These include articles on the regressive nature of the so-called "men's rights" or "masculinist" movement "The New Men's Movement: Retreat and Regression with America's Weekend Warriors," with Michael S. Kimmel. Feminist Issues, v. 13, n.2 (Fall 1993), pp. 3-22;"

Here is an interesting blog outing the real agenda of the men's rights movement.

And a US group: National Organization of Men Against Sexism

I certainly agree with the fact that male sex role expectations have done great harm to some men, straight or gay, and that sex role stereotyping limits all human beings. But putting "men's" demands (usually those of heterosexual men) on the same level as the continuing struggle against the oppression of women confuses the issue, I think wilfully.

The women involved in the World March of Women and the Women's Charter for Humanity www.ffq.qc.ca certainly think achieving gender equality means fighting for all people of either gender and any age who are subject to poverty and violence.

[ 17 May 2005: Message edited by: lagatta ]

quote:

---

But putting "men's" demands (usually those of heterosexual men) on the same level as the continuing struggle against the oppression of women confuses the issue

---

I was thinking of what's the best way men should be involved in feminism, after reading this discussion.

Let us remember that there are many forms of feminism and many forms of men's right activism or "masculinism".

Some forms of feminism are bad and some forms of masculinism are bad. Not all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
The women involved in the World March of Women and the Women's Charter for Humanity www.ffq.qc.ca certainly think achieving gender equality means fighting for all people of either gender and any age who are subject to poverty and violence.

---

That sounds very promising and I wish it was true. However, when speaking with feminists or reading feminist text, I encounter most of the time attitudes that either

- try to nullify all violence that is targeted to men or

- see (almost) all men as violent abusers.

For example, when the first Finnish "Crisis center for men" was founded, feminists tried to define its highest goal as "Helping violent men to become less violent".

Now that the center has been running for a year or so, the managers have noticed that the most common form of crisis in their customer's life is divorce. Men take divorce very seriously and are more likely to commit suicide after divorce than women. The biggest factor raising the deppression and suicidal thoughts among divorced men, is when they loose the custody of their kids.

Another common crisis among the customers of the crisis center is violence. Yes, a lot of men suffer from domestic violence but do not report it to police because they are afraid of being ridiculed.

After reading this, are you still ready to fight against ALL violence?

[ 19 May 2005: Message edited by: SosiologiR ]

quote:

---

After reading this, are you still ready to fight against ALL violence?

---

Reputable scholars have proven that violence in the home is much more likely to result in serious injury or death when perpetrated by men against women than when perpetrated by women against men.

quote:

---

Originally posted by fern hill:
James: write to audra.

This is an excellent opportunity for us to practise what may be coming as new troll-ignoring policy. With this one, I've had no difficulty -- his prose style puts my back and troll-sensors up.

---

Well, fern hill, I'll do so, though I have a feeling that audra "watches" much more of what goes on here than she ever lets on to.

And, if so, she'll know that I've had my "differences" with 'socio-whatever from day one.

It's interesting, isn't it ? That each of us has our own "sniff test". For my part, this one and and a particularly 'silly" goil somehow fingered my button before most others.

You and I were minted in the same year, and may thereby have somewhat similar sensibilities on these things.

[ 23 May 2005: Message edited by: James ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Granola Girl:
Reputable scholars have proven that violence in the home is much more likely to result in serious injury or death when perpetrated by men against women than when perpetrated by women against men.

---

Please, give me a reference to such a study. I have only two references:

quote:

---

Makepeace, J. M. (1986). Gender differences in courtship violence victimization. Family Relations, 35, 383-388. A sample of 2,338 students <1,059 men, 1,279 women> from seven colleges were surveyed regarding their experience of dating violence. Courtship violence was experienced by 16.7 % of respondents. Authors report that "rates of commission of acts and initiation of violence were similar across gender." In term of injury, both men (98%) and women (92%) reported "none or mild" effects of violence.

---

That means that there are 4 moderately or severely injured women for each man. An other quote:

quote:

---

Archer meta-analysis that was published in the 2000 edition of Psych Bulletin. Archer looked at previous research on domestic violence and found that 38% of the injured persons were male.

---

That means that for each injured man there are 1.6 injured women.

NOTE: I have no motivation to exaggerate this to either direction. I am only interested in finding an unbiased and scientifically valid result.

[ 23 May 2005: Message edited by: SosiologiR ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:
Conversely, I've heard enough to definitely label SosiologiR as a troll, and worse.

