I do often check in on various men’s rights discussion boards, and as regular readers know, I’m "honored" to be a not-infrequent target of MRA opprobrium. I don’t take the nastiness too seriously, mind you; on only one occasion did I allow some unpleasantness to get under my skin.
But I’ve noticed something about my critics. Many assume that I’ve never been married, though some note my frequent mentions of my fiancee. As someone named "woof" implies in this thread, some of the MRAs suspect that I might change my pro-feminist tune if I actually went through a divorce. Woof writes:
Can’t wait to see how he does in his divorce.
It seems, anecdotally, that a great many Men’s Rights Advocates are embittered survivors of divorce. Michael Flood, the marvelous Australian pro-feminist author, notes:
The men in men’s rights groups are typically in their forties and fifties, often divorced or separated, and nearly always heterosexual. In both general men’s rights groups and fathers’ rights groups, participants often are very angry, bitter and hurting (with good reason, they would say), and they often have gone through deeply painful marriage breakups and custody battles.
From what I can tell, his assessment of the MRA demographic is fairly accurate, though it seems that some of the most vitriolic of MRAs are much younger. (Or perhaps their anger merely seems adolescent. They also seem — though I have no proof of this –to be overwhelmingly white.)
I’ve been through three divorces. They took place at different times in my life; the first was at 25 and the third at 35. I won’t blog about the reasons why these marriages ended, out of respect for all parties involved, especially my current fiancee. I will say this, however, because I think it’s important: none of my divorces made me angry at women!
Divorce is many things: painful, sad, overwhelming, liberating. It’s like nothing else I’ve ever gone through, and going through it more than once does not, I assure you, make it any easier. Praise Jesus, my ex-wives and I never had children (at least not the two-legged variety). Surely, kids would have added a whole new dimension of heartache. But the fact that the marriages were brief and childless does not mean that their endings were not immensely painful. And it doesn’t mean that I walked through those divorces without anger.
But there’s a world of difference between being angry at an individual and being angry at an entire sex, or the entire culture! It’s perfectly normal to be angry in the process of divorce, though it’s vitally important to process through that anger as quickly as possible. Without getting into details, my last divorce was incredibly expensive to me financially, especially in terms of "lost opportunity cost" and a series of real estate transactions. For a very brief period, I was furious about the money — and the property — I had lost. Then I figured that even a six-figure sum was a small price to pay for what that marriage and that divorce taught me about myself.
Divorce can be "good" when the individuals involved take their own separate responsibility for the failure of the marriage. All of my ex-wives had their "part" in our divorces, but it isn’t my job (and it isn’t spiritually healthy) for me to brood on their shortcomings. My job, as a man and as a Christian, was to focus only on where I fell short (and trust me, I fell very short of the mark of a "good husband.") I plunged back into therapy after my last divorce. I prayed and did a great deal of spiritual work. I did my best, and am still trying to do my best, to face up to my own "baggage" and "filth" and get rid of it. The pain was tremendous — but the work was incredibly freeing, and as a consequence, I’m in a spiritual and emotional position to marry again.
I don’t think divorce is a good thing, in general. But I do think that for some people, it can be a catalyst for positive personal transformation. My three failed marriages forced me to confront things about myself I might never have otherwise confronted. Sometimes only a spouse can point out to you the extent of your own brokenness. All three of my exes, especially the last, did a fine job of calling my attention to my own sinfulness. For that, I’m so damned grateful! I don’t talk to any of my ex-wives today, and that’s surely for the best. But wherever they are, I wish them health and happiness and joy — and I thank them for what I learned from them. The agony of our divorces made me stronger, wiser, and a heck of a lot more compassionate.
I am convinced that my fiancee and I will make our marriage last. I am more in love with her than I have ever been with any woman. More importantly, thanks to God’s grace and the work I have had to do to clear up my personal wreckage, I humbly believe I have the tools to be an extraordinarily devoted husband.
When faced with the end of a marriage, one has a choice. One can get bogged down in blame and bitterness, or one can honestly face up to one’s own myriad mistakes and shortcomings. One can point fingers, or one can take responsibility. Too often, on the subject of women and divorce, I see the men’s rights advocates trapped in that blame and bitterness. Too infrequently, I see self-criticism and a willingness to transform. When I became convinced that it was I who was the architect of my own adversity, and not my wives, I took the first key step towards healing and growing up.
If that sounds condescending, I’m sorry. But three divorces have earned me the right to speak on this subject.
Well I guess I’d say that you’re quite wrong about MRA’s. I think most are not angry at the group “women” in general, though of course some are. It’s like feminism: you’ve got your McKinnons and your Hugo’s. Most of the MRA’s I’ve interacted with are more angry at the culture of artificial class distinctions and a government that seems to have so far outgrown its original intent. In my opinion most of the problems that exist around marriage and divorce — including the ongoing public debate around same sex marriages — wouldn’t exist if the government wasn’t in the business of issuing and regulating marriage “licenses.”
Also, don’t let your particular experiences colr your view of the divorce industry. The fact that there were no children involved is HUGE. That’s where the most basic infringement of personal rights occurs I’d say.
Second, divorce law can be as fair as any in the case where each spouse is on fairly equal economic footing in terms of mutual investments, career and actual and potential income. In those cases it’s usually sell it and divide up the loot.
BTW Hugo, is the purpose of this post mainly to increase your hits per minute? Cause there’s gonna be a flood coming I’ll bet.
Three divorces? Hardly an impressive resume for a churchgoer. Seems a product of the “everything and everyone is disposable” philosophy. Marriage a little difficult??….heck, trade it in on another newer model. I’m being judgemental, I know, not because it matters to me how many times you’ve personally been married but…..should someone with that abysmal a track record be a leader and mentor to a church youth group? What does it say to them???? That’s not a role model I’d like for my kids.
Craichead, the only reason I was riffing on my own experiences is because of the suggestion by some MRAs (not all) that divorce and its attendant financial consequences would inevitably change my thinking. I am not suggesting my experience is universal, merely that my pro-feminism is rooted in both theory and my own experience.
Amos, it all depends on whether you believe in regeneration or not, doesn’t it? If you don’t, then how we lived pre-conversion ought to permanently disqualify you from exercising leadership. If you do believe in conversion, then those who sinned greatly cannot be barred from ministry. Think Paul. Think David.
The church is for sinners, not saints. And young people who are struggling have a hard time relating to those who are not plainspoken about the depths of their own brokenness.
Hugo–Thanks for sharing your story–it takes courage. It seems you are becoming a new creation. My hat is off to you.
Hugo - A good, fair answer to my question! I’ve got to rethink my role model stance. Thanks.
I am sick about hearing about divorce is a two way street. A. unilateral divorces rule in the U.S. B. how is the other spouse reponsible for one spouse who choses to take drugs, beat the other spouse, cheat on the other spouse, decide to change (or recognize) gender or sexual preference, or decides monogamy and/or responsibility, or working is not their cup of tea. and don’t give me you should have seen it coming. How? with a crystal ball?
