Here's a question that was never answered in that article.

"What are men's rights?"

In essence they are admitting that even men don't really believe that 'Men's Rights' is a valid cause. Nicely done.

Is that a joke? It's so hilariously paranoid and stereotypically misogynist -- surely it wasn't written without ironic intent.

"We hear all the time how a rich widow just died and left untold millions to foundations which are well known for then parceling out serious funding to feminist organizations."

Really? All the time?

Hurry! Change your wills to benefit the Rich White Protestant Men's College Fund! A rich white male protestant can't make it without you.

Where is this oppressive feminist machine? I'd like to become a part of it.

I am totally serious about this: does anyone know who started "men's rights" groups, and what their beliefs are, exactly? Because I see it as a bunch of privileged men sitting around bitching about how tough they have it, and how the big, evil feminists are taking over.

I could be wrong. "Men's Studies" could be a whole academic field on its own, I just can't seem to take it seriously.

I remember how someone in one of my classes was bitching about how there are no network for white men and it wasn't fair.

"Uh, check out C-SPAN, dude," I said, almost starting a class riot.

No, ankathry, it's not a joke. They really are dumb enough to see Larry Craig as a feminist puppet (because us feminists just loooove family-values candidates who cheat on their wives) and battered-women's shelters as a "front" organization. Next issue, the writer will name 257 card-carrying feminists who've infiltrated the Justice Department.

*scratches head* So why bother having a wife?

"please do NOT leave all your money to a woman (wife or daughter) who could knowingly or unknowingly turn your grandson and great-grandson into the slave of a system completely dominated by feminists."

hahahahaha
Well, we can dream can't we?

And FEMily- this was the response by one respondant:
"There will be background checks (sex offender checks) for men to be allowed into nightclubs and discos and bars…probably within the next 10 years if we do not get the support of at least one billionaire.

I guess this is his interpretation of what men's rights are. I won't even begin to tackle this though- it makes my head hurt. *sigh*

Damn it! I commented, but then it didn't take. I am about to beat the Internet with a stick.

Here was my original question: does anyone know the origin of "men's rights" groups and what it consists of? Because it seems to me like it's a bunch of men sitting around bitching about the big, bad feminists.

I don't doubt that, if it exists as an academic field, that intellectual values can come from it, but I just have a lot of trouble taking it seriously.

On the same note: I once almost started a riot when I told a classmate to watch C-SPAN when he was bitching about how there was no television network for "white men."

ProFem -- Not sure who started them, but I know that most men's rights organizations also have ties to white supremacist groups. There are probably people here who know more about that than me, though -- I know about a year or two ago there was one men's rights site whose owner also owned and ran a racist site.

"Astonishingly, donating to feminists gets people tax write-offs these days. The feminists do this by calling their organizations 'women’s shelters' and operating 'shelters' as a front."

They can't be serious...the entire article just seems like a huge ignorant joke. Wow...

Actually, as a matter of law, you *can't* disinherit your spouse. Laws vary by state (and the amount a spouse omitted from the will will be entitled to also varies), but it's basically impossible cut your spouse out.

Sorry for the double post. I actually did some wikipedia spying on men's rights groups and it is, to say the very least, amusing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_rights

The feminist groups are also getting big dollars from big politically correct corporations like Exxon-Mobil (see their support for the women-as-victims Tahirih Justice Center) and, of course, an American Congress which is filled with blackmailed perverts like Senator Larry Craig who have clearly been doing almost everything the feminists wanted just to keep themselves in business at the local men’s restroom.

Wait, Exxon-Mobil is a politically-correct corporation? The Larry Craig business is FEMINISM'S FAULT?

...

Speechless.

“does anyone know the origin of "men's rights" groups and what it consists of?�

I think the origin is found in angry, socially inept 34 year-old men living in parents’ basement.

And as with many wingnut sites, MND could nearly be confused with The Onion. In addition to the article linked, several juicy headlines today include “Girdles For Men�, “Was JFK a Pedophile?�, and (personal favorite), “My Violent Ex-Wife Destroyed My Career, then Complains that Her Support Payments Are Insufficient�.

I made the mistake of reading the comments of that article. They seem awfully concerned with keeping their right to harass women online. Charming.

it's tuesday afternoon, dear...

I think that Men's Rights groups could actually tremendously benefit the feminist community if they were approached with the right attitude. Few feminists would disagree that patriarchy hurts men, too, and if masculist groups would focus on gender egalitarianism rather than knee-jerk reactions to feminism, we could make a lot of progress.

