A few months ago I discovered a superb website called Manboobz, which outlines, quotes from and mercilessly mocks the sordid trash regularly spewed by so-called ‘men’s rights activists’ (MRAs). These odd folk appear to believe in a topsy-turvy version of reality wherein women are the privileged ones and men are routinely persecuted by extreme establishment feminists.
It’s farcical and often amusing, but there is an undercurrent of hatred and rage that is sometimes deeply sinister. Under the banner of ‘men’s rights’ fester the bitter germs of misogyny and homophobia along with a whole host of other dirty little prejudices. It’s frightening, not least because in some of the quoted remarks I have noticed arguments similar to those used by perpetrators of domestic violence against both spouses and children – including some unpleasant reminders of my own past experiences. Here are a few of the features MRAs and domestic abusers appear to have in common:
1. Use of a patriarchal moral code as an excuse for controlling behaviour
This includes abusers who refer to parts of Christianity or Islam as justification for “corrective punishment”. Men are considered the heads of the household, with God-given responsibility for how ‘their’ women behave; women, meanwhile, act irrationally and childishly, so need to be ‘mastered’. A Woman’s Place is the Kitchen. Welcome to the 19th century.
2. Devaluation of women as a group
This may be the theme that most frequently appears on Manboobz: women are irrational, over-emotional, partial, gold-diggers, spendthrifts, talentless, dependent, cruel, manipulative, emotionally abusive, useless, worthless, overrated for their ability to give birth, constantly taking credit and funding for men’s achievements. Variations on this eyebrow-raising theme include: Western women are unfeminine/ unsubmissive/ entitled and therefore unloveable; only female MRAs are any good; once women get to [somewhere between 20-30, usually] they automatically become unattractive and lose all their worth, especially if they have not Married or Had Babies. What this tosh basically amounts to is that women have no purpose except to be directed by, and in service to, a man. Whatever.
3 Assertion of men’s superiority
By contrast to those unworthy women, of course, men are stronger, cleverer, better. They are responsible for everything great in this world. They are rational, moral, upright beings and women simply cannot match up to them, but must instead be obedient to their great wisdom and fair judgements. Feminist men, of course, are excluded from this club of super-beings; they have chosen instead to let the emotional women rule in order to be approved and therefore attain that Holy Grail of manhood, intimate relations.
4. Defending violence and those who commit it
Victim-blaming, denial, excuses, minimisation, double-bind, inconsistent arguments – every technique that abusers deploy to justify their actions can almost certainly be found somewhere parroted by MRAs. Even child abuse has been defended in this way. All of it is disgusting.
5. Display of a ‘persecution complex’
A common tactic of campaigners for people in power to maintain their privileges is to try to divert attention from the simple facts by reframing the issue and casting themselves as victims. MRA groups seem to whine interminably that the Establishment is overrun with feminists, while they, the very standard-bearers of truth, are shamelessly tortured and derogated, all the while being denied their fair share of female, uh, ‘companionship’. (My father used to be a big fan of this one. He’d constantly call people names and then claim they were persecuting him. Also, his unbelievable kindness in giving me houseroom while I was growing up made him a mug, because I was so horrible to him. Yep, charming guy.)
6. Inconsistent and arbitrary actions and arguments
You’d think that advocates of ‘discipline’ would keep to their own rules, but no. Abusers set things up so that their victims are never in a position to feel good about themselves. MRAs also seem to change the focus of their rants constantly – for example, women shouldn’t take work away from men, but are too reliant on men to pay the bills; women should stay away from the front lines in battle but making this province exclusive to men renders them ‘disposable’; women who sleep around are called all manner of nasty names but if they won’t sleep with the MRA in question…they’re called nasty names too. Conclusion: we’re fundamentally, irrevocably, irredeemably bad.
7. High levels of anger
I’m routinely stunned by how angry MRAs appear. It’s as if they hate everyone and everything except themselves. Along with women and feminist men, the rants sometimes comprehend alternative sources of ‘otherness’, so that the relevant forums play host not only to extreme chauvinism, but to homophobia, racism, transphobia, ableism and many more unhealthy bigotries.
