To ask your views on MRAs?

[HoldYourBunFire]

Ok (I have actually name changed for this!) please before I get my biscuits I would like to start by saying this thread is not intended to start any sort of bun fight. I am actually serious. There have been a few threads recently that have sparked my interest in this movement and the deeper I delve into it it's actually starting to look a lot less like a bunch of women bashing misogynists screaming "I hate feminism". There are actually quite a few genuine men out there trying to protest their rights particularly in regards to the family court system.

As the mother of a 3yo DS I am increasingly worried about what the attitude towards men is becoming? Quite a big generalization I know but you have to admit that there is quite alot of man hating going on out there (and in here). We all have Fathers, Brothers, Sons, Husbands etc..

I guess what I am trying to say is that in the face of Womens rights movments and feminism (which I truly thank God every day for as I know how hard my day to day life would be without them) have we forgotten Mens rights?

"You say it totally detracts, because you are pre-disposed to rubbish it. If it wasn't that I'm sure you'd find something else."

I'm saying as a man I would not want to look for or have to rely on a support group who aligns itself with Dr Gardner's views. I think men should have better choice of support groups and I am sure once they decide they too want a better choice of support groups they will create them. Until then it appears they don't want them.

MarySue: I think the fact that men want to form pressure groups to ensure that their rights are respected is good thing. As far as I can see on this thread no one has said otherwise. Pointing out that one of these groups do themselves a disservice by appearing to give credence to someone whose theories on paedophilia are quite revolting, is criticism yes: but it is constructive criticism.

HellatWork points out that FNF cites -but does not explain- a theory which could seriously undermine any father's attempts to ensure he is allowed access to his children. She says that the site warns fathers not to use it, sure, but doesn't elaborate on why such a theory does not enjoy credence. She then goes on to say, that, if she were a man she would be very annoyed if she found out later who Dr. Gardner was and what other views he held. She thinks that it would be better for the site to remove this reference.

For my part, I would have thought in the best interests of the fathers to mention Dr. Gardner but include a comprehensive explanation as to why his ideas are not to be trusted. I think this would be information that a father might find useful when surfing the net looking for things that might help him with his fight defend his right to see his children. This way he would avoid falling into the trap of citing him on PAS, only to find himself immendiately under attack for using the ideas of a peodophile apologist.

Far from nitpicking and looking for things to criticise, this is an observation which seeks to help FNF, not belittle it.

I fail to see why this type of criticism is bad. It is not namecalling. On the AIBU thread I tried to engage you into discussing why you were opposed to feminism, as I hoped you would provide constructive criticism of that nature. Instead you replied telling me (amongst other things) that feminists ideas were "nutty". That is not constructive at all, not least because you made no attempt to identify which ideas you considered "nutty" nor to explain why you considered them so.

I have said which feminist ideas I find 'nutty' many times on that thread. Many times in many different ways, to the point where I thought it was wrong for me to keep repeating them. And 'nutty' was not meant to be insulting, it was part of an allegedly humorous post iirc.

Here's a quote from Gardner.

'In the same article, Gardner denied that he condoned pedophilia. "I believe that pedophilia is a bad thing for society," he wrote. "I do believe, however, that pedophilia, like all other forms of atypical sexuality is part of the human repertoire and that all humans are born with the potential to develop any of the forms of atypical sexuality (which are referred to as paraphilias by DSM-IV). My acknowledgment that a form of behavior is part of the human potential is not an endorsement of that behavior. Rape, murder, sexual sadism, and sexual harassment are all part of the human potential. This does not mean I sanction these abominations."

MarySue: I would appreciate it if you could cut and paste these explanations because I am afraid that I have been unable to find them.

Interesting, Trucks: the first few things that HellatWork quoted made me think that he didn't necessarily condone peadophilia. I don't think saying that sexual behaviour that is now regarded as criminal has probably always been in existence. What I thought discredited him was his explainations of it which appeared to take the line that it was usually the mother's fault for starving her man of sex that led men to such behaviour. This I find abhorrent; it is akin to the arguing that the incidence of child abuse by Catholic clergy was a consequence by their forced abstinance.

Truckulent You're right - that quote is from an article Dr Gardner published in 2002, about a year or so before he committed suicide he appeared to do a u-turn on his previous 20 years' worth of articles. Have no idea why.

The more I read that Wiki article the more I agree with the comments in the discussion page of it. It's the most biased wiki page i've ever seen, completely and obviously edited to discredit the whole thing. The wiki page on astrology is more objective!