Hugo: Your observations about men who frequent the “angry MRA” groups is probably generally accurate, though I question some of your conclusions.
Craichead is correct that it is the way the system handles the children of divorcing parents that produces the bitterness. I am twice divorced - once without children (painful, but a learning experience, like yours) and then again with four children. The second divorce was the real eye-opener. The bias against fathers in the system was staggering - I will spare you the details. Yet, painful and costly as it was to me, my suffering was trivial compared to the price my children paid, and continue to pay as adults… and may well pay for the rest of their lives. The lawyers and my ex were the immediate beneficiaries of this system. The long-term beneficiaries have been the therapists that my children see. I was a temporary victim. My children themselves were the ones crushed under the wheel of this Kafka-esque system.
Despite all of this, I join you in saying that “none of my divorces made me angry at women.” It is common to see feminists, when accused of hating men, respond by declaring that their righteous indignation at outrageous injustice does not translate to male hatred. Yet it is rare to find the feminist that can see the irony of their making parallel accusations against “MRAs”. Can you see it, Hugo? Yes, I am an MRA, and I LOVE women. ALL of them. I even love the Solanases and Dworkins who consider me a rapist and wish to cut me up. All of this, and I fight for justice for men. And there is NO contradiction here at all.
You said, “When I became convinced that it was I who was the architect of my own adversity, and not my wives, I took the first key step towards healing and growing up.”
This is useful up to a point, but you would agree, I know, that sometimes a person is overwhelmed by a system that is stacked against him - or her. You have expressed, as an article of faith, that western society is dominated by male privilege that places women at a disadvantage. Is it also true that women are architects of their own adversity, not men? Might that be the first key step for women in healing and growing up? Or does this apply only to men? (I don’t buy this 100% myself. I believe that there are real social injustices that must be opposed. You believe this too, Hugo, but men seem to be beyond the pale of your concern, except as miscreants to be reformed in the “correct” image.)
I believe you are taking the correct approach to the abusive email you receive. However, I urge you to have compassion for the writers, because their anger and pain are often genuine. You once stated that you will not judge the righteous anger of women. I ask you to extend the same mercy to men.
I hear you, Stanton. It’s with great restraint that I haven’t posted some of the hate mail, verbatim, on my blog — with author’s email and name attached. It’s because I do understand that the pain is genuine, even if I think the anger is generally misdirected.
I do agree that women must take responsibility for their own decision-making. Many women make stunningly poor choices, choices that may be in response to societal pressures but which are their choices nonetheless.
I hear you, Stanton. It’s with great restraint that I haven’t posted some of the hate mail, verbatim, on my blog — with author’s email and name attached. It’s because I do understand that the pain is genuine, even if I think the anger is generally misdirected.
Considering the generally anti-male stance you adopt here, I’m guessing your restraint is based more on your concern from the various legal liabilities that could result from such unauthorized postings.
Mark
Hah. Mark, I know American libel law well enough to know that posting the contents of an email on my blog is not going to result in successful litigation.
Given my personal track record in many areas, I think it’s safe to say that I haven’t had much fear of being sued. :-)
Hah. Mark, I know American libel law well enough to know that posting the contents of an email on my blog is not going to result in successful litigation.
Who said anything about libel law?
Uh, there is exactly no law protecting hateful emails people send out. However, for anyone reading this who is prone to do this, there are laws about threatening and harassment to think of before you start sending off nasty emails.
I think there’s really two generations of this (I’m generalizing from my time on alt.romance here),
The older generation got caught by the changes feminism brought - they’d grown up with the image of man as breadwinner, but simply being a provider was no longer sufficient to sustain a marriage.
The younger generation seems to have gotten sucked in via the “nice guy” phenomenon - they’re unsatisfied with their dating lives, as many people are in their twenties and thirties, and they’ve got this older generation telling them it’s all women’s fault, which is a more appealing message than admitting personal fault or bad luck.
Fathers’ rights activists often claim that they don’t hate women, but their own posts, hate mail, and articles speak otherwise. See this link:
Fathers Rights Activists: In Their Own Words
It’s interesting that they blame feminists for not getting custody of their children when the modern feminist movement really hasn’t done much in family law. Some individual feminists have, and domestic violence groups are heavily involved in divorce reform, but not the mainstream feminist movement. Not getting your way in your divorce and custody case does not necessarily mean that the courts are stacked against you.
I second what Amanda wrote. You can’t be sued for libel if you post hate mail. However, harassment by e-mail is another story entirely.
Something that you may find interesting, Hugo, is that there is a fairly large contingent of MRA’s who started out as men who actively supported feminism. Both in lip service and in activities like “Take Back the Night.”
For many of them there is a feeling of betrayal around feminism and what it’s resulted in today. But again I’d say that pretty much across the board for these people is not a generalized anger against women as it is a gteneralized anger at government and what seems today like misdirected liberalism.
Hugo, in light of your post, I think you might find this post of mine of interest:
Hyper-Masculinity and the Fathers’ Rights Movement
Hugo,
Good luck to you and your fiancee. You certainly deserve to be happy this time. What a trooper!! To divorce three times, and still be willing to try again, I commend you! I can’t say I would ever be willing to do it again given your situation.
I don’t think that a large number of MRAs started out in the feminist movement. You’re more likely to find them in the evangelical movement than feminism. Men who take part in “Take Back The Night” rallies are more likely to be pro-feminist and sometimes gay, and they don’t condone the masculinist men’s rights movement.
“It’s interesting that they blame feminists for not getting custody of their children when the modern feminist movement really hasn’t done much in family law. Some individual feminists have, and domestic violence groups are heavily involved in divorce reform, but not the mainstream feminist movement. Not getting your way in your divorce and custody case does not necessarily mean that the courts are stacked against you.”
Up is down!
Love is hate!
Freedom is slavery!
Don’t look behind the curtain!
“I don’t think that a large number of MRAs started out in the feminist movement. You’re more likely to find them in the evangelical movement than feminism. Men who take part in “Take Back The Night” rallies are more likely to be pro-feminist and sometimes gay, and they don’t condone the masculinist men’s rights movement.”
That’s your opinion. All I have to go by is what I’ve personally experienced on a day to day basis which apparently is less reliable than your unbiased and objective opinion.
Trish,
Here’s a good essay. You should check it out if you’re not familiar with it. It’s one of my favorites. I probably read it almost once a month.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
Incidentally, in all my interaciton with MRA’s, I’ve never met a single one who came from the evangelical movement.
> But again I’d say that pretty much across the board for these people is not a
> generalized anger against women as it is a gteneralized anger at government and what
> seems today like misdirected liberalism.
craichead,
To be quite honest, in all my experiences with people working in equality issues and in peace and justice issues, I don’t recall meeting anyone who’s told me he’s working with the MRAs. My only known interaction with MRAs has been those such as here on this board.
It is my hope that the reactions to women having a different POV than theirs isn’t typically what I’ve seen here. My having a different perspective based on different life experiences doesn’t make me a “man hater,” such as has been stated by a couple of the posters when I disagreed with them.
