So I was interviewed a while back by All Things Considered for a segment on men’s rights activism. The segment, part of their “Men in America” series, will be running today. All Things Considered starts at 4 PM — at least in my time zone (Central); you’ll have to do the time zone math to figure out when it starts for you.
You can listen online here. The segment will also be archived on the “Men in America” web page; it should go up sometime this evening.
Hopefully the segment will include some comments from me. But you never know. Should be interesting regardless.
EDIT: The transcript is up here; audio will be posted on the same page at 7 PM eastern. They included a couple of quotes from me.
I haven’t heard the segment yet, but reading the transcript i have to say the piece is pretty poor, giving MRAs in general and Warren Farrell in particular way too much credence. More on this later.
“Somebody told me this thing led to Narnia, but all I got was the lousy Lindbergh baby”
I have only caught bits and pieces of the series and have largely been happy with it. Lots of people questioning traditional gender roles for men. The problem I have consistently found has been a tendency of the interview subjects to talk about “men” vs “boys”. Though this is largely a language problem. The people are generally talking about the difference between a person’s age and their maturity when this comes up. I just bristle because the same language is also used by people when they are gender policing.
Grr I ran off on a tangent with giving you a kudos. Congrats, David! I will listen when I have a chance.
Segment just started on east coast feed!
David made it on. 🙂
And it looks like they’ve already got the transcript up: http://www.npr.org/2014/09/02/343970601/men-s-rights-movement
I’m not even going to glace at the comments. It wasn’t an unqualified rave, so the angry will be thick on the ground.
Well, I’m glad they included some critical comments from me and from Gwyneth Williams, but I have to say I expected a lot better from NPR. It was much too sympathetic to what is in its essence a hate movement devoted to harassing women.
How do defamation laws work with respect to calling a group a “hate group”?
I agree whole-heartedly that most of the MRM its a hate group, but I’m not sure that the hypothetical civil jury representative of the US population might be convinced enough to render damages.
Wow… You weren’t kidding when you said they were way too sympathetic. It described Warren Farrell as if he was the guy with good ideas in a movement that unfortunately had a few bad apples and has strayed from the path a little.
Yikes.
Eh, not impressed with NPR either. It was like thy were trying to go for that faux-neutral thing by presenting both sides as equally valid. At least they seemed to end on a critical note.
Underwhelmed, but glad you got on…they didn’t bring up Eliot Rodgers, when perhaps they might ought to have.
Indeed, way too sympathetic to the MRA loons. It almost makes Farrell and Elam sound reasonable. Too bad NPR did not do its own in-depth research to find out exactly who they are dealing with.
it’s pretty hard to sue for libel and win in the U.S.
That photo at the top of the transcript. Look, the conference was full of people, and full of WOMEN because you can see one right there in the center of the frame!
Okay, NPR.
This story definitely went out of its way to seem evenhanded, without bothering to touch on the “but what are they doing about these things?” question beyond the quote from David.
Underwhelmed.
Ye gods, the comments:
He must be kidding, right? Right?
Good job, David!
Listening now!
Congrats on getting more exposure, David! It is well deserved. You do a great job.
“As a white male, I can tell you it has been an uphill struggle all the way. Having to constantly prove your ability. Having to watch how you dress, how you speak, and who you associate with. Looking out at the world and seeing that the potential for financial and social advancement is limited.”
If him and other white guys actually feel this way, it makes me happy. It means that there’s been some chipping away at white, male privilege. Heaven forbid that mediocre white men don’t get financial and social opportunities handed to them simply based on the fact that they’re white and male. With all the far-right and libertarian claptrap I see oozing from MRM discourse, I thought they would be a-ok with meritocracy…you know, proving yourself.
“And don’t even start about political opportunity. It’s getting harder and harder for a male to get elected to office. And once he’s there, he has to watch every move he makes. Don’t drink. Don’t be too bossy. Don’t have extra marital affairs. Don’t get fat.”
Complete bullshit. I think he actually meant to say “women” here. If he actually meant men, then cool, people should be assessed on the same standards, especially when their innane (i.e. physical appearance). White dudes should be given the same scrutiny as women and PoC. However, I really don’t think this is the case.
“Men have a hard time perusing their religious beliefs. The female centered religious establishments have made it difficult to practice our spiritual rights.”
Did every world religion do a complete switchero while I was taking a nap and supplant male leadership with women?
“When will the matriarchal “powers that be” recognize us as almost half of the human population?”
Dude, I know you feel like that the entire world should revolve around white dudes but really, we don’t make up half of the world’s population.
Grilled Cheesus, the whiny entitlement of that whole comment.
Doh – “they’re” not “their” in my second paragraph.
That comment has to be sarcasm/satire. It has to be. It has to be.
…I hope it’s satire, I was just about to remind y’all of Senator Vitter… Likes his call girls to make him wear diapers.
Is it just me, or does it really sound like a baby crying in that whiny sentence?
@blahlistic And Anthony Wiener gets run out of office for some consensual digital cheating. To be fair, if he were a woman in the same situation, the conservative pundits would still be beating that drum.
Didn’t Dr. W.T.F. already answer this question, and wasn’t the answer already something like “date fraud”? I remember how he talked about young men joining the army after despairing due to repeated incidences of going on a date, paying for it, and then not getting sex.
I was heartily disappointed in the piece, honestly. While I can understand trying to be neutral, they ended up completely whitewashing a great deal of horrible things that Elam has said and done. It wasn’t until the comments that “Bash a B” month was mentioned and his refusal to convict any man of rape, even if he obviously did it are still not being discussed.
I did see a lot of handwringing and criticism of the “white upper and middle class women” that cling to feminism and never, ever give a single fuck about racial minorities or other marginalized people.
:::Facepalm:::
Also, aren’t feminists asking similar questions and then getting accused of misandry for pointing out that most school shooters are male? Aren’t feminists also getting accused of not caring when they express sympathy for a man who committed suicide?
(These are all rhetorical questions.)