Feminst interviews Men's Right Advocate

[Soldier of the One]

Fascinating article in The Atlantic: a queer feminist interviews a Men's Rights Advocate. The piece is not short but provides a great analysis of the flaws of the MRA movement while also pointing out the social circumstances that leads to the oft-experienced frustration of some men. I thought it was really insightful.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archiv ... _page=true

 

 

Quote

My first call is to Stephanie Coontz, author of A Strange Stirring: The Feminine Mystique and American Women at the Dawn of the 1960s and the forthcoming Intimate Revolutions. Both of these books grapple with the social consequences of what she calls "the masculine mystique." "The masculine mystique is the flip side of the feminine mystique," she tells me from her vacation home in Hawaii. She continues: TFM promised women security, protection, and fulfillment if they rejected any individualistic aspirations and embraced their supposedly natural traits of passivity and emotional dependence. TMM promises men success, power, and admiration if they reject all forms of dependence and embrace their supposedly natural ambitious and competitive drives. TFM made women ashamed if they had any feelings or desires that were supposedly "masculine"; TMM makes men ashamed if they have any feelings or desires that are supposedly "feminine," compelling men to constantly assert and defend their masculinity.

A few months ago, Coontz published an op-ed in the New York Times, arguing that "women's progress by itself is not a panacea for America's inequities," and called for men's liberation from "the pressure to prove their masculinity." Citing three new studies in the Journal of Social Issues, her article observes that men who flout traditional gender role expectations by prioritizing family, taking paternity leave, and making childcare and housework central to their lives experience professional discrimination and social stigma.

 

Liza Mundy, whose book The Richer Sex explores how women are outpacing men in ever-growing numbers in a knowledge-based economy, adds that men who fail to make as much money as their wives also face social contempt: "I found that men in families with breadwinning women are stigmatized by friends and family especially in-laws, who send the message that they're inadequate and lesser."

 

And:-

 

 

Quote

But I wonder if feminism's assumption that being male necessarily situates men at an advantage makes it harder for feminism to address the struggles unique to men. By diminishing male-specific challenges, feminists fail to recognize that women's progress hinges on understanding that antiquated standards of masculinity hurt both sexes and are linked to men's unstable relationship with the family.

 

Despite all the negative consequences of maintaining a fundamentalist's belief to his cause—alienation from his siblings; rejection from girlfriends who scoffed at his proclivity for skirts or ridiculed his masculinism; frequent harassment from T.V. producers for his appearance; the habitual trivialization or misapprehension of his values and ideas—Feit doesn't mourn his losses or his struggles: "I'm sometimes sorry that I didn't marry and have children," he tells me at the end of the NCM shindig, "but I have never regretted my work." He's even optimistic about the future: "Some young and progressive women," he says on my way out the door, "realize that their long-term self-interest lies in an honest gender equality that includes the concerns of men. My vision of equality contemplates a wonderful intimacy between the sexes. Maybe women will someday agree with me."

 

Maybe this article lends us an insight into the fundie construction of anti-feminism.

[laura oz]

I read the article and wish I could channel my inner Julia Sugarbaker from Designing Women...it was really thought provoking and I felt that the author bent over backward to present his views objectively and fairly. However, I feel the word feminism gets a bad wrap in today's society. Maybe it's named incorrectly and should just be called equality. That's really all I want. To be treated not less than, nor more than, just...equal. Wish I had that dragon software cause I'm sure I could talk about it more fluidly than I can hunt and peck it :lol:

[Soldier of the One]

Agreed, Laura Oz. I oscillate between using 'egalitarian' and 'feminist'. Egalitarian because it doesn't seem to rattle people the same way but it also feels like a bit of a cop-out. I don't want to contribute to a worsening of the F-word's reputation by *not* using it. It helps that my husband describes himself as a feminist/egalitarian. When he self-describes as a 'feminist', people sit up and listen. He's very no-nonsense about it and also a very no-nonsense feminist.

[laura oz]

My husband is a big, burly, gruff, construction-project-manager-guy and he just describes himself as "I'm just her bitch". :lol: :lol: :lol: I swear it's true.

[kb2]

I agree with the quote from the feminist in the early part of the piece, that it's wrong to blame feminism for inequality instead of the patriarchy.

This article portrays their ideas in pretty much their best light...but I think MRAs fall apart when they're allowed to talk for longer. They're like the Nice Guy . First it's, I wish courts would give me partial custody with my ex-wife, it's discriminatory to assume she's the only one who wants to do child-rearing, and you're like, oh, that sounds reasonable. Then the next sentence isn't, oh I miss my kids so much or, all I want to be is an involved father. It's, yeah because that way I wouldn't have to give that bitch so much child support which I'm sure she's using to buy fancy things for herself because there's no way kids could possibly cost $X. And you're like whoa whoa whoa, what just happened here, you are no longer reasonable. Maybe the movement didn't start out as hateful as it is now, but that's where it's ended up.

I feel like I can do more for real rights of men (like, the right for men who actually want to parent to be able to parent) as a feminist.

[Soldier of the One]

Kb2, that could very much be true. I don't know enough about MRA's to make an informed judgment. The article itself did say that he's the most moderate of the group and placed more extreme MRA's in their context. It might also be a variegated movement. I have no idea! :)

[BlackHawk]

I agree with the quote from the feminist in the early part of the piece, that it's wrong to blame feminism for inequality instead of the patriarchy.