---

James, you are underestimating me. Actually, I am a double troll as I am accused of being troll both by feminists and by men's right activists.

A double troll - that is pretty evil!

[ 23 May 2005: Message edited by: SosiologiR ]

I've no time for any 'men's rights' movements per se, a moment's thought identifies them as a negative (perceived threat) reaction to ongoing feminism. But doesn't the logic of the enterprise of feminism inevitably lead to an examination and hopefully redefinition of masculine identity?

And, like any 'new' 'movement', either feminist or, er, masculinist? (yeesh, that hardly rolls off the tongue), can't we actually find abundant examples of this new 'male' type already under our noses, just, kind of, unrecognized?

I think Lagatta has stated it well in the opening entry where she notes that male sex role expectations have done great harm to some men...it's reminiscent of Hegel's master/slave dialectic. We (men) are as diminished by these traditional constructions as women, surely?

The project of feminism has only just begun, it will take a century or more of vigilant effort to realize it. Inevitably though feminism must move beyond the initial legitimate indignation at the manifest ongoing subjugation of women, built into 'their' traditionally defined role, to a point where it might make useful contributions to men's efforts to construct a healthier, more socially useful identity?

As a man, I'm tired of sitting about in the company of men in various work environments and noticing just how little these poor dumb motherfuckers can truly express themselves; how impoverished their language, how petty and silly their allotted role...

I guess I don't hold out much hope that any 'men's rights' movement will be in the vanguard of any progressive attempt to redefine 'male' roles, but that shouldn't blind us from recognizing the disparate, inchoate stirrings among 'men' that signify a searching for some new definition...and I suppose at the outset there will be a lot of stupid, awkward and embarrassing blundering, including the hidebound reiteration of hideous failings from the past, can we correct these, but with some understanding?

And can it not also be noted that elements identified with feminism may not always be entirely wholesome? There is a place for anger and rage, God knows, a big place for it, on the part of women ( I remember my mother, dutifully returning mail addressed to Mr. and Mrs. - my father's first name, my father's last name, etc.)...but while understanding these legitimate emotions shouldn't we strive to transcend them and find some peace?

I don't know what I'm getting at, quite. I had an email from a friend today complaining of his three year old sons current acting up, his doctor indicates its because this little fellow is experiencing the heightened testosterone levels that come at this time...its something men have to deal with, it shapes our behavior and our perception of the world; it comes with all sorts of nasties like a predisposition to violence...it misses the point to reactively discuss women's violence against men, we should be dealing with an innate, biological proclivity that men have to behave in this way.

I think we risk getting bogged down when we fixate on violence - on the mundane level it needs to be addressed, obviously and we see society slowly addressing this - but since it's such an emotional issue it risks derailing the greater goal of finding acceptable gender-based roles for both sexes.

Pity the wretched, pathetic male! Life is hard for them (us) as well, as our relative life expectancy indicates! There's an old fellow in an apartment below mine, he walks with a limp and always smells bad; every day I see him shuffling off to the shop with his cloth bag of empties. I've no idea if he's miserable or not, but he typifies, for me, this pathetic male. Without the greater social skills society has traditionally granted women, he seems to have nobody, no circle, no friends, no community.

Working in my neighbourhood with poor people, I know exactly what you mean about your neighbour. There are isolated women too, and women with substance-abuse issues. But so many men who wound up living in bedsits or small apartments wouldn' t even bother preparing proper food.

I assure you and all babblers of good faith (non-trolls) that what I said was not out of a lack of concern for humans of the male sex...

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
Here is an interesting blog outing the real agenda of the men's rights movement.

---

Lagatta, I read your reference. In there the guy said that the problem with men's right activists is to see feminists as enemies, not as potential allies. So, I have several times in this forum tried to find whether men could actually be allied with feminists.

1. In my post about domestic violence - in this forum and in a masculinist forum - I tried to find out whether feminists and masculinists could agree on scientific research and statistics. The answer seems to be that both the feminists and masculinist are so filled with anger that they can not agree even on statistics: When telling masculinists that there are 4 injured women for each injured man in domestic violence incidents, the masculinists do not believe it - and when telling that the number of female to male violence is as common as male to female violence, the feminists do not believe.

2. Then I tried to find out whether feminists and masculinists could both share equality of the sexes as a value and the answer seems to be that masculinists value equality but most feminists do not. (Please, correct me on this one, if I have misunderstood).