I have a male friend who is a self-identified masculist AND feminist, and he blogs and writes often about the need for changes in the way our society approaches masculinity; this includes some criticism of mainstream feminist views of men. If "Men's Rights" organizations would place their focus on creating gentler views of masculinity, gender-balancing the military, taking female-on-male sexual assault seriously, granting equal rights to fathers in custody cases, and challenging the idea that gay males are "gross" while lesbians are "sexy", I think that the masculist movement could go hand-in-hand with the feminist movement, and benefit us all.

Articles like this one are a gross setback to any progression made by men's OR womyn's rights organizations. I think it's unfortunate that this article would identify itself as pro-male, when it's really merely anti-female.

I made the mistake of reading the comments of that article. They seem awfully concerned with keeping their right to harass women online. Charming.

MRA's (men's rights activists) insist that it's men's right to dominate women. Period. There's no other way to interpret their bullshit. Feminists and men COULD come together to battle patriarchy together, but MRAs are not anti-patriarchy. Oh, they'll cry "patriarchy hurts men too!" when you bring up women's oppression, but they're not actually interested in ending patriarchy. They're content with their place in the patriarchy as long as women suffer worse.
It's amazing how they can simultaneously claim that feminism is irrelevant and unpopular while screaming that it's taking over the world and controlling everyone. Hah! If only.

why were all of my posts deleted? A computer error or site error posted them 3x, I only posted once..was it necessary to not leave one of them?

"MRA's (men's rights activists) insist that it's men's right to dominate women. Period. There's no other way to interpret their bullshit."

Often,yes. Not ALWAYS, though. They can't all be grouped together and assumed to all think alike. I think that many self-identified men's rights activists really do identify with the feminist cause. I've known and been close friends with many of them. I think you're conforming to the stereotype that feminists are anti-male, by implying that everyone who supports men's rights is inherently anti-female. Men and womyn can work TOGETHER on creating a gender-egalitarian society.

Don't get me wrong--I think that we clearly live in a male-dominated society that is in desperate need of change. I just also think that we need to take men's concerns seriously, too, if we expect to be heard. I'm not talking about bullshit "the dirty feminists are coming to get me!" articles like this one--I'm talking about movements to protect gay males, to promote fathers as single parents, to take female-on-male physical abuse seriously, and to let little boys know that it's okay for them to like the color pink. Many men's rights activists really DO stand behind a balanced view of gender egalitarianism and simply think that the deconstruction of patriarchy needs to come from both a feminist and masculist perspective. Don't throw all men's rights organizations out the window just because some asshole wrote this terrible article.

One of my favorite hobbies has become frequenting MRA sites. It's pretty twisted. If MRA groups were really interested in men's rights they wouldn't be homophobes in my opinion. I've read an aweful lot of homosexual hating on those types of sites.

PROFEMINISTMALE: "I could be wrong. "Men's Studies" could be a whole academic field on its own, I just can't seem to take it seriously."

Why not? The basic premise of men's studies is to examine how gender roles constrict and define men's experiences (e.g., you need to be strong, stoic, a work object, anti-female, always ready for sex, etc.). Further, they examine factors that promote acceptance of rape myths and violence among men, how to prevent domestic and sexual violence, etc. Most people in the men's studies field are interested in deconstructing standard gender roles.

For example, I do research on how men perceive their bodies - in particular, perceived need to be muscular to demonstrate your masculinity physically, and how this effects boys (e.g. protein supplement abuse, body dissatisfaction).

This might interest you:

http://content.apa.org/journals/men/8/2

This book is a pretty good summary of that work:
The masculine self by Kilmartin

One of my favorite hobbies has become frequenting MRA sites. It's pretty twisted. If MRA groups were really interested in men's rights they wouldn't be homophobes in my opinion. I've read an aweful lot of homosexual hating on those types of sites.

I think you're conforming to the stereotype that feminists are anti-male, by implying that everyone who supports men's rights is inherently anti-female. Men and womyn can work TOGETHER on creating a gender-egalitarian society.

What?!
The status quo IS "men's rights." If men were concerned with egalitarianism, they'd support feminism. But they don't. They hate feminists. The misinterpret our stance on just about everything. WE want little boys to be encouraged when they show an interest in "girly" things. MRAs? Not so much. In fact, they bemoan the "feminization" of education and the culture in general (I wish). Feminists want single dads to have support, for SAHDs to have support. MRAs may SAY they want the same thing, but at the end of the day they still rally for traditional shit.