8. Women as a general target for blame
This is covered somewhat in the points above, but is worth singling out because it appears so often. I think casual passers-by could be forgiven for thinking that MRAs blame women and/or feminism for everything that goes wrong in their lives. Did you trip over this morning? That’s feminists’ fault!
Sorry for the long post. I hope at least some of it was worth reading.
but my abusive male paertnr did similar things/said similar things to me.’ Is all the decades of feminist research on male violence against women worthless then because we all supposedly have lives wherein all women and all men have the same social and economic power? Is the social construction of gender non-existent because violence within family units is just a case of individual men and women enacting their power and control over other individual women and men? Are women and men equally held responsible for committing violence? Are men constantly being told they should enact certain behaviours and actions in order to meet the approval of (male-dominant) society? Or is it women who are subjected to a continuous barrage of negative comments, admonishments and punishments if they so much as deviate from patriarchal defined myths concerning female behaviour and actions. Which group benefits when only one gender is subjected to surveillance, monitoring and criticism in respect of their behaviour etc? Is it women or is it men? Lundy Bancroft’s book is invaluable in demonstrating how clever, manipulative men operate in order to retain their pseudo belief it is their right to control, dominate and own a woman/women. Likewise Evan Stark’s book Coercive Control’ provides an insight into how violent and abusive men control female paertnrs/girl friends. Chapter 8 of Stark’s book The Technology of Coercive control’ provides an insight to men’s common methods of using pyschological control over female paertnrs. Yes, some women are abusive and violent to male paertnrs and feminists have never denied this fact, but overwhelmingly the real issue is why and how male violence against women is allowed to continue unabated and why it is commonly excused/justified or if all else fails simply denied. No one lives in isolation and no one is not affected by societal norms and pressures on conforming to patriarchal myths concerning supposedly appropriate feminine and masculine behaviour. Our society is constructed on a hierarchy with men as a group at the top and women, depending on their class, ethnicity, ableness etc. further down the hierarchy. But irrespective of a woman’s class, ethnicity etc. this in itself does not protect any woman from men’s violence. The reason is because men’s violence is commonly trivialised or excused unless it is so extreme as to merit some form of judgement or punishment.Such is the case with Fritzl and Worboys. Both of these men enacted the most extreme form of masculine behaviour and male sexual entitlement, but many other abusive men do not and their actions and behaviours are excused and justified in various ways. One of the hardest issues for men as a group is to accept men as a group are the ones responsible for violence against women. But many men and women too, reinterpret this to mean all men are violent’ and immediately there is a cacophony of but my male paertnr/brother/husband etc is not violent.’ In fact what is commonly said is most of the violence around the world is committed by men.’ This is not the same as all men are violent. Now imagine if the situation were reversed and it was most of the violence around the world is committed by women.’ Immediately there would be an outcry of what is wrong with all these women?’ Are they all crazy?’ The reason there would be such claims is because our culture is defined from the male standpoint and this means men as a group are central and women are on the peripherary. It is men’s viewpoint which is dominant and since it is men who are the dominant group, it is their viewpoint which is seen as normal and rational. Dominant groups cannot self-examine themselves instead they view other groups critically and compare them in relation to the dominant group. This is why men as a group do not perceive themselves as a gender’ because they are simply human. Now women are viewed in relation to men and therefore women’s actions are compared and analysed from the male perspective. So, when a woman reports she has been subjected to violence from her male paertnr, immediately the common reaction is what did she do to cause this?’ Or, why did she not leave him?’ Both of which are from the male perspective because men as a group have more social and economic power than women as a group. Jackson Katz in his book The Macho Paradox clearly explains the complexities of how and why male violence against women and children is not only condoned but also justified and excused unless of course such actions are at the most extreme of a continuum.So, instead of blaming women for causing men’s violence we need to analyse and examine how social and economic power operates. Which group has it and which groups do not. But instead it is far easier to dichtomise women and men wherein if a woman does not conform to dominant ideas concerning female behaviour she is perceived as being at least partially responsible for the male perpetrator’s behaviour. Men as a group have a vested interest in keeping domestic violence’ gender neutral which in fact means defined from the male-dominant stance.
I must say that overall I am really impressed with this weblog.It is straightforward to see that you are passionate about your writing. If only I had your writing capacity I look forward to more updates and will be returning.