3. I was told in a Finnish forum that feminists and masculinists do actually share the idea that the bipolar gender system harms men too. Here I have found out that most feminists actually think that all talk about the discrimination of men or "harm to men" is politically incorrect and some kind of a proof for anti-feminism. That kind of attitude surely removes any chances of masculinists and feminists being allies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Look, I refuse to play nice with you SocioR.

---

No problem, I can still play nice with you

quote:

---

You are clearly men's right's obsessed

---

Obsession is too strong of a word. I see that men do have rights and I am against discrimination of men, if such an instance may be found and proved.

quote:

---

, you can't seem to grasp even simple feminist concepts,

---

Please, give me an example of a concept that I have misunderstood.

quote:

---

and you always post your pro-men's rights rants in the feminist forum.

---

I am pro men in such a manner that I am not anti-men. How ever, I am not anti-feminist eather. Most of my posts are serious attempts to get a better understanding of feminism. I came here with a very open mind, viewing feminists as potential allies in the fight for the equality of sexes, and in the fight against all forms of discrimination against sexes.

quote:

---

I'd, for one, like to not see you here. You are not a woman

---

Who says that one has to be a woman to write about feminism?

quote:

---

you have zero to say about feminisim besides how it hurts men (in your passive-aggressive way).

---

I think that feminism is still needed to improve the women's status on the labour market, economy and in political decision making. (That was positive was it not?)

quote:

---

In short, you are annoying and pertsonally, you appear to have serious issues with women IMO.

---

quote:

---

Again, it is is a stellar example of a male using his privilege (education, time, elitist language and an insistence on faultless empiricism) to drown our female discourse and dialogue.

---

Granola it's not that. He's trolling you. I am completely convinced he's utterly delighted with the discourse he's creating.

This isn't some guy stuck on himself and his opinons overwhelming the feminist forum.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hailey:
Fern Hill, James, etc are right. He's just trolling.

---

But we do not have to defend feminism to him. This is our space, for us to discuss our problems, ideas, etc, refine thoughts, riposte with feminist-positive people or ay least open minded people. Why let him take it over? He's obvioulsy antagonistic to feminism and doesn't care about listening to anyone else's idea or points of view.

[ 24 May 2005: Message edited by: skdadl ]

I brought up Michael Kaufman because he has written several interesting books and articles about such gender issues, indeed about the harm male stereotypes can cause to certain boys and men, straight and gay, but is at the same time blistering about the "men's rights" or "masculinist" movement, whose real agenda seems to be a return to times past and stripping women (and gay people of both sexes) of what few rights we have one by decades of struggle. But I'm sure there are other authors who are equally interesting (men and women), and babblers have lots of ideas and examples of their own.

James, while Audra is fabulous in so many ways, it's unreasonable to expect that she is all-seeing, or that she'll feel a need to do something if only one person complains. The more people who have issues with certain behaviour - and let her know about it - the better the chances she'll respond quickly.

Give Audra the handle of the particular babbler, the title and URL of the thread with the offensive material, a sample of what you're complaining about, and a brief description of why you think it runs counter to the board's policy.

[ 24 May 2005: Message edited by: writer ]

He infuriates me. Once he's gone, I'll come back. Off to another website for now.

Clearly there is a difference between male feminists and men's rights activists. The lines can be blurred so easily that it impairs the trust between women and like-minded men which would seem to be the motivation of men's rights activites.

Men's rights activists use the most basic definition of feminism, that being gender equality, to draw attention to the areas where they feel men are treated unequally. Although men may experience inequality in some form in some circumstances for various reasons it should be dealt with separately from women's issues because women are not the cause of the inequality. If men feel they are unfairly treated in custody cases that has nothing to do with feminism. Men create inequality for women and men create inequality for men but women are not generally the source of inequalities.

There are men that understand feminist issues (as best a man can) and are committed to the cause, not just for the sake of their wifes, daughters, sisters, and mothers, but also for their own sake and societies greater good. As such, I get enraged by men's rights activists because I see it for what it really is...a backlash against feminism. The current power structure in our patriarchal society looks something like this:

men > women
caucasions > visible minorities
heterosexuals > homosexuals
rich > poor

I'm glad Lagatta raised this issue because it is sometimes very difficult to tell legitimate men's movements apart from backlash movements. I like what Michael Kaufman's wrote in the blog spot Lagatta posted when he said:

quote:

---

But where the men's rights movement falls flat on its face is when it chooses to see feminists not as allies, but as opponents.