Catitainahatita, really? Ok, I can't be bothered to search, let me recap.

1. I don't believe all gender differences are environmental/socialised. In fact I think anyone who argues this is ignoring all the evidence. Boys play-fight and girls play house, mostly but mostly.
2. I don't buy the patriarchy myth, and I don't believe all or even most modern men are either happily a part of the oppression of women, or would be 'freed' if they became feminists too.
3. I don't think all women are angels and all men are evil. This may not be one of feminisms oft stated tenets, but it seems the 'nutty' starting point for many feminists, so I'm out.
4. I think I linked to a couple of more extreme feminist ideas, one being 'rape culture' which says we live in a culture where sexist jokes lead to women being devalued then ready for rape by a society that glorifies and condones rape yadda yadda ffs..
5. Another nutty idea, which admittedly I saw on one blog while looking around, yet still had many replies in total agreement, was the idea that Amazon caters fro rape products with its evil word cloud. I particularly liked the bit where the blogger dismisses the idea it could be accidental.

shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/02/looking-for-rape-products-try-amazon.html

There will of course be other fringe extremists who you might say don't represent mainstream feminist thought - which is why I don't cite Dworkin, you all disown her at the drop of a hat - but it's the some of the main tenets I just don't agree with, while lots of other feminist-related thought makes me say 'that's nuts.'

So Mary-Sue you've read the comments and decided on that basis you're going to ignore the entire wikipedia article?

Hang on, but isn't that what you were just accusing me of doing in relation to the FnF website?

Thank you. Yes, I can see why you wouldn't want to be a feminist. Since I am fundamentally in disagreement with points 1 and 2 and think that you are mistaken in regard to 3, I can see that there is little common ground upon which to have a useful debate on the nature of 4 and 5. Anything I say you will find unacceptable given your stance on 1-3.

I'm glad that in your existence you have never encountered anything that would make you question the idea that society generally favours certain gender roles, classes and racial origins over another. You are very lucky.

MarySue all those points have been addressed by many feminist posters repeatedly on that infamous thread.

Several have been shown to be feminist myths, yet you persist in propagating them.

In the areas you disagree with that are a true reflection of feminism (e.g. the existence of a patriarchy, that violence against women is a bigger problem than violence against men) several feminist posters have been able to back-up their arguments with supporting evidence, which you keep requesting. If we can't change your mind, fine, argue against us, tell us why and provide alternative evidence to back up your POV. However, when we present you with evidence you ignore it. Neither do you seem as willing to present your own evidence as you are to demand it from us.

"So Mary-Sue you've read the comments and decided on that basis you're going to ignore the entire wikipedia article?"

I never said that.

"I'm glad that in your existence you have never encountered anything that would make you question the idea that society generally favours certain gender roles, classes and racial origins over another."

I never said that. A bit offensive to suggest I think that really. But I do find feminists don't take rejection well, and often resort to twisting people's words. It's a bit sad.

Okay. You said:

"The more I read that Wiki article the more I agree with the comments in the discussion page of it. It's the most biased wiki page i've ever seen, completely and obviously edited to discredit the whole thing. The wiki page on astrology is more objective!"

So what were you saying apart from the above? It's pretty clear to me from what you stated above that you believed the entire article to be discredited based on some of the comments in the discussion page or have I completely misunderstood and you were saying something else like Dr Gardner's theories are as believable as astrology? Or that astrology wiki page is biased because it too has discrediting comments in the discussion page?

MarySue: you sauid "I never said that. A bit offensive to suggest I think that really. But I do find feminists don't take rejection well, and often resort to twisting people's words. It's a bit sad."

But you did say "1. I don't believe all gender differences are environmental/socialised. In fact I think anyone who argues this is ignoring all the evidence. Boys play-fight and girls play house, mostly but mostly.

1. I don't buy the patriarchy myth, and I don't believe all or even most modern men are either happily a part of the oppression of women, or would be 'freed' if they became feminists too."

The patriarchy myth to which you refer argues that a society organised around patriarchal forms favours men who conform to certain gender roles and discriminates against those who don't; it argues that in this hierarchy moreover, in western culture, it is the rich man who benefits most, and the rich white man who is the most favoured.

This is my reasoning for saying that you were lucky you hadn't encountered any discrimination based on gender, class or race: i assumed that you are an intelligent person, and if you were to have experienced it, you wouldn't argue that it didn't exist.

correction : "it is the rich man who benefits, and the white rich man who is most favoured".

