Poisoning the well: In which men’s rights activists make everything worse

I’ve been to court to be a witness twice in my lifetime. Both times were cases of domestic abuse. In both cases I turned up and waited outside the court only to be told that the abuser had, on being told there was a witness outside preparing to testify, admitted his guilt.  I know that me turning up was a deciding factor because up until both men were told that a third party was will to tell the world about what they had done they had both been ready to lawyer up and fight the case tooth and nail, presumably thinking it was going to be a he-said-she-said wash of a case that would get them a telling off from the judge at worse. Both these men seemed to be going into the court with the assumption that what they did was entirely justifiable if not, then understandable. It certainly didn’t occur to these men that someone (particularly a dude) would care enough about the women they had beaten to tell a court of law about it.  Thinking back to both those instances the fact that these men just gave up and accepted their guilt after weeks of insisting on their innocence because I walked through the door is always the unnerving part, it’s almost as though in their minds whilst a woman wouldn’t be taken seriously by the court, a nod from a man would be enough to render their defense meaningless. These two incidents are what come to mind when I read anything about or by Men’s rights activists. I’m not saying All men’s rights activists think bros should get away with abusing women – there are probably like 20 who don’t – however the ideology and culture that has sprung up under the guise of fighting for “Men’s rights” has created scenarios in which a group of twisted human beings, who mourn women being unable to own property, have managed to influence the thinking and language of a depressingly significant amount of uninformed people and given cover and encouragement to the foot soldiers of rape culture.

It’s fashionable among certain kinds of pseudo academics to consider MRAs to have a point; the seeming logic being that Women, People of color, and the Queer community all have a civil rights struggle that has apparently achieved all it’s goals and can now be looked back on with pride on specific days of the year, (reducing the experiences of those who live at the sharp end of our society to a version of the Orange order with better music) thus making it wholly unfair that the achievements of white straight men aren’t celebrated with a day because celebrating the struggle for rights is apparently the demographic equivalent of a participation award. This isn’t helped by the fact that MRAs have managed to stumble onto the edges of valid problems in our society before managing to misunderstand the cause and therefore possible solutions to these problems, sort of like Ron Paul being against rigid border control for insane reasons. The lack of analysis within the Men’s rights world seems to stem from it being a largely white, straight group. A good example would be this chart;


This is a telling chart as by only using Gender as it’s marker it is ignoring the fact that People of Color and Trans-gender people are disproportionately more likely to Join the Army, and thus get killed (It should also be pointed out that women were banned from front line combat in the U.S. at least until 2013, and the number of female Civilian causalities – you know the kind of casualties that can’t fight back – has always been much higher and in fact is on the rise just in the last few years in conflict zones. These charts also obviously fail to mention the sexual violence in combat zones that happens almost exclusively to women).  African American men are specifically more likely to go to jail for longer than their white counterparts, the same of which is true for African American women v White women. The facts about custody and industrial accidents are a confusing stat to reference when you’re trying to prove Matriarchy exists as maintaining the status of men as workers outside the home and women as housekeepers and childrearers isn’t some wild social experiment first dreamt up by lesbian separatists in the 60s nor is the idea of women as the natural gender of child rearing something that any serious feminists advocate: the fact of women obtaining custody of children is a combination of social ideas of female responsibilities within the home dating back thousands of years, and minor reforms from the nineteenth century giving women the right to own property. That’s the social  norm that has grown up out of the heavily patriarchal application of Capitalism we’ve experienced for the last three hundred or so years.

M.R.A.s have manage to produce essentially imaginary causes for actual symptoms, such as suicide actually more common among men. However to stop analyzing the reasons for self harm at the gender disparity would ignore the higher percentage of Indigenous people who commit suicide, as well as the disproportionate number of L.G.B.T. people who commit suicide. By simply claiming that these things are the result of women empowering themselves means that the actual causes go unabated to the extent that the need for movements to address those causes is dismissed whilst counterproductive  posturing and in some cases draconian policies are installed to protect people against the wrong culprits.

The frustration and alienation that groups of straight white men feel toward modern political trends isn’t there because people of color, queer people and women have made positive strides towards there own empowerment. We are all victims of the kind of disaster capitalism pushed by libertarians and numerous governments around the world to cope with the fact that the wider economic system doesn’t work very well without a strict enforceable and easy to denote hierarchy. The fact that our grandfathers and great grandfathers and great great grandfathers ad nausium for the most part spent almost all their lives working boring, unpleasant and dangerous jobs for very little money was compensated by the myth that by digging holes for 16 hours a day men were the later day equivalent of hunter gathers protecting there womenfolk at home even though for the most part women didn’t stay home, they were working as hard as men in equally unpleasant conditions without the kind of pay or mythologizing that men get. The fact that the means by which numerous men have defined themselves throughout history have come unstuck in the current society we have is somewhat more a reflection on their self definition and that society’s readiness to dispense of people than the empowerment of any other group. This is somewhat reflective in the fact that far from wanting to explore why gender roles came about, there relative usefulness and dispensing with the destructive ones, as the bumper sticker slogans seem to claim; It’s super hard to find an article on any M.R.A. blog or website whose underling assumptions are not based on the enforcement of rigid gender rolls and the subordination of women. There also seems to be an odd idea floated by M.R.A.s that Feminists want to subordinate men – an myth that is as old as women asking for rights – and that somehow believe that we don’t feel pain or emotions, which is a weird thing to try and pin on feminists because that’s the kind of stuff that literally every patriarchal social structure in the world has promoted.