AAMOF, my entire life, most of my friends have been male, along the “Manly Man” and “Jock” categories. (That’s the kind you typically run into in rural areas, when you work in factories, and when you participate in athletics.) I don’t understand the stereotypical “Girly Girl” very well and the bewilderment is mutual, so they’re not the ones with whom I normally spend time.
I know that my perspectives are totally different than those of most people. But that doesn’t mean I hate anyone due to those differences of perspective. It’s sad that too many people think that different = hate.
> To divorce three times, and still be willing to try again, I commend you! I can’t say > I would ever be willing to do it again given your situation.
JJB,
Ours is my husband’s FIFTH marriage and my second. As Hugo said, it is important to learn from the previous marriages. Yes, my husband’s first 4 wives left him, for various reasons. But he finally took the time to look at himself and see where his own contributions where to the problems in those marriages, just as I’ve taken the time to look at my contributions to my own failed marriage.
We both have made a commitment to be honest with ourselves about our contribution to any interaction and to look at WHY we react the way we do to things. We’ve both done a lot of growing in the past 6 years, and we each were already working on making changes before we met nearly 6 years ago. It’s a long, hard, difficult process, but in our experience, it’s worth every bit of effort.
Hugo, I can’t recommend Dr. Ed Wheat’s writings highly enough. Love-Life for Every Married Couple is a great help. I mentioned this book in church one day, and a retired Mennonite pastor who was visiting told me that he’d used Dr. Wheat’s material with great success when doing pre-marital and marriage counseling.
The other night, my husband handed me Elmo Stoll’s Give Me This Mountain, turned a section of the Family Togetherness Unit - The Miracle of Communicating. (He gave it to me to read for the couples communcation workshop I’m doing in 2 weeks.) I’m also going through Dr. Carlfred Broderick’s Couples: How to Confront Problems and Maintain Loving Relationships. It has some great tips on working through issues that come up when a couple each has a different “script” of how things are “supposed” to work.
Something that you may find interesting, Hugo, is that there is a fairly large contingent of MRA’s who started out as men who actively supported feminism
craichead, I can’t speak for MRAs, but I have spoken to any number of virulently anti-feminist men who started out as feminists. And to a man, all of them started out with a lot of free-floating, undirected guilt (as Susie Bright tells these guys, “Go hate your penis someplace else”), put women on a pedestal, assumed it meant they would be adored and worshipped as One Of The Good Ones, and then got the shock of their lives. Because they found out that, actually, women are just people and as prone to being selfish, thoughtless, jerky and obnoxious as men; and they also found out that the anticipated shower of adoring, sexually liberated women didn’t occur. So, as often happens with people who go to a ridiculous extreme and are then disillusioned, they ran to the other extreme.
I also have known women who were involved with MRA groups and who still support many of their goals, but walked away because of the extremely anti-female or socially conservative rhetoric they were expected to applaud. (Why assume that because somebody is for fair custody laws that they are also against same-sex marriage? I dunno.) Which is why I’m not involved in any MRA groups, myself. I support many of their goals, but they take what I think of as the Hefner approach–they can’t get past a Battle of the Sexes mentality long enough to see how they are hurt by sexism, instead of blaming it all on greedy women and thosedamnfeminists.
Mark is just trying to be scary, btw. “I didn’t like that you posted my hate mail” is not legally actionable. If Mark thinks there are some other grounds for liability, I hope he’ll go into further detail.
Caitriona,
You are wonderful! Everything you say is full of possitive images and real life examples. I love your comments! I know you’re from Texas, I can tell, you’re as real as they come!
LOL… thanks, JJB. But I’m originally from a rural community in NE Arkansas. I’ve only been in Texas 6 years.
Mythago: “I have spoken to any number of virulently anti-feminist men who started out as feminists. And to a man, all of them started out with a lot of free-floating, undirected guilt (as Susie Bright tells these guys, “Go hate your penis someplace else”), put women on a pedestal, assumed it meant they would be adored and worshipped as One Of The Good Ones, and then got the shock of their lives.”
None of those men were ever feminist. Back in the 70s, a lot of men thought that if they espoused feminist views it would be easier for them to get women in bed. That turned out to not be the case at all. Those men joined to get personal gratification from women, and when they didn’t get it, they got angry and turned tail.
I think a better way for me to describe the MRAs I’ve run into is that they are or were fundamentalist as opposed to evangelical.
True, Trish, but I was not thinking so much of the guys who pretended to be feminist to get laid, but the ones who really did espouse feminist principles out of some misguided combination of guilt and chivalry.
Mythago-
By what means do you discern whether someone follows a particular philosophy out of misdirected guilt or through some other avenue?
Fathers’ rights activists often claim that they don’t hate women, but their own posts, hate mail, and articles speak otherwise. See this link: (Can someone please tell me how to set bold and italics? Thanks!)
Trish: You should know better than to extrapolate from extreme examples to an entire population. Feminists have to fight against this constantly, right? If you really believe it to be a legitimate argument, then let’s see if feminists hate men:
“And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference.”
– Susan Griffin “Rape: The All-American Crime”
“Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women’s bodies.” — Andrea Dworkin
“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.”
– Robin Morgan, editor of MS magazine
Ms. Morgan’s comment is a classic, isn’t it? I have another example from Morgan:
“I haven’t the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white heterosexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary-vested-interest-power. But then, I have great difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do about all this. In addition to doing the shitwork that women have been doing for generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don’t mean that. Yes, I really do.”
I have an endless supply. I haven’t touched MacKinnon, Solanas, Ireland, Delphy, Daly, Barfoot and others who have provided a wealth of material, so if you would like more, just ask. :-)
So, Trish, based on your evidence and mine, do we then agree that feminists hate men and Father’s Right’s advocates hate women? Or rather, how about we both dispense with the quotations of extremists and deal with the issues involved, instead of tearing down the individuals involved?
Trish,
Thank you for making that distinction between fundamentalism and evangelism. A lot of people don’t see that.
I mean, I guess you could characterize me as one of those guys — formerly pro-feminist that is.
But even that’s not accurate. By that I mean, it’s not that I’m so much anti-feminist as I find basically two ways to look at feminism:
First, there are so many types of feminism and expressions of it that it can mean almost anything today. If it can mean anything, in the end it can mean nothing.
Second, if there is one singular value I can point out that distinguishes “feminism” from a simple belief in everyone’s right to self determination, it would be that feminism views men and women as distinct social classes.
I say that because I’ve been in countless discussions of men’s and women’s issues where in the end I’ve been told something like, “YOu don’t get it. Men may experience these things too, but the difference is that men, as a class, oppress women, as a class.
So if that is in fact a central tenet of feminism, it is that thing that I reject.
craichead, generally because they’ve said so flat-out.
Ms. Morgan’s comment is a classic, isn’t it?
stanton, are you quoting things that men’s-rights activists have said thirty years ago as well? I’d quite agree that it’s unfair to take something Warren Farrell said in the 1970s and treat it as though he said it yesterday. If Robin Morgan is (or recently has) been advocating man-hating, then I’m all ears.