Oooh, I have an idea! Would Jessica and other feministing owners be opposed to making an entry about feministing on wikipedia? I just thought of that for some reason.

I'd write it, but I have no idea how you guys came about.

Ugh god I can only imagine ths shit-storm of trolling a wikipedia entry would provoke.

I'm talking about movements to protect gay males, to promote fathers as single parents, to take female-on-male physical abuse seriously, and to let little boys know that it's okay for them to like the color pink.

Feminists are already doing this. Can you point me to any non-anecdotal evidence of self-described MRAs doing this kind of work?

UCLA - Perhaps I wouldn't be so opposed to "men's rights" groups if they didn't play it off as though they were the victims of patriarchy and gender roles. But in all the sites that I've came across, it's always about how men have been "oppressed" because of feminism or gender roles.

If men were truly interested in deconstructing gender roles and preventing rape, they'd be taking women's studies courses, rather than these men's studies courses.

Again, I still don't buy into this idea that men are the victims of anything. You can't be a victim when your gender is the oppressing one. You might give in to stereotypes, but you're also benefiting from stereotypes (not you personally, as I am assuming you're female).

I am sorry - I just can't feel bad for men and their perceived plight when one-half of my fellow human beings are still being marginalized and discriminated against.

On a scale of priority, I'll take feminism over "men's rights" anyday.

Besides, what issues can these men cover in men's studies classes that aren't already covered in a women's studies class?

SARAHMC: "The status quo IS "men's rights." If men were concerned with egalitarianism, they'd support feminism. But they don't."

I definitely agree with you that some men's rights group exist specifically to try and gain male advantages.

But I do think males who support egalitarianism should also focus on male-specific issues. For example, you would be unlikely to see posts on feministing.com about how men's health is affected by working obsessively, how stoicism effects men's health, etc. Most of the posts focus on things that effect primarily women (which makes sense), not negative things men experience because of the gender system.

DELIRIUM: "If "Men's Rights" organizations would place their focus on creating gentler views of masculinity, gender-balancing the military, taking female-on-male sexual assault seriously, granting equal rights to fathers in custody cases, and challenging the idea that gay males are "gross" while lesbians are "sexy", I think that the masculist movement could go hand-in-hand with the feminist movement, and benefit us all."

Those are pretty much the viewpoints of people in the men's studies / psychology of gender fields.

Everyone is on to something here. Maybe the catalyst to breaking patriarchial behavior is a men's rights group that actually focuses on the rights men are actually denied. Things like parental leave policies, equal opportunities in traditionally female oriented education and work opportunities. Oh, and ALL men, that means rights for gay men. When you start addressing the real rights issues for men rather than the cloaked desperate attempt to keep the ability to oppress women suddenly the patriarchy looks rather cornered.

It is sort of an empty space nobody is filling. Just like the empty space between girls gone wild and virginity pledges. There isn't enough helping young girls find their way between the two.

PROFEMINIST MALE: "If men were truly interested in deconstructing gender roles and preventing rape, they'd be taking women's studies courses, rather than these men's studies courses."

Hey PFM - given your posts I would actually have thought that work in men's studies courses would be right up your alley. Here is a quick summary of those studies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_studies

I'd recommend "The masculine self" by Kilmartin.

There are just some things in women's studies courses, which focus on women's experiences rather than men's experiences, don't cover. Personally I would prefer to teach gender studies rather than men's studies.

"""Again, I still don't buy into this idea that men are the victims of anything. You can't be a victim when your gender is the oppressing one."""

If you view "patriarchy" as "all men have dominance over all women", than that view somewhat makes sense. But if you also view patriarchy as "Some men dominating other men", which is after all a defining feature of patriarchy, then it makes sense to also consider what ideologies help maintain this structure where a smaller group of men wield dominance and privilege. Further, it makes sense to examine how men enforce these rules on other men, and the experiences of men who both do and don't fit the standard mold, and the strain that men feel when they feel like they don't live up to gendered expectations.

"""(not you personally, as I am assuming you're female)."""

I'm male.

"""On a scale of priority, I'll take feminism over "men's rights" anyday."""

