sexism are the same and should always be compared. I just think it’s wrong to blame the victim of any type of bigotry and made a really narrow and specific comparison if that makes sense?”
That makes sense.
@mez
“don’t know where you got that I think women should be “blamed” for sexism, my point, again, is that feminism/women should not poo-poo men’s issues.”
Troll to English translation: I didn’t say women should be blamed (with scare quotes) for sexism, just that feminists, who try to fight for women’s rights, are too mean to men. I also said that feminists drive men to the mrm, and that people who don’t care about making feminism open to men have sour grapes, but taking my posts in context of each other is Meeaaan.
And not going to touch the fgm/MGM because a) it’s hard to type on this thing and b) I see fade working on it.
um….. no?
If you’re focusing on “it is horrible for men who get circumcised” and then say “Anyway, they can sort of fix the childbirth problems for fgm” and then go back to how much you hate circumcision….
i’m not the best at social skilling, but it seems like you were highly implying that fgm wasn’t that bad.
I mean, I don’t think they’re “the same” because circumcision involves removing the foreskin and fgm involves removing partial or total removal of lots of body parts (clitoris, labia), but very rarely only the fold of skin around the clitoris (which i think i is like the equivalent of foreskin on a penis).
I mean, I disapprove of circumcision. I think unnecesary modifications on people who can’t consent (like babies) is wrong. But I literally don’t think removal of lots of stuff is equivalent to removal of a little stuff.
what i’m really confused about is how circumcision got brought up at all.
btw, this is Fade. But wordpress hates me
You did that as soon as you claimed that men were driven to join a misogynist hate group by feminists that don’t devote enough time to men’s issues.
@ Bon O Bolishus
There are many things I could say to address your…urm…spew, but others have already said it better than I ever could. I would add only this:
And too many of them express their “pain” by beating, raping, verbally abusing and/or killing the women and children in their lives. Shall we all just go “Awww…poor guy is just in SOOO much pain. Show us where to kiss it and we will make it better?”
And this: (Turning my back and walking away, ’cause there are so many cool, intelligent and caring people to hang with here and I do not feel any need to waste my time with you. )
OK, time for something positive and on topic:
My teen daughter’s best friend is a guy who was hanging out with something they both now refer to as the COTD (Cult of the Douche) when they first met. He was shy and kind of awkward a couple years ago. The guys he fell in with were puffed up assholes who blamed all their problems on women and treated the girls they came in contact with like shit. He became like them. When he and my daughter first met, they hated each other. Then, something happened this year (IDK what) and he started hanging out with the same group my daughter was running with. The first time he made a “get back in the kitchen” joke around them, they tore him a new one. Instead of doubling down, he said, “I’m so lucky I met you guys. I was on a downward spiral, wasn’t I?” He was and though the girls helped, he saved himself from the fate of ending up like the douchecakes we mock here. Now he and the girls are inseparable.
How’s that for a happy turn of events?