Actually, I’ve never met any fundamentalists either. Or at least, religion didn’t come up in any discussions.
You’re welcome, Caitrona. I originally meant “fundamentalist” but wrote “evangelical.” I needed to correct that.
Mythago,
Have you been folowing any of the stuff that’s been going on at the University of New Hampshire lately?
There are extreme feminists who are still espousing things like those said thirty years ago.
Trish: Fathers’ rights activists often claim that they don’t hate women, but their own posts, hate mail, and articles speak otherwise. See this link: (Can someone please tell me how to set bold and italics? Thanks!)
Stanton: Trish: You should know better than to extrapolate from extreme examples to an entire population. Feminists have to fight against this constantly, right?
Those weren’t extreme examples. They are leaders in the fathers’ and men’s rights movements.
Mythago: True, Trish, but I was not thinking so much of the guys who pretended to be feminist to get laid, but the ones who really did espouse feminist principles out of some misguided combination of guilt and chivalry.
I understand. They might have espoused feminist principles, but for the wrong reasons, as you state. I think that deep down they really weren’t feminist. They were operating out of their own sense of guilt, and when that guilt wasn’t appeased they turned tail against feminists. As per your Suzie Bright quote, “Go hate your penis someplace else.”
Are you serious?!!!!!
There’s no way in hell by any stretch of a warped imagination that any of those people could possibly be considered as leaders of the father’s rights movement!!!!
But thanks for posting that. I now have a much better idea of who it is I’m dealing with here.
Those weren’t extreme examples. They are leaders in the fathers’ and men’s rights movements.
And are not the women I quoted leaders and visionaries of the feminist movement?
There are extreme feminists who are still espousing things like those said thirty years ago.
Yup. And I don’t consider them to be ‘representative’ of feminism, any more than I assume some of Hugo’s trolls are representative of MRAs.
stanton, you didn’t answer my question. If a current, moderate leader of the men’s rights movement said something misogynist thirty years ago, would you approve of my quoting it as representative?
I think we’re getting off track here. Quoting and referencing extremists on either side is not going to get us anywhere. I think for the most part, most here to talk are fairly moderate.
Shouldn’t we try to talk on our own terms rather than using someone else’s for rhetorical purposes?
Mythago,
I’m interested in your take on my views on feminism posted above.
Hm.
In my experience on the web, it always seems that reasonable statements are an instant thread killer.
Oh, I hope not. It does seem that this thread has wandered a bit, however.
Mythago: I will answer your question, even though you choose to ignore MY questions when it suits you.
“If a current, moderate leader of the men’s rights movement said something misogynist thirty years ago, would you approve of my quoting it as representative?”
First of all, I was arguing AGAINST using any of these types of quotes to prove anything at all. Attacking the individuals involved serves only to avoid dealing with the issues, and I was merely trying to illustrate the point. But to answer your question directly, if there was any reason to believe that the former position had been softened (other than not having said such things recently), then it would be disingenuous to use earlier quotes. If there is no evidence of having repudiated the earlier stance, then why not? We quote prominent individuals long after they die, right?
Also - I was the only one posting here, feminist or not, who pointed out that a famous Marilyn French quote was not legitimately representative of feminist thought. I support dealing with ISSUES - not individuals. Individuals naturally tend to be flawed, in my experience.
Hugo,
Divorce is never easy, especially when children are involved. This summer I will be ending a 20+ yr. mariage, and I’m not looking forward to the stress.__I can’t imagine ever getting married again. I am so anxious to be independent again, it’s like getting out of jail. __I really respect your attitude to give it another chance!!__I’m not sure I believe in marriage, I think it’s important for the kids.
Well, JJB, I passionately believe in marriage. I think that marriage is a unique vehicle for one’s own spiritual and emotional growth, largely because it forces you to stop being self-centered. Of course, I write that from the privileged perspective of a middle-class man…
Hugo,
Wow! You have divorced three times and you are passionate about marriage! You must be a very special person. Do you think it has something to do with your faith? …I’ve only had one marriage and I have a pessimistic attitude! I think it’s very difficult to be yourself in a marriage, you are always a part of someone else, and eventually your part gets lost.
It’s not just faith — it’s a desire to grow. And I think many folks grow best when they are being lovingly, gently, pushed by a spouse.
Hugo,
You feel that in a marriage you can get the loving support you need….Well, this is true sometimes, it can happen. But more often you have spouses that are only supportive if they are in agreement with your ideas. I’ve had to take the back seat to my spouse’s dominance for many years. I’m not even sure I know who I am anymore.__It’s difficult to have the right mix Hugo, not impossible, but difficult.
JJB said “I think it’s very difficult to be yourself in a marriage, you are always a part of someone else, and eventually your part gets lost.” You may have found this to be the case. I expect you tried counseling and conflict resolution, and non-violent communications and all of the help available out there. Sometimes, there are incompatibilities that just cannot seem to be worked out.
But… when it works, each empowers the other to be truly who they are. When it works, neither is threatened by the interests, the friends, the hobbies, the opinions, the successes, the failures, the family, or anything else that makes their mate who they are. They revel in it. That’s what my wife does for me, and it is what I do for her. I didn’t come close with wife #1. I thought I had it with wife #2 until she ran off with a mutual “friend”. With wife #3, we agree that we are “there”.
I understand your pessimism, given where you are at this moment. But this pain will pass, and when it does, remember that there are a LOT of very good men and women out there who want the same thing that you want. (Excuse me, but I’m not sure if you are a man or a woman. Your experience is common to both.)
> I think it’s very difficult to be yourself in a marriage, you are always a part of
> someone else, and eventually your part gets lost.
JJB,
This is where a lot of marriages go wrong. You’re not a part of someone else. You and someone else are a part of each other. Your spouse’s body is yours and your body belongs to your spouse. You are there to lift each other up, to encourage, to bring out the best in each other.
It isn’t easy at all to do, but it’s worth the effort. My husband and I each have a lot of work left to do on ourselves. We help each other through the rough spots.
There have been times when I had a running dialogue with God going in the back of my mind while having a “dispute” with my husband: “God, WHY am I standing here? Why am I not packing up the kids and heading to a motel or something? Are you NUTS??? WHY DO YOU HAVE ME STANDING HERE? What in the world do you have me saying???”
I’m serious. Especially that first year, it was really rough. Picture a man who’d been a Staff Sgt in the USMC, after 15 yrs had left as a CO, with a truck load of baggage. Add a headstrong woman from the Ozark foothills. Stir in 3 kids - two with abandonment and anger management issues, one of those dealing with no longer being the youngest, and the third dealing with no longer being an only child.
My running dialogues with God are still going, but they’ve changed. These days, it’s more like, “OK, God. What do I need to say here? Guide my words. Show me what to do ’cause I’m totally lost. Show me where I’m screwing up.” And he’s doing the same thing.