---

I think that's a really useful way to differentiate between men with genuine questions and concerns about gender politcs and men who are simply threatened by feminism. I think the willingness of these groups to engage with feminism in a positive way is going to be a good way for me, at least, to distinguish between groups which are genuinely interested in equality and those that are just angry about the strides women have made (and hopefully will continue to make).

[ 24 May 2005: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]

quote:

---

women's expectation on what men should be like?

---

One would be lead to wonder what sort of expectations really exist. And of these expecations which are truly oppressive. And to be oppressed by someone don't they have to have really power to affect your life and deny you your rights as a person. Under true oppression people have died, not felt obliged to pick up the tab for dinner.

Well, what if you're a guy who DOES notice lint, and is really keen on keeping the whites seperated from the reds on laundry day? Will people around you question your identity as a man? The fact is, some will. And it really isn't any different than what feminists come up against when the stereotype of the man-hating, hairy-legged feminist is invoked to bring into question our identity as women. Both the ultra-feminine and the butch are stereotypical, just as the macho man and the fey fella are, and the perpetuation of such stereotypes is as unhealthy for men as it is for women.

[ 25 May 2005: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]

quote:

---

Under true oppression people have died, not felt obliged to pick up the tab for dinner.

---

We are told repeatedly that sexually abusive males were abused themselves when they were boys.

Okay. I can buy that.

We are told various statistics but generally speaking more girl children are sexually abused than boy children..but girl children do not , by and large, grow up to be sexual abusers.

Okay, I used to buy that. I guess I thought well, how could we , we don't have the weapon used to abuse.

Then that started to feel simplistic.

Now I am very uncomfortable with that idea and I am asking for feminists to wade in and help me clarify my thinking, which I warn you in advance , is a tad fuzzy here.

No, guys, please, don't wade in, go deal with your own shit, please.

Especially socio-hole.

I have this very uncomfortable feeling that girl children who are sexually abused often grow up to choose men they intuit will be sexual abusers and so when these men sexually abuse the daughters of the women who were once sexually abused the mother is "sorta kinda" what, a passive sexual abuser, a sexual abuser by proxy,

I got tangled up in all of this because in the past couple of years I have met too many women who are the mothers of girls who have recently been sexually abused and just a few minutes listening reveals the mom KNEW the abuser was, in fact, an abuser and still did not keep him away from the kid.

A specific case in point. A woman who is the mother of a nine year old girl disclosed that her uncle had sexually abused her. Charges were laid. Half a dozen other adults came forward to say they had been similarly raped as children.

So the nine year old has the same birthday as a female relative in a nearby town and the mom thought it would be great if they had a joint birthday party. She doesn't have a vehicle. But she accepted a ride FROM THE ABUSING UNCLE who was out on bail pending trial and HE drove her and the nine year old to the birthday party, then he stayed and ate cake and drove them home again. The mother said and I quote "well, I told her not to be alone with him and not to trust him.".

But this is a nine year old kid. Nine year old kids know they're supposed to pick their dirty socks off the floor and put them in the laundry but you still wind up doing it for them half the time!

SO what now? IF he abuses the kid (and why wouldn't he?) is this mom going to say it's the kid's own fault, after all she was warned?

I am having real trouble with this because I am so ANGRY with the mother I can barely keep a civil tongue in my head.

I know the damage done by sexual abuse , I know often a part of the personality splits off seeking a safe place and remains perpetually childlike or even childish...I KNOW all this..I've given workshops on this, in the past people PAID me to give talks on all this...

and I am disappointed in myself and my angry reaction
and I know we cannot control our emotions we can only control our response to our emotions, what we DO about what we FEEL is up to us...

I know all that and I am fuckin'well MAD.

And how often does something like this happen? And is it not sexual abuse to as good as set your daughter up to be fucked by the very perv who fucked you when you were a girl?

Please, I really need help with this.

How many of the mothers who claim "I didn't know he was...." were child victims themselves?

Have we as feminists started to come to grips with this?

I do not intend to stir any ghosts for anyone, nor is it my intention to just kick off a shitstorm. This uncle was given three years. We all know he'll be out in a year and a half. He lives very close to some of my grand daughters... and we all know I am not always the coolest head in the cabbage patch.

I'll admit here that what I want to do right now is just blow the bastard away when he steps back out of the penitentiary..but what about this woman who set her nine year old up like that...do I blow her away, too?
(hey, if he goes near my grand daughters I"m apt to blow the entire stinkin' world away!!) ((and I don't even own a shotgun!))