I don't see it as having to choose one over the other. I definitely support some feminist goals. More generally, though, I'm interested in how men's and women's experiences are influenced by gender ideologies and interactions between men and women. Some of this might fall under "women's studies", some might fall under "men's studies". All of it falls under "gender studies".

PROFEMINISTMALE: "If men were truly interested in deconstructing gender roles and preventing rape, they'd be taking women's studies courses, rather than these men's studies courses."

Ahh, this was the book I was looking for. It might be a little weird for a "women's studies" course to focus exclusively on the study of men?

Men's Lives:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0205321054/qid=1026146799/sr=12-3/102-6540463-1388933

Best-selling reader on men and masculinity, edited by two of the most prominent researchers on men, contains the most current articles on masculinity available.
Organized around themes that define masculinity, this reader takes the position that men (as well as women) are "gendered" and that this gendering process is a central experience for men. The authors explore how working class men, men of color, gay men, older men, and younger men construct different versions of masculinity. One reviewer says, "This reader does a remarkable job of showing the interconnectedness of race, class, and gender ... It also makes clear that any discussion of `men's lives' of necessity involves an understanding of the social roles of both men and women, and of gender inequality."

Again, I still don't buy into this idea that men are the victims of anything. You can't be a victim when your gender is the oppressing one. You might give in to stereotypes, but you're also benefiting from stereotypes (not you personally, as I am assuming you're female).

Not true. That which happens in the aggregate does not always benefit the individual. Our experiences are not the complete average of the experiences of people who are like us.

I will hammer you on this, because I don't want anyone saying, "Look at Hillary, if she's gotten this far, sexism doesn't exist."

For anyone who thinks that men are UNIVERSALLY treated better than women, I invite you into family court. I know men who have been screwed out of custody of their children. One attorney told her female client to jump-start the divorce proceedings by going to the police and saying that she was worried that her husband would shoot her. Woman did as told; her husband was arrested in front of the kids. In court, the judge reviewed his record. He has never owned, touched, or shot a gun; however, the accusation was sufficient. She got immediate, sole custody; he hasn't seen the kids in over a year. It is explicitly acknowledged among that legal community that her strategy is immensely successful, albeit utterly immoral.

So yeah, some men do get screwed.

That doesn't mean that women have achieved gender parity; it just means that we are still judging people based on their sex. That's wrong, no matter whom it hurts.

UCLAbodyimage: "If you view "patriarchy" as "all men have dominance over all women", than that view somewhat makes sense. But if you also view patriarchy as "Some men dominating other men", which is after all a defining feature of patriarchy..."

My all-encompassing view of patriarchy is: Some men dominating all other people in a given society, and creating a system within which it will be easier for men to dominate those considered to be 'inferior,' especially women, at all levels.

UCLA, it seems like you're unfamiliar with the MRAs we're talking about. 'Cause they sure aint interested in smashing gender roles.

And oenophile, it's a myth that the courts are biased towards women. The courts are interested in preserving the "status quo" for the children involved. What that means is that if the mother was the primary caregiver while married, the courts will try to allow her to stay primary caregiver after the divorce. If men are truly interested in custody issues, they'll promote stay at home fatherhood. I won't hold my breath.

If a man is identifying as a men's rights activist because he believes in things that are complimentary to feminism (paternity leave, better models of masculinity, rights for gay men) then he really needs to take a step back and look at what everyone else using the label actually wants. Some MRAs talk a good talk about equality that can make feminists (both male and female) assume they've found an ally who sees the issues from a different, but important, point of view. Not so much. When you scratch the surface, the men's rights movements are all about anti-feminism. Is it unfair that they took the phase "men's rights" and should feminist men reclaim it for good? Of course, but it can't be reclaimed by simply saying "not all MRAs are bad". An analogy would be a feminist trying to reclaim the term pro-life. Saying that anti-choicers aren't really pro-life because anti-abortion laws force women into unsafe, illegal abortions that could kill them, and feminists are more pro-life because we support better access to pre-natal care which prevents stillbirths and infant deaths and maternal deaths works a lot better at getting a point across than just saying "not all pro-lifers are bad". A feminist man who wishes to identify as an MRA has to recognize that the vast majority of MRAs have opinions and beliefs that directly contradict his, and he can't ever just say "I'm an MRA" and expect people to know what he believes in.

SARAHMC: "UCLA, it seems like you're unfamiliar with the MRAs we're talking about. 'Cause they sure aint interested in smashing gender r