In the book I’m currently reading while preparing for my workshop, the author discusses “vicious circles,” where one partner does something that bothers the other partner, so the other partner reacts badly, then the first partner reacts to the 2nd partners reaction, and everything keeps escalating. We all can get trapped in those. The only way to stop the vicious circle is to take a good honest look at our own contribution to it, and to stop doing what we’re doing. It’s difficult to take that look at our own actions. It’s much easier to look at what the other person is doing.
If there is no evidence of having repudiated the earlier stance
Indeed. I haven’t looked at Trish’s quotes, so I honestly can’t say whether or not they are representative of current men’s rights activists’ thinking. I do know that I’ve seen similar ‘current’ feminist quotes bounced around (without anything about where or when they were said, of course) by any number of anti-feminists.
craichead, I think ‘men as a class oppress women as a class’ is sloppy, in that a lot of men read it as ‘all men oppress all women’ and get their backs up. A more accurate statement is that most of the benefits of sexism go to men, and that most of the disadvantages fall on women. I’d also throw in that homophobia and sexism feed each other, and that the difficulties men face are a result of sexism, not feminism. (That view that children are best off with their mothers? Won’t find that supported by the ERA.)
I honestly don’t see how that’s offensive or wacky. If I said ‘most of the benefits of racism go to white people’, nobody would get mad and say that white people are hurt just as much or more by racism and that it’s anti-racist activism, not racism itself, that oppresses whites. (Okay–ALMOST nobody.)
Mythago-
Thanks for answering my question.
I think, though, making analogies between sexism and racism is a sticky issue and one that harms an argument rather than helps it. I see the two as distinctly different issues. I mean, how many women have you known who’ve been followed areound a department store on suspicion that she’d shoplift simply because she’s a woman. It’s an oversimplification I think and one that’s potentially insulting to those who do face racism on a daily basis.
Talking about men and women as distinct social classes may seem sloppy to you, but I also still believe that it’s a forefront of what makes feminism distinct from a simple value of equalitarianism or devotion to everyone’s right to self-determination.
On the ERA and parenthood: that I can see passage of the ERA would probably do absolutely nothing to change the status quo of father’s rights. The Constitution should actually be doing that through the First, Tenth and Fourteenth amendments. A big part of the reason it doesn’t — and still won’t with passage of the ERA — is that the standard for protection of (unmarried) parents’ rights is “best interest of the child” which is defined so broadly as it can mean pretty much anything.
I think it’s useful to look at parenting rights in view of the right to free speech. The standard for that right is anything is fair game unless it presents “a clear and present danger.” Usually your history teacher will cite shouting “fire” in a crowded movie theater to illustrate the point. Analagously, married parents are afforded that same sort of standard in that they’re allowed to parent however they see fit unless it creates a “clear and present danger” to the well being of the child. The state does not get involved with what it considers a child’s best interest when the parents are together.
Imagine if free speech were curbed in “the best interest of society” with absolutely no sort of guidelines as to what that means!
Given that many of the groups vocal in passage of an ERA are equally as vocal against fathers’ rights, I don’t see that changing anything.
Hugo-
It is good to see that you still believe in marriage and I absolutely agree that it can make one an all around better and stronger person. I know it has done that for me. I think that if I were to divorce, though, I would probably also be deterred from marrying again — not because I think it’s a bad thing, but because I think we live in an environment– legal, cultural, economic– that works against the lifetime commitment. The only way I’d consider it again were if I met a woman who saw marriage as a declaration of family first and foremost rather than as a declaration of taking a romantic relationship to another level. Too many people see it this way I think and they’re usually surprised to find that there is no “next level.”
Rambling on…last summer I was at my favorite bluegass festival and on the bill was Ricky Skaggs. Ricky is well known for his deep Christian faith as well as how vocal he is about it onstage and off. He lost a huge record contract years ago because he refused to stop speaking about it onstage.
Anyway, Ricky’s wife, Sharon White, was there too and at one point she came out and the two of them just stood there at the mic talking about their marriage. They talked about how that fact that their marriage was so strong and enduring is because they “get themselves right with God first and the rightness of the relationship follows naturally.” It was unfortunate that many of my liberal friends sort of chuckled uncomfortably and made light of the two of them out there baring their soles proudly. There’s such a chasm these days between humanists and religious and the humanists are missing out on something important: that religious people speak a different language talking about morality and they often can gather strength that a humanist may never know. That’s not a dig against humanists as much as it is a nudge that they’ll actually read something about Christianity rather than taking Falwell’s word at face value.
Ricky and band then dove into a rendition of Harley Allen’s “Simpe Life”
My favorite book was wrote
About a man that died to save my soul
My favorite thing to hear
Is “Daddy I’m so glad you’re home!”
My favorite woman is five three
With long black hair and green eyes
Lord I live a simple life
Good luck to you in your marriage, Hugo, and I sincerely hope this one IS for keeps. And if you think having a wife will make you stronger, having a kid will make you stronger still.
Thank you, craichead, for such a kind and lovely comment. I’m very fond of Ricky Skaggs.
Hugo,
I was up late last night getting myself organized for my next round of classes. (Yes folks, I’m back in school!) __It’s sheer bliss to be all alone.__ Spouse off for three weeks, college student back in school, second child with friends on spring break. __ I woke up late today to all the uplifting comments about marriage on your blog…..This is like free marriage counseling!!
Thanks to all of you…Stanton, Caitriona, Craichhead, Mythago, and last but not least, Hugo, for your supportive communication and possitive attitude toward marriage.
JJB,
You’re very welcome. It’s one of those things of, “This is where I’ve been and what I’ve learned.” If it can help someone else, then it’s been worth all the effort.
“But there’s a world of difference between being angry at an individual and being angry at an entire sex, or the entire culture!”
And again, to take anger towards one person on an entire gender is a character flaw not limited to men or women.
“My job, as a man and as a Christian, was to focus only on where I fell short….”
That’s fine, so long as you know the other party is doing the same. Forgive me if I say that you still seem to want to hold men to a higher standard to that of women — and, therefore, you hold yourself to a higher standard than that of your exes. And I know you believe in each gender repairing itself, but, again, it’s not worth much if one gender (in this case your exes) aren’t holding up their end of the bargain.
“Too often, on the subject of women and divorce, I see the men’s rights advocates trapped in that blame and bitterness.”
Divorced MRAs aren’t necessarily unaware of their own shortcomings; they criticize a divorce system that they consider unfair to men. Men often get told that their children aren’t really “theirs” with regard to quality time, but ARE “theirs” with regard to child support. Who WOULDN’T be angry?
“If that sounds condescending, I’m sorry. But three divorces have earned me the right to speak on this subject.”
And you deserve credit for discussing what I’m sure is painful for you. Good luck with your upcoming marriage.
“Have you been folowing any of the stuff that’s been going on at the University of New Hampshire lately? There are extreme feminists who are still espousing things like those said thirty years ago.”
Absolutely, positively right. That UNH story is frightening.
By the way, did anyone notice that I got ALL FOUR TEAMS right in the women’s Final Four?
