Mens' rights movement

[Flopsyfreddie]

Hi.

This is my first thread start, so hope this is the right place.

I am currently researching on sexism in schools and am trying to find an official website to the men's rights movement. The only thing i can find by googling is a forum or series of posts by the men's rights activism - which doesn't really seem to be what i am looking for.

Is there an official website (or one which establishes the official policies/aims of this group?)

I hope it is clear that I am not in agreement with any of their arguments, but I need an official line to work from.

Thank you in advance!

Sorry ReallyTired. I was was talking about men as a class, rather than individual men. I am married to a lovely most of the time man, my sons either are or will be men, do I think that they, individually and solely prop up patriarchy? No, of course not, but they benefit from it. They will never have a potential employer look at them and, along with all the other inward questions they ask have them ask about whether they are a risk vis a vis taking a year out to have a baby. If they are assaulted, they will be believed, without a police officer asking them what they were wearing and making value judgements about them as a person if they have been drinking or been assaulted before.

Men benefiting from Patriarchy isn't sexist, it's just fact. It doesn't imply that they set out to benefit from it, they just do. However, most men, and yes, NAMALT, will balk at equality. Men benefiting from Patriarchy isn't a conscious thing for the vast majority of men, it just is.

Dervel I don't agree that MRAs come about from men being frustrated by banging up against some barrier. In the context of your post, it seems like you think that is them getting the thin edge of the wedge or an occasional injustice - is that what you meant?

I think most MRAs come about from frustration that some feeling of entitlement they have is not being met. While there are no doubt some injustices against men following a relationship breakdown, most of these men would have improved their outcomes with their children if they had shared parenting responsibilities with their partners before the breakdown. In the vast majority of cases, I would not agree this is an injustice but that the man's sense of entitlement has been wounded.

I agree with Puffins that men as a class benefit from patriarchy. Some men may also suffer some consequences by enforced masculine behaviour but even then they benefit from their position in the dominant class as it relates to women.

Some men may also suffer some consequences by enforced masculine behaviour but even then they benefit from their position in the dominant class as it relates to women.

This is completely true as well. Men (as a class) dominate both women and non conforming men. Patriarchy hurts men too. Not as much as it harms women though. In a like for like comparison men will almost always come out on top.

I'm summarizing here Robin Lakoff's view on gender and language and extending it to other aspects of gender norms because it's very enlightening in this context:

The difference lay in the reward system set up by patriarchy.

That is to say that if boys tow the line and learn the lesson that patriarchy teaches them (to be strong, independent, rich, athletic, look down on anything girly etc) they are rewarded with higher status and respect. They enjoy camaraderie amongst other men and are admired by society.

Those men that don't tow the gender line suffer.

Women on the other hand aren't rewarded in the same way for towing the line. Girls who learn the lesson as they should that being female is about being attractive, kind and polite do not grow up to accorded with respect and status in our society. They are seen as lacking in authority or as too vain (or asking for it) or too indirect and dishonest in a manipulative way.

So whilst both men and women suffer, women are caught in a double bind. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Hope that's understandable!

OP in terms of finding a single voice in the UK the political party justice for men and boys are planning on contesting 30 seats at the next general election so guess they would be the people to look at but trying to find info seems to go in a circle back to A voice for men which is American. I am sure closer to the election there will be more information for you. As a mother with two boys anything which helps them interests me at least in terms of better educational results. DD has set a terrible high standard and the boys are not sure they will get as good a set of results. The home environment is the same DD and DS1 have the same father who while being an arse was at least a genius arse. DD has reflected her father's intelligence but DS1 tends not to. DS2 has a different father and is the hardest working of all three even if it doesn't turn out right all the time. So things that help boys definitely interest me.

What a shame for your poor DD to have her achievement characterised as a terrible high standard.

Thanks Buffy I really appreciate the time you took to answer that.