In which notoriously feminist institutions like The Army and Gun manufacturers enforce gender stereotypes

If you are a Men’s rights activist in this day and age you are not just helping the forces of reaction keep feminism at bay you are aiding and abetting your own oppression. You are struggling to keep women in their place so that you can maintain a marginally higher one, somewhere near the bottom. There are may problems facing the average man today, but the fact of being a cisgender male isn’t one of them. Pretending that it is simply weaponizes the minor privileges you have for the use of the system that is causing you problems in the first place. Mainstream feminism doesn’t have all the answers and certainly has unpleasant problems of its own to deal, with but I try to be a feminist, in the same way I try to be an anti racist, and attempt to be positive about sexuality and gender identity because the nominal social benefits I get from being a white straight cisgender male is outweighed by the fact that I live in the kind of destructive society that requires bigotry to prop itself up. Therefore, fighting amongst ourselves is simply digging ourselves further into the ground. So even if you don’t think that trying shame women into pretending rape doesn’t exist is morally repugnant at least understand that the only way to advance and empower yourself is to aid and abet the empowerment of others, and that anything else is fundamentally destructive.


10 Comments on “Poisoning the well: In which men’s rights activists make everything worse”

  1. Once I finish my feminist parenting contribution I’m taking this to task I warn you, I think you missed some things.

    Regards, a Feminist MRA. x

    • Okay now it’s all there I would be all into having a blog post debate thing.

      • I haven’t directly answered you but I have put down my feelings on MRA generally here:


        I’ll reread yours now….

      • Being an active feminist I can assure you that the most vocal feminists of today (if possibly not the majority) are totally seeking subordination of men, revenge and a police state on sexism. I have been part of large groups of feminists wherein I was the sole critic of the idea that sexual offence defendants should bear the burden of proof (ie be found guilty unless proven innocent) and the intersectionalist movement which (to their credit) defend LGBT’s and people of colour completely dismiss the impact of class which, as you refer to in your post, is a major driver in discrimination. White men have no voice in the places I debate so I welcome MRA.

  2. MensRightsCanada says:

    “imaginary cause” are you kidding me? You don’t see the numbers on that chart?

  3. jjrockmale says:

    As a service member, your inaccurate stating of transgenders, and men of color being the overwhelming majority of combat deaths to be a total fallacy. In the service, I made a point to look at the obituaries, and I can tell that you have no clue as to what you are talking about.

    Rather than going point, by painful point, I will concentrate on your south park inspired diatribe about white men hiding behind minorities. The facts do not support your claim, and even those service members may have been white, they served their country; and will be missed by those they served with ( both minority and white), and the friends, family, and children they have left behind to defend the right of ignorant assholes like yourself to spew such reverse discriminatory bull shit.

    Since the Korean war, the overwhelming death totals have been white, “straight,” males. Say about 97%. Since then, it has been around 85%. The fact is, most minorities are not withheld from being a bullet shield, it is that they join the supply portions of the service far and above the actual combat units. Probably pretty smart of them, though it is changing, but only because they choose to join the combat ranks. They are not being coerced.

    In WW2, the “honor” of dying for one’s country was held from minorities by a strict, and moronic, code of racism. Sort of like your dance with facts. For example, there were around 2000 black men at the Normandy invasion, and they were not allowed to storm the beaches as that was an “honor” to die they were not given. But like those brave men stated, “We were still there, and ready.”

    Like the South Park movie, it makes for a funny jest. But is as as retarded, and wrong, as you are.

    Also, just about everything else you say is easily refuted. Take this time to study what I said, and enjoy this last parting shot: Articles like yours, are merely the dying breaths of your movement and it’s terrible lies. Feminism will go down like slavery, the destruction of history, communism, fascism, and the burning of books; as just another of many shit stains on the face of humanity. I hope humanity learns it’s lessons, and then I am reminded by idiots like you why that will never happen.

    As the men’s movement gains traction, we welcome your ill thought out diatribes. Just more water in the ocean of lies you, and yours, have to condemn yourselves with when the public sees you for what you really are. Liars, aiming to get funding at whatever means necessary. Even if it means the destruction of children, by stripping them from stable families.

    I am pretty sure you will struggle to drop your balls some, and put this up.

  4. Will Foley says:

    I accept that some men may feel that there word would have more weight that a womens in court. However it seams ludicrious to say that because another male witness is coming forward, and because they feel that his word is important that they would instantly change to guilty. Something that I believe anyone would accept, based on whatever values that would hold, is that in court to secure a conviction the members of the jury need to be sure beyond reasonable doubt. Where there is a 1 v 1 situation, it is very hard to secure a conviction because there is always the doubt there, rather than in the 2 v 1 conviction in which where having a story that is told by the victim and the witness that corroborates drastically does increase the chance of conviction so the better stance for the accused is plea guilty and get part of there sentenced reduced. Anyone that says they would plead guilty in a situation where there is a extremely high chance of them being found not guilty, no matter if they had done the act or not, has extremely good morals or is lying.

  5. anon says:

    MRA, would the numbers on that chart be appreciably different when Attila the Hun of Genghis Khan roamed the earth? If anything, men would come out worse on those particular numbers back then. So how can they be a result of female empowerment?

    In fact, in countries where females have more power the numbers are usually proportionately “better” for men. Not due to female empowerment, but due to the fact that such countries see less combat and have much smaller armies, and have more lenient sentencing practices. Steal a car in the Middle East, you’re either dead or lose a hand…steal a car in Sweden and the penalty is far less severe. What does that tell us? Well, not much really.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s