This article portrays their ideas in pretty much their best light...but I think MRAs fall apart when they're allowed to talk for longer. They're like the Nice Guy . First it's, I wish courts would give me partial custody with my ex-wife, it's discriminatory to assume she's the only one who wants to do child-rearing, and you're like, oh, that sounds reasonable. Then the next sentence isn't, oh I miss my kids so much or, all I want to be is an involved father. It's, yeah because that way I wouldn't have to give that bitch so much child support which I'm sure she's using to buy fancy things for herself because there's no way kids could possibly cost $X. And you're like whoa whoa whoa, what just happened here, you are no longer reasonable. Maybe the movement didn't start out as hateful as it is now, but that's where it's ended up.

I feel like I can do more for real rights of men (like, the right for men who actually want to parent to be able to parent) as a feminist.

To me that sentence is all kinds of wrong. I will preface this by saying I am NOT a member of ANY mra groups, I find most of them creepy.

How can you, as a woman, do more for "real" rights of men, as you so decide, than a man can do for himself? To me that says the same thing of "as a man, I can do better for the "real" rights of women". To be a woman doesn't make you any better at choosing what is right for a man. Just like being a man doesn't make you any better at choosing what is right for a woman.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

How can you, as a woman, do more for "real" rights of men, as you so decide, than a man can do for himself? To me that says the same thing of "as a man, I can do better for the "real" rights of women". To be a woman doesn't make you any better at choosing what is right for a man. Just like being a man doesn't make you any better at choosing what is right for a woman.

Some of the (legitimate) problems that men in custody battles face are just the flip side of stereotypes about women (assuming that women are proper caretakers for kids, surely any mother had more meaningful contact with the kid than the father could have, etc). So by being a feminist and working on those tangentially related issues, it can have a real effect, RATHER than stepping in and trying to campaign for "men's rights" directly (because yeah if you're centering yourself in that fight, it's presumptive).

At least that's how I read it.

[kb2]

To me that sentence is all kinds of wrong. I will preface this by saying I am NOT a member of ANY mra groups, I find most of them creepy.

How can you, as a woman, do more for "real" rights of men, as you so decide, than a man can do for himself? To me that says the same thing of "as a man, I can do better for the "real" rights of women". To be a woman doesn't make you any better at choosing what is right for a man. Just like being a man doesn't make you any better at choosing what is right for a woman.

I mean that I can support men better as a feminist than as a supporter of MRAs. They are, as you said, creepy, and I don't think joining them would actually help men. Feminist is not necessarily synonymous with woman (certain radical feminists have left the board, so I think men are allowed to be feminists now :D), so it didn't occur to me that that sentence could come across as "I feel like I can do more for real rights of men as a woman."

[Soldier of the One]

The main flaw of the MRA's, IMHO, stems from their analysis: they are inverting the power dynamic. Instead of seeing how gender stereotyping based on patriarchy informs and limits behaviorisms and expectations for both genders, they see the world as a level playing field at best where the odds are stacked against men because of 'political correctness'. While in fact, most of there objections and grievances are caused by a) patriarchy and b) the uneasy shift into an imperfect but more egalitarian paradigm. These are the growing pains of a changing world. And sometimes that world only becomes more reactionary rather than more progressive.

Personally - and I do caveat that - I think a feminst (m/f) has to 'talk the talk/walk the walk'. Ideologies aren't only intellectual exercises; they are the stuff of our daily lives and activities. So, as a feminist, I don't expect the males around me to engage in potentially flattering or convenient stereotypical behavior: i.e. holding the door open, acts of chivalry, paying for dates, buying me stuff, etc. If my husband wants to be me stuff, great, but not because of gender essentialism. I make it a point to buy HIM red roses, gifts, hold the door open etc. And this applies (when appropriate) to other males in my life.

I don't expect my husband to pay my frivolities, like fashion etc. He makes more than me so he shoulders a heavier burden but I make a point of treating him to a weekend get-away and being as financially independent as I can. Likewise, he doesn't expect me to do all the 'feminine' stuff - we keep house equally (actually, he might do more, he's a neat freak!)

I know it might seem silly to illustrate this with such trite examples but what I am trying to convey that it is also up to us feminists (m/f) to live the values we espouse. That's why I don't assume that a mother should get custody by default, that women are more nurturing, etc.

In a sense, we should listen to the critique of MRA's. Not because they are right, but because - like all disaffected social groups, which includes fundies - they are the symptoms of a current state of imbalance and injustice in society. It's the same reason why I believe so many fundie females create the lives that they do: it's far simpler delineating a patriarchal lifestyle with clear roles than negotiating the messy business of a culture in transition. And yes, that might be confusing for men. And yes, certain women might give out mixed messages. But also yes, we women RECEIVE more than enough mixed messaging!

Ultimately, feminism to me is an important piece of a movement to liberate humankind from kyrarchy - from all kinds of power and class dynamics. I ultimately hope and pray for a world where we can all be our authentic selves without judgment and limitation and where we can assume true agency and responsibility for our actions.

One can dream, right? :)

[synchroswimr]

Thanks for sharing it! I saved it to read later