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.
@lea
That is a good turn of events 🙂
Lea: My heart, it is warmed.
Look, there is a difference between “is often” and “could be in the future, if it was a totally different thing”.
And the fact remains that the MRM as it is, is doing even more harm than it would by not existing.
I agree some men might find it appealing, if they have no clue as to what it is about, and have no clue about feminism either. But even that is far from “the biggest gig in town”.
TL;DR: MRM is actively harming men’s cause. Anything, even nothing, defeats that.
I’ve been following your blog for quite sometime, primarily because I’ve been trying to understand my habit of getting involved with abusive men.
My last marriage was the doozy of all doozies……yet my ex-husband does not fit the classic domestic abuser profile. He *is* someone, however, who is horribly entitled in his thinking.
He is also someone who has recently become VERY interested in “men’s rights,” In fact, his divorce attorney is supposedly an expert in “father’s rights” in divorce. Though I’m not too worried about him seeking custody of our daughter. I’ve just found his interest in men’s rights quite fascinating given what I’ve learned about his abusive patterns, and what I’ve seen of his male entitlement view point.
He is classic men’s rights, father’s rights material. And quite frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if he hasn’t already found his way to the “abuser’s support network” He would fit right in.
Sending support to everyone reading who has experienced abuse, both those who have shared their experiences in this thread and those who didn’t.
I have observed all sorts of weird shit, all sorts of “explanations” and insights on the reasons why people belive to be into kink.
Community trends vary a lot among different groups, at least those I attended in person.
I’ll remember and knock next time. 🙂
Things MEZ is handwaving:
“Level 1 FGM”
It maybe the most common form, but not by a lot. The others are more horrific.
Secondly: Level 1 is usually a clitoridectomy.
Just let that sink it. This is the least harmful version. Without complications.
And he’s comparing that flatly to male circumcision and putting them on the same level.
Nope.
Source.
I mean, let’s leave aside the categorical handwave; there’s no more extreme form of male circumcision to compare to FGM. To drop out the 20% of more extreme cases is like saying ‘let’s not count any of the cases of complications among male circumcision.’
After all, cases of complications are a heck of a lot lower than 20%, right?
Source.
The hat in the picture reminded me of this:
http://cdn3.nerdapproved.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/the-credible-hulk-600×410.jpg?874fb4
Clearly, the Credible Hulk is not an MRA.
PS: the rate of complications in male circumcision ranges from 2-8%, and is mostly classified as ‘non-serious.’
Source.
I can’t believe I missed Brz’s little gem from upthread. I’ve had it for a while with assholes who love making up shit about the world, so I’m just going to snark at this. Anyone who wants to pick it apart with thought and care is naturally free to do so.
Read more at http://www.shitthatneverhappened.com! Now with free t-shirts! The t-shirts don’t really exist either! And free cake! But the cake is a… eh, you know the drill.
Sucks to be treated the way you treat women, doesn’t it?
Other things MRAs say, as stated by people who don’t understand MRA rhetoric and ideology:
1) We don’t hate women!
2) We care about male victims of DA and rape!
3) We support equality!
4) We love kitties!
Voulez-vous coucher avec moi (ce soir)?
Voulez vous coucher avec moi?
Creole lady Marmalade!
Brz’s original comment is here: https://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/05/06/domestic-violence-expert-lundy-bancroft-mens-rights-philosophies-make-angry-and-controlling-men-even-worse/comment-page-2/#comment-480598
Wait, there isn’t actually a website called shitthatneverhappened.com, is there?
Anarchonist: Brz is a known strain of blog herpes, who’s a giant liar and most likely isn’t even French.
But this, oh Lord:
Brz: if you gave the barest of fucks about boundaries, you would not be coming back here. We’ve asked yo to leave how many times? Yet here you are with more shit that never happened.
Thomas Ball. That was easy.
Paul Elam.
Not a Francophone feminist, then. “Supporter” is the verb for taking something in the sense of “putting up with,” not “prendre.” Also, lack of a direct object. Wow, it’s almost like someone literally just made this up!
BUT WHY DO YOU TAKE????
(Also unlikely that said young feminist would be addressing him with “tu,” unless she was either well acquainted with him or intentionally being disrespectful.)
Based on the comments I’ve seen here recently I have written a dialogue that sums up what the MRAa and MGTOWs have been posting . I’d like the Mammotheers to add to it or write their own, if they feel like it.
MRA/MGTOW: I had a girlfriend who was mean to me* (aka didn’t kiss my ass and wipe it as needed). So, all women who don’t act like doormats, mommies and sex toys are dehumanizing me! Feminism is ebil! I have it soooo hard!
Woman: I’ve been raped, assaulted, harassed and abused by various men. I’ve been taught that I am responsible for preventing my own rape, so I have to assume that any man can be a rapist and take precautions accordingly.
MRA/MGTOW: Misandry!!111!
*See also, “She cheated on/dumped me because she’s a slut and women only want big dicks. How dare she want orgasms? Who does she think I am, JesusBuddhaGandhi?”
@hellkell: Ah, I see. Sorry, didn’t mean to bring attention to him. I know from experience what annoying pests cold sores are, particularly if you have made the mistake of touching them.
@jayemgriffin: Well, he did claim he had a relationship with said feminist. Why any feminist would put up with him long enough to be in a relationship with him is beyond me, but since he says so, it’s bound to be true. I mean, why would he lie? He seems so trustworthy.
…Brz is pretending to be a native French speaker again?
@jayemgriffin: You nailed my problem with translating his bit of dialogue pretty easily. I can’t believe I spent that long trying to think what else prendre means, because the sentence wasn’t making any sense.
Not even remotely French, Brz. Go foutre yourself.
Some history there; Brz claimed to be an exchange student in Boston. Hilarity ensued. Becase you can say, ‘well, I didn’t mean to say that horrifyingly misogynistic thing, it’s my second language,’ sure, but then when you start dropping French and you’re… um… well, Brz, welp, you see where this is going.
@Anarchonist: Alright, then, I’ll give him that literally one word of that is plausible.
And- can’t believe I missed this- I’m assuming he just misspelled “pourquoi,” because otherwise that is one of the worst manglings of “for whom” that I’ve ever had the displeasure to read. Am I being pedantic and petty? Yes. Does it amuse me? Also yes.
jayemgriffin–there are some people who I will cut slack, when they make mistakes. Some I’ll point them out in a jovial and friendly way. Some I will politely ignore.
Brz? Nail him to the fucking wall. This is a guy who hates feminists and tries to pull down feminism every chance he gets, a guy who defends violent misogyny. He gets zero slack at all.