Sorry. I don’t watch sports on TV. Drives me nuts. Something ’bout having been a jock in high school. Only way I can stand to watch soccer is by coaching or ref’ing. Wanna come join me in the morning? First game’s at 8am, gotta be there by 7:30am, it’s a 20 minute drive, and the feeding has to be done first, plus there’s a lamb we put a collar on a week and a half ago and the collar needs to be loosened. Oh, and we’ve got to get the teens up and moving to help with the animals before we head to the fields. ;-)
Regarding that Robin Morgan “man-hating” quote, does anyone know where it comes from? I don’t doubt it - it sounds like something she may have said - but I’ve never seen it cited with a legitimate source. (I have seen it on about a bajillion “out of context quotes from 1970s feminism” lists, most of which seem to have at least one or two false or out-of-context quotes).
Hugo, this is a silly pet peeve of mine, and totally unimportant, but the phrase is “opportunity costs,” not “lost opportunity costs.” Putting a “lost” in front of it creates a sort of double-negative problem.
I agree with Mythago that misplaced guilt - and, I’d add, a fear of blame - is driving the Warren Farrells of the world.
Actually, I find Warrne Farrell to have a remarkable degree of clarity where many DO have anger.
I think that much of it can be attributed more to enculturation. We all - nearly all anyway — spend our childhoods and imprinting years with our relationships with our mothers as the closest and most important to us. Pretty much everything emotional and physical that we depend on for our lives emanates from her when we’re little.
I find that many people — men and women alike — tend to project a generalized mother slanted view on to the entire group “women.” I think that this is much of what we think of as misplaced chivalry today.
I mean, how many women have you known who’ve been followed areound a department store on suspicion that she’d shoplift simply because she’s a woman.
How many black men do you know have had packs of women following them down the street making threatening sexual remarks? No, sexism is not just like racism, and that’s not the point I was trying to make–as I think you understood. (Really. I don’t fall for the “Look! White guilt!” trick.)
The problem with “a simple value of equalitarianism or devotion to everyone’s right to self-determination” is that it doesn’t really look at the whole problem. Yes, everyone should be equal under the law and everyone should have self-determination; that’s a given. But you can’t really address a social problem fully unless you are aware of and address who benefits and who is disadvantaged. Think of it as a version of “follow the money.” It is more comfortable for me, as a white person, to simply say golly, we should all get along and be colorblind, but it doesn’t help me to see how racism benefits me at the expense of others, and to try and divest myself of those unfair benefits. Getting mad and pointing out ways that, say, African-Americans benefit from a racist society through ‘reverse racism’ or whatever isn’t productive.
The standard for that right is anything is fair game unless it presents “a clear and present danger.”
Uh, no, that’s actually *not* the standard for that right. If it were, we couldn’t have laws against libel, harassment, or obscenity. It’s also a very bad analogy for parents’ rights; the State can intervene in your parenting in all kinds of ways, such as requiring your child to go to school, even if the child is not in actual, physical danger.
I don’t think you understand how the ERA would work. Right now, there is no explicit categorization of “sex” as a protected category in the Constitution–that’s why the legal standard is lower than that for, say, race or national origin. Making gender equality explicit would indeed help fathers’-rights activists, because any state with a ‘best interests of the child’ standard that had a disparate impact on men would have to show a compelling reason for preferring women as custodial parents. They’d also have to justify it if they didn’t enforce child-support arrangements as much against mothers as fathers.
The intent of the people pushing the ERA is irrelevant. Orrin Hatch certainly didn’t mean to protect gay-straight student alliance groups with his Equal Access Act–his entire goal was to keep Bible-study groups in schools–but that was just too damn bad for him.
Feminsim is the most fraudulent and hypocritical rebellion in history. Allowing them to dictate marriage and family policy in the US has been catastrophic. Feminsts (feminazi’s) reject Due Process for males in the US and the Bill of Rights in general and therefore should be classified as traitors and prosecuted. Exile to north korea would be a fitting solution for these dangerous bigots.
Hugo defines his political stance by the oxymoron “Christian-socialist”. This is utterly absurd since the majority of socialists and their marxist allies are authoritarians, anti-Christian and generally hostile to the concept of God. Supporting these traitors is utterly self-destructive for the average moderate working class person.
Here are some clever metaphors describing the ludicrous Alice in Wonderland thats resulted by feminazi meddling;
FEMINIST: I demand equality.
MAN: Okay.
FEMINIST: Harvard must go coed, not Wellesley.
MAN: Okay.
FEMINIST: And circumcised girls must be called “genitally mutilated,” while circumcised boys remain…”normal.”
MAN: Okay.
FEMINIST: After sex, I get three choices (birth, abortion, or adoption). You get none.
MAN: Okay
FEMINIST: I can kill your child, or make you pay for 25 years, or give it away.
MAN: Okay
FEMINIST: I can join the army and never fight.
MAN: Okay
FEMINIST: I can wear what I want, but you can’t look at what you want.
MAN: Okay
FEMINIST: I’m rough and tough, but can sue for name-calling.
MAN: Okay
FEMINIST: I can come in 70th in a Marathon and still get first-place prizes.
FoxNews: “Catherine Ndereba (search) of Kenya won the Boston Marathon (search) for the third time Monday, her 16-second margin of victory tying for the smallest in women’s race history.” — Well, that wasn’t hard at all. Women got a half-hour head start. Full Story
“Catherine Ndereba, the top female finisher (13th overall), and Timothy Cherigat (1st overall), the top male finisher, each got $80,000. I can’t find the prize amount for those placing 2nd through 12th.” Full Story
(Well, would it not stand to reason that they all got $80,000? To do otherwise would be discriminatory! —WHS)
MAN: Okay
FEMINIST: I want to technically make divorce no-fault…
MAN: Okay.
FEMINIST: …but actually blame you.
MAN: Okay.
FEMINIST: I want all the benefits of marriage post-divorce, not the burdens. You must keep all burdens and lose all benefits.
MAN: Okay.
FEMINIST: If I say you made booga-booga eyes at me, I get to call the cops and have you arrested.
MAN: Okay.
FEMINIST: Arrested, you become a “batterer” and I can kick you out of our home. I also get temporary custody of your kids.
MAN: Okay.
FEMINIST: If I have a restraining order, and you call me, I can call it “stalking.” You’ll be jailed.
MAN: Okay.
FEMINIST: At permanent custody hearings, I can bring up your “abuse” record and keep the kids, car, cash, and castle.
MAN: Okay.
FEMINIST: I can kill you and say you provoked me. You can’t lay a hand on me since “There’s NEVER an excuse to hit a woman.”
MAN: Okay.
FEMINIST: Men who beat women will suffer harsh Federal punishments and public censure. Women — who start better than half of all domestic fights with men and cause most abuse/neglect of children and the elderly — will be called “nurturers” and “care-givers.”
MAN: Okay.
FEMINIST: Divorce will cost you big bucks. I’ll get free help from the state, and wimmin’s advocates, and even make you pay my legal bills.
MAN: Okay.
FEMINIST: I get the kids, ‘cuz I spent more time raising them. You don’t keep the cash, though you spent more time earning it.
MAN: Okay.