Again, you've found an analogy that's helpful. You acknowledge that maybe it is limited though and maybe that's why I don't see it working with the additional factors that affect people. (Is that intersectionality?) Some prisoners would surely have considerably more privilege than some of the guards? Isolating one dynamic from many creates is difficult concept for me.

if you extended the men's roles beyond just guards it can make more sense

so there might be men who aren't guards, but have relatively low-responsibility and unpleasant jobs. e.g. cleaning the camp drains. it's a shit job, they are picked on and attacked by some of the guards who think they are beneath them, and they're looked down on by many of the inmates too who don't ahve to undertake these duties and particularly those who have managed to reach a relatively privileged position among the prisoners. but they are also assisted by a team of the lowliest inmates to help them clean the drains, who don't get to go home at the end of the day, and don't get paid for their work

hope the medication gets you through the worst of it

i should add to my analogy, that drain-cleaning is a necessary and worthwhile job, but it has low status in this case

FloraFox I think you are absolutely right, and I think MRAs such as they are would head rapidly in the right direction if there was a laser focus devoted encouraging hands on fatherhood at all stages.

However it is not always so simple, I have a fair few male friends who are separated dads and actually none of them seem to fall into the MRA category inasmuch as they have all seem to have reasonable setups with their exes.

However one of them was very much marginalized by his ex as soon as the kids came along. As much as he wanted to be more hands on he was given very little opportunity.

He I think is more hands on since separating ironically. However of course the situation was very much weighted against him to start with. It's also worth mentioning he hasn't demonized his ex to me in the least, and speaks particularly highly of her especially as a mum.

Now of course the preceding paragraphs are classic what about the men? So I truly neither demand nor expect anyone to engage on this point. After all this is feminist board so it is right and proper that is not the focus. However I think society in general does need to engage on deconstruction of gender roles and not just in the minds of traditional patriarchal mysogynistic types but everyone (myself very much included) for everyone's benefit.

I suspect one day I'll sign up to some MRA forum somewhere, and make the point there, but I expect I'll have quite an uphill journey.

Dervel it's hard to say anything about that individual situation, especially the marginalisation by his ex. Not sure what you mean by "the situation was very much weighted against him to start with" let alone "of course".

It is not uncommon for men to be more hands on when separating because they were doing so little during the marriage.

Buffy I agree with you. I also think we can't conclude from the fact that there are three dimensions that we are all simply individuals or our situations are down to random luck. Unfortunately some intersectional analysis has had the effect of erasing class analysis.

i do know what you mean flora. i'm still learning so much of this.

Sorry Petula I wasn't criticising you and I thought your expansion of Buffy's analogy was brilliant.

Buffy I agree re where intersectional started. It just seems to have devolved into tumblr shorthand for no class analysis.

You should totes write a paper about transitional and destination theories. It would be a new era of Buffensian thinking.

sorry, i didn't think you were and my response was a bit self-pitying! i was genuinely agreeing with your and buffy's points.

the other problem with analogies of course is you can get bogged down in an argument about how an analogy is wrong and how to tweak it etc, which distracts from the original problem

Buffensian

Reading these discussions on FWR makes me feel like my brain is doing a workout (in a good way)

Petula ITA about analogies.

Buffy thanks again and I totally agree with the conclusion of 1634. In terms of doing something, I think there are probably another two ends of another stick: some people (like yourself I suspect) will work long and hard on the finer detail of these matters - you will be in the minority. The majority, meanwhile, or society at large if you will, will not share the depth of those insights not spend so long upon the issues. This majority need to be gently nudged in the right direction (leaps being made where available!) and for that a broader, shallower and more accessible version is required that tallies with the lived experience rather than academic conclusions. This perhaps is at the crux of MRAs? These are real people in the real world too and maybe there is a disparity between their experience and what they read when they read feminist theory? I don't just mean MRAs though (that was an effort to stay on topic . But people at large. Could I suggest that people at large may not relate to a binary framework of oppression? A first-glance outsider's view of Saudi Arabia maybe? Yeah, ok. But here? 'Oppression' seems a strong word when you look around you.