I believe neither have you have raised any points worthy of rebuttal, but I am polite.

Hellcat, I read the article and think it isn't as nuetral and unbiased as Wiki articles are supposed to be, and believe it has been edited with malice and partisanship. Clear?

Catitainahatita, you suggested I think there is no bias in the world? No advantage for being white or of a different class? I'd be wilfully ignorant to think so. This has nothing to do with rejecting feminism based on what I have written.

Correction, 'neither of you.'

Yes I do. That is precisely what I think you are arguing.
Saying you don't "buy into" the patriarchy "myth" and that you think that "socialisation" has no effect on how men and women learn to behave is to willfully ignore all the evidence to the contrary.
It is quite one thing to argue that feminist exagerate about the patriarchy, but it is another to argue with a straightface that the society we inhabit does not tend to favour certain male gender roles over another.
If this were not true -just to give you one example- then all the legislation that has been enacted to enable men and women to have equal rights before the law should have magically ended the dominance of men in some areas and that of women in other.
This hasn't happened. If you don't believe that society might have a culture that makes this a difficult thing to achieve, your only explanation has to be that either women don't want to do certain jobs, or they are not intelligent enought to do certain jobs. (Or visa versa for men).

I meant to add, that it is also one thing to argue that socialisation/education has less effect on how men and women behave than feminists argue, than to argue that socialisation and eduaction have no effect, as you say in point 1.

One is saying that feminists exagerate, the other is saying that we are deluded. Which is it to be?

I retract my last post. Apologies for not reading your point one correctly.

On the point of P.A.S: the most referred to in this field are Lowenstein and Warshak- not Gardner.
While it is not recognised as a "Syndrome" the phenomena of P.A. itself is recognised in the upper courts. If identified as a syndrome, it would need a recognised programme of management/treatment; a very costly can of worms, amongst other things
Much more common is the term "Implacable Hostility."
I have come across children being "alienated"against their mothers too by hostile fathers, although in the UK they seem to be in the minority.
I would suspect that the opposite would be the case in (for example) Muslim countries where fathers are the predominate "winners" in custody battles.

Thanks Catitainahatita, I knew you wer fair and reasonable. I don't hate feminism and I am not anti-feminism, to be clear. xx

Tyr, thank you. I was going to say I am sure that men try and turn their kids against their mothers just as much - but I really don't believe that, sorry.

People might be interested in this regarding Warshak, which again demonstrates that PAS has failed to live up to peer scrutiny and scientific rigour.

Lowenstein has a background in educational psychology. He now has his own private practice making money from trying to prove PAS rather than putting his energies into creating a scientifically valid, thorough research project into this area.

Having just looked at several PAS sites/articles (a significant number of which are violently anti-feminist), I can see why it has failed peer scrutiny. If I'd handed in a piece of work with such a small number of references cited (and the same names appearing over and over again), I'd have failed my degree!

The funny thing is, if you read through the points in PAS it sounds entirely plausible that there will be parents who do this to their children, though I suspect they would be a very small minority. So why aren't the people who believe in PAS doing the research? Why aren't they backing up their theories with proper studies backed by respected research bodies? Surely their arguments would have a lot more weight behind them if they did?

I think it's worth remembering though that even if we assume PAS does exist, how likely is it to explain the number of children denied access to their NRP. Does anyone really believe that more than a small percentage of RPs have a psychological syndrome? Most parents love their children more than they hate their XPs even in extreme cases. You'd have to have a hatred of your XP bordering on the insane to put your child through the degree of psychological trauma PAS 'experts' claim - in which case you'd expect the RP using PAS to have major problems in other areas of their life as well.

It's definitely an area that requires further study, but let's have it. Let's have properly researched, audited, peer-reviewed work.

Hmm. I think is fair and reasonable to say that we have unreconcilable differences, Mary-Sue. I think my estimation of the importance of socialisation is sinificantly higher than yours and I find your rejection of the idea that the society we live in still promotes certain gender roles over others quite astonishing. in short, we have no common ground on which to discuss issues in any meaningful way. I think we would do better to agree to ignore each other's posts in the future.

Hmm. I think is fair and reasonable to say that we have unreconcilable differences, Mary-Sue. I think my estimation of the importance of socialisation is sinificantly higher than yours and I find your rejection of the idea that the society we live in still promotes certain gender roles over others quite astonishing. in short, we have no common ground on which to discuss issues in any meaningful way. I think we would do better to agree to ignore each other's posts in the future.

Phone posted me twice. Apologies.