FEMINIST: I’m a mommy, you’re a money-mule.
MAN: Okay.
FEMINIST: I get to go back to school, or stay at home. You must work.
MAN: Okay.
FEMINIST: I get to track your earnings. You can’t track my parenting. In fact, you can’t see your kids school records without my say-so.
MAN: Okay.
FEMINIST: You must make up for my lost career momentum. I don’t have to make up for your lost time with the kids.
MAN: Okay.
FEMINIST: You have to pay child-support (CS) to me. I don’t have to tell you how I spend it or if I use it on myself.
MAN: Okay.
FEMINIST: Your CS orders will be higher than if we were still married, being based on Lenore [Weitzman’s] cooked statistics.
MAN: Okay.
FEMINIST: I get to have “space” and to “find” myself. Judges will make you stay at lousy jobs.
MAN: Okay.
FEMINIST: I get 25 per cent of your gross income for Jimmy. Make more, I get more.
MAN: Okay.
FEMINIST: After divorce, I can “train” or go to college instead of getting a job. You have to work.
MAN: Okay.
FEMINIST: I get to move the kids out of state without your permission. You can’t budge without mine.
MAN: Okay.
FEMINIST: “Family” now means “women and children.”
MAN: Okay.
FEMINIST: Birthing slatterns will now be called “single mommies,” their chosen sex partners “predators.”
MAN: Okay.
FEMINIST: States and feds will enforce my child-support rights - for free. You must pay to ” try” to enforce your visitation rights.
MAN: Okay.
FEMINIST: I don’t have to make up denied visitation to you. You must pay all missed CS payments to me, with interest.
MAN: Okay.
FEMINIST: I can call you a “deadbeat dad.” You can’t call me a “welfare queen.”
MAN: Okay.
FEMINIST: Welfare mothers can’t be forced to name abusive fathers since ALL fathers are now “abusive.”
MAN: Okay.
FEMINIST: The tax office can dog you on the Internet for CS. My privacy is sacred, my rights endless.
MAN: Okay.
FEMINIST: CS agents can hunt you like a fugitive slave, making you register with employers like an apartheid black.
MAN: Okay.
FEMINIST: Whales matter now, not males.
MAN: Okay.
FEMINIST: In cultural coin tosses, it’s “heads I win, tails you lose.”
MAN: Okay.
FEMINIST: I can keep expanding my perks and punishing you.
MAN: Okay.
FEMINIST: If you want me to bobbittize you, say “Okay.”
MAN: Okay.
Obviously, supporting feminism only destroys civil rights. I recommend reading Tammy Bruces, “The New Thought Police”, and “1984″ by George Orwell to learn more about what supporting feminism really means.
How many black men do you know have had packs of women following them down the street making threatening sexual remarks?
And how many visibly rich people walk down a poor street and feel threatened by lower class hoodlums leering at them?
In the that case, the rich are feeling threatened by people who are percieved to be coveting their wealth for themselves. In the other case men are coveting the woman’s sexual power. In both cases the rich white person and the woman feel threatened by the coveting(or percieved coveting) of others. But the real issue is *why* the coveting exists in the first place. Coveting can only exist in a situation of inequality, where one person has something another doesn’t. And once there is a situation of inequality, there will be people who use violence to level it, thus the feeling of threat.
Now, the question I have is this… if we lived in a society in which women were invisible sexually, would feminists consider this an ideal society?
Ampersand: Why do you need to seek out unsavory motives that MUST be the driving force behind persons who do not share your views? I see this a lot from all sides, and have concluded that the driving force behind this activity is the desire to make it easier to discount the issues their opponents raise and excuse themselves from the discomfort of facing them head on. (Oops!)
Actually, with Mr. Farrell, I can see that feminist apologists need to believe that personal integrity and honest inquiry could not possibly have led him to where he now sits, in that the man is such a prominent reformed sinner. Converts, who have “seen the light” are particularly troublesome to those who who are determined to remain in darkness, to use a Christian analogy that I hope Hugo will appreciate. As with Christian converts, his initial zeal was over the top, and he needed to tone it down - and he has done so. But, like the 70s feminists, his earlier post-conversion works provide some nice grist for the mudslinging mills of those for whom his existence is inconvenient.
And as for the Robin Morgan quote - I have searched for context on it and have not been able to find it. However, as you say, it is ubiquitous, and can be found in sources of all types: MRA, Father’s rights, neutral sources, and even feminist sources. I have concluded that it is legitimate, because I have likewise not seen any disclaimer or denial from the feminist or Morgan camps.
That said, my point stands: Use of such things as quotations from extremists amounts to simple ad homenim, and has no place in a discussion of the issues involved. This does not apply, of course, if two parties WISH to engage in a mud fight - but I myself have never found them to be useful.
feminist apologists
I suppose it’s nicer than “feminazis.”
Converts, who have “seen the light” are particularly troublesome to those who who are determined to remain in darkness
Which, of course, presumes that the convert has always seen light and those who disagree are in darkness.
I have concluded that it is legitimate, because I have likewise not seen any disclaimer or denial from the feminist or Morgan camps.
Now there’s a good one. Since you haven’t been able to find somebody proving that the quote exists nowhere in anything written by Morgan, and it’s cited everywhere without attribution, it must be true. The burden of proof is on those with whom we disagree.
In the other case men are coveting the woman’s sexual power.
No, I don’t think they are coveting the ability to be admired and lusted after by other men–they are coveting the woman, period. And as a proof that this is ‘inequality’, where women have all the power–dude, talk about down the rabbit hole. That’s like saying if a pack of bullies follows the neighborhood weakling around threatening to beat him up and take his bike, the weakling really has all the power because the bullies “covet” his bike.
Nor do I understand why you propose ‘invisibility’ as an ideal. There is a large gap between ‘invisible’ and ‘not subject to threat,’ don’t you think?
I’ll re-phrase the question.
Wouldn’t a society where women are sexualy invisible be better then our own?
Take away that sexual mojo, and men loose interest in rape. Then women would be the ones initiating every sexual encounter. Thus “controlling” it by feminist logic. A net gain for women, don’t you think?
This is a thought experiment of course.
That’s like saying if a pack of bullies follows the neighborhood weakling around threatening to beat him up and take his bike, the weakling really has all the power because the bullies “covet” his bike.
I never said anyone had all the power. There are social powers (wealth, sex appeal, a bike) and there is the power of physical compulsion.
In none of the situations I mentioned am I saying social power always trumps physical power. I’m saying you cannot look at one instance of physical power overwhelming social power and say that there is no such thing as *insert social power*. Further physical force tends to be the refuge of those lacking social power.
> Further physical force tends to be the refuge of those lacking social power.
Interesting concept. Problem is, in far too many situations, it is the people with all the social power who use physical force, quite often either to maintain their social power or to make sure whomever knows they have that social power. IME, it’s not a social power vs physical power dynamic, but rather either a matter of “that’s the way it’s always been done” or of emotional insecurities the person using force will not acknowledge they have. Case in point - the Taliban in Afghanistan. This is an easily seen instance where the men had ALL the power. They used that power in order to keep women from having *any* power.
bmmg39, congratulations. But did you pick MSU and Baylor to win?
Mythago: Is “apologist” a pejorative term to you?
About the “convert” thing - yes, it was an analogy. Generally, converts are an inconvenience to the abandoned group, and the departed member views the former associates as unenlightened - in darkness. It is absurd, of course, to say that the convert has “always seen the light” since there are converts both to and from almost any ideology that you can name. Farrell just happens to be a particularly troublesome one, upon whom a great deal of energy is expended by his former comrades in damage control efforts. Discussions of his assumed motives is a part of that damage control. It’s another example of attacking the person rather than the message.
“Now there’s a good one. Since you haven’t been able to find somebody proving that the quote exists nowhere in anything written by Morgan, and it’s cited everywhere without attribution, it must be true. The burden of proof is on those with whom we disagree.”
It’s not that I have found no one “proving that the quote exists nowhere”, it’s that I have never seen it disclaimed - even by Morgan herself. What I HAVE seen is active defense of Ms. Morgan for making the statement. I have asked no one for any proof in this regard, so how can you say I am placing that burden upon anyone?
Stanton, I’m a bit troubled by the comparison of my conversion experience to Warren Farrell’s. There is, I think, a world of difference between a dramatic SPIRITUAL transformation (moving from reckless agnosticism to new life in Christ) and a dramatic ideological shift (moving from pro-feminism to the men’s rights movement.) One involves a soul-shift, the other is essentially an intellectual change.
I think it trivializes religious faith to compare spiritual conversion to a change — no matter how marked — in one’s political and social outlook.
Hugo: Point taken. I acknowledge that there are differences between spiritual conversions and intellectual conversions, and I certainly intend no trivialization of religious faith. And let me add that I did not mean this to be a comparison between Farrell and yourself in particular. I was referring to the dynamics and implications of conversions in general. I apologize for using your name in the process.
No problem,Stanton — thanks for that. Generally, I agree with your point about converts, and about the danger of quoting folks out of the context of a new conversion. Too many of us are guilty of those kinds of quotes. For the record, I’d rather take on Farrell’s modern stuff, and leave the whole Penthouse silliness out of it.
it is the people with all the social power who use physical force
Or rather, it’s people with social power who get *others* to use physical force to their ends.
As for the Taliban, you’re right men in Afghanistan have all the power. Including sexual power. In that society women are sexually invisible, literally and figuratively. They aren’t even considered particularly sexually desirable. That role is reserved for male youths.
None of those men were ever feminist. Back in the 70s, a lot of men thought that if they espoused feminist views it would be easier for them to get women in bed. That turned out to not be the case at all. Those men joined to get personal gratification from women, and when they didn’t get it, they got angry and turned tail.
I followed the link from the Stand Your Ground forum. I’ll agree wholeheartedly that making fun of a funny picture from a playground was pretty low.
At the same time, so is an assumption like this one. Back in the 70’s I was a small child. The only divorce I’ve been through was my parents. At the time it wasn’t considered a bad divorce as my mother did all the screaming, yelling, and throwing of things. I spent the 70’s and 80’s learning from my feminist mother. I, like a lot of the MRA folks, think of women as my mother taught me to think of them. Equal, capable, responsible people.
Yes, I paraded around my college campus in a Take Back the Night Rally. Only once though, as they really don’t like straight men in those things. They didn’t like it when I asked if I could be a masculinist and for equal rights if they were feminists for equal rights either. They didn’t much like it when I suggested a new slogan for the date rape awareness campaign of : ‘No means no, maybe means no, yes means no. Yes, yes, yes, oh God Yes! Means yes.’
I have to admit at 35 I’ve not been through any divorces of my own. I started reading and participating in MRA discussions online as experience with my parents divorce scares me. My parents are not bad people, but the family court system is biased, and gave my mother an arsenal of legal means to take advantage of my father. He, being a traditional, non-feminist guy, took it all in silence, refusing to say anything bad about the mother of his children, and hiding all of what he was going through from us.
Now that I’m married and looking forward to children of my own, my precarious legal positon as a father scares me. I’m well aware that I’ll be a parent only at my wife’s whim. Yes, part of that is biology, but a lot of that is the law. That’s not right, and that’s why I’m over there, and not over here.
fezzik: There are about three or four MRA-types who post here with any regularity. It can be challenging to face an entire community of contrary thinkers, but the group is, for the most part, willing to engage in reasonable and respectful discussion. Blogger Hugo does not allow things to degenerate into invective. So “here” is not too bad a place to be. Ideologically, there is no “here” here, although we MRAs are an unpopular minority.
I had posted, with snipped portion re-inserted for context:
> in far too many situations, it is the people with all the social power who use physical force
And typhonblue responded:
> Or rather, it’s people with social power who get *others* to use physical force to their ends.
hmmm… In *some* instances, perhaps. But in many situations throughout the US and throughout the world, those with social power also have physical power. In most societies, men traditionally hold both the social and the physical power. Traditionally, women’s power is typically more unconscious and passive-aggressive: “You’re not doing what I need you to do, so I’ll accidentally scorch that wonderful dinner I’m making,” “You’re not giving me the affection I need, so I’ll not keep the house/your laundry/etc the way you want it.”
It’s quite common in any culture about which I’ve studied. Those with no power find ways to vent their anger and frustration on those who wield all the power.
> As for the Taliban, you’re right men in Afghanistan have all the power. Including
> sexual power. In that society women are sexually invisible, literally and
> figuratively. They aren’t even considered particularly sexually desirable.
It is the epitomy of what Dr. Robbins discusses some *women* doing in his article. Perhaps a balance would be achieved if he also addressed the tendency some men have to abuse their power.
> That role is reserved for male youths.
???? Not sure where you got this. Sodimy is a death penalty offense in most Muslim countries. I’ve not heard of any where it isn’t.
“bmmg39, congratulations. But did you pick MSU and Baylor to win?”
NOPE. Just the reverse, in fact. I took a hit Sunday night. ESPN still has me in the top 10%, though…
Tonight, I’m just going to watch as a fan. No favorite — just want to see some great basketball. I suppose I’m leaning a tad towards Michigan State, but not by much…
???? Not sure where you got this. Sodimy is a death penalty offense in most Muslim countries. I’ve not heard of any where it isn’t.
If you do a bit of research, you’ll find that while the official word is that sodomy(two men can do more together then just ape hets, btw)is punishable by death, it usually is not enforced unless the person in question pisses someone in power off.
Apparently, a man finding another man for sex is much easier in most middle eastern countries then in the west. For some reason homosexual behavior is far more prevelant there, despite being punishable… possibly because it doesn’t carry the effeminitizing stigma it does in the west (thanks mostly to feminists and gay activists.)
Further, having lived and traveled in the Middle East I would say that if the men are kissing, fondling, cuddling and holding hands in public, they are most likely doing even more in private.
Here’s an article on Afghanistan:
http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/afghanistan/afnews007.htm