Dear men’s rights activists,
I have to preface this by saying that I consider myself one of you. Unfortunately, I suspect that a number of you might not agree with my self-identification as a men’s rights activist, because of another important self-identification: I am also a feminist. I know that this may seem incoherent and even offensive to some of you, and that is why I am writing this letter. The struggles for both men’s and women’s rights have a lot to gain if only the men’s rights movement realizes that feminism is not its enemy. Feminism and men’s rights can, in fact, be highly effective allies if they align themselves against their common foe: patriarchy.
Upon my mention of that last word, I can almost feel thousands of rolled men’s rights activist eyes on me. When I was a men’s rights activist of a more recognizable antifeminst variety, I immediately dismissed anybody who uttered the p-word. That was because I didn’t have the faintest idea of what feminists mean when they talk about patriarchy. Therefore, before I go any further, I will have to explain precisely what I mean by the word. Contrary to what I once believed, feminists talking about patriarchy are not referring to some kind of conspiracy. While it has prominent supporters and apologists, patriarchy has no leaders. Its membership is not exclusive and its methods are not hidden. In fact, patriarchy is so universally visible and inclusive that it is difficult to detect if you do not put some effort into doing so, much as you would never know about the presence of the oxygen that sustains you if you had not had it explained to you.
Patriarchy is an emergent phenomenon that comes from the behaviour of virtually everybody on earth. It is the sum of all the beliefs, actions, words, choices, policies, practices, preferences, tastes, and documents that together constitute a broadly enforced but unwritten code that expects one clearly defined social role of women and another one of men. This is both descriptive and normative: gender roles are assumed to be natural, yet patriarchy demands the conformity of those who do not behave according to their supposed nature. I can say with near-complete certainty that you contribute to patriarchy. So do I. And so do even most feminists, as many of them admit themselves. It is fiendishly difficult to act against a lifetime of social conditioning, and yet it is precisely this task that feminism undertakes.
I think that if a sensible men’s rights activist looks at the consequences of patriarchy with an open mind, it will become obvious that they should be working with feminists rather than against them. A good example of this is the issue of family courts. Men’s rights activists have brought forward evidence that family courts are biased in favour of mothers during child custody cases. If this is indeed the case, then it would be difficult to see any plausible explanation for it that did not include the fact that women are generally considered to be more nurturing, and better suited to the care of children than men. That attitude, which is close to universal in our society, is a manifestation of patriarchy that hurts men. It has a flip-side, though. The common perception of women as sensitive and nurturing and more suited to child-raising leads to disadvantages in the work place, including the glass ceiling and lower average pay.
This kind of overlap exists for a number of feminist and men’s rights issues. The perception of women as fragile that leads to their being passed over for the draft or combat duty in the military is also a huge setback for women’s athletics, and the social expectation that men be the active party in the initiation of any relationship, while frustrating at times for men, is deadly serious for women as it contributes to stalking and date rape. A social order which has a set of expectations for men and a different set of expectations for women is beneficial for neither. Both men and women have entirely self-interested reasons to fight patriarchy. Adding a bit of solidarity for the other side of the struggle can only strengthen the cause.
It must be said, however, that there are many ways in which we men have it easy. One needn’t believe in patriarchy to concede that the vast majority of political, economic and cultural leaders for the history of the human species have been men. It therefore stands to reason that much of our society was and is set up by men and for men. This a priori argument is corroborated by a significant amount of hard evidence suggesting that women do, in fact, have it harder on average than men. This is difficult for a men’s rights activist to accept, as it implies that certain privileges that men currently enjoy must be eliminated in order for equality to be attained. This is, I suspect, the reason why those interested in men’s rights are so reflexively sceptical of feminism. There is no way around this. If complaints about the status of men are to be taken seriously, then it must be accepted that men are privileged and that this privilege must be fought. I am confident that there are plenty of people within your movement that have the maturity to accept this, and to live up to the term men’s rights activists, rather than the less attractive label of men’s privilege advocate.
The bottom line is that equal rights is not a zero-sum game. The elimination of patriarchy provides a blueprint for the realization of a world in which nobody’s gender will be used to oppress them in any particular way. This is an ambitious project whose realization demands nothing less than a complete rearrangement of the existing social order, and it will be made much easier if women and men can work together, both with their own goals in mind and out of genuine concern for the well-being of the other half of the human race. For that reason I ask you in the men’s rights movement to see feminism as an ally rather than an enemy, and to back that up with a commitment to fight for things that truly should be men’s rights, rather than for men’s privileges that should rightfully be abolished. I believe that there is enough honesty and maturity within the men’s rights movements that this can come to pass.
Yours sincerely,
Cameron Roberts
Tom Martin
January 15, 2012
“Patriarchy”?
I’m suing LSE’s Gender Institute for sex discrimination, partly, because of its insistence on using the word “patriarchy” to blame men for all the worlds ills. You can read the press, listen to the interviews, watch the video, and an upcoming TV news bit, at sexismbusters dot org
Falsum
January 15, 2012
Tom,
You are overly concerned about terminology. The word ‘patriarchy’ was coined by second-wave feminists several decades ago, and it bears the stamp of those origins. It does not, however, ‘blame men for all the world’s ills’.
Firstly, nobody said that patriarchy is responsible for all the world’s ills. Other causes of the world’s ills include food scarcity, guns, and climate change. Secondly, The use of the latin prefix ‘patri’ does not imply male responsibility, but rather male benefit. Everybody, of all genders and political persuasions, is responsible for patriarchy, as I pointed out in my post and as most feminists will readily admit. If the etymology of the word implies anything, it is that men receive the majority of the privilege that patriarchy offers. To not accept this fact is to throw out all basic standards of evidence in the social sciences, because studies have shown that women are worse off by nearly all measures.
Your concern about the etymology of the term used to describe our present situation is frustrating because it mirrors the same ultimately counterproductive contention that is seen within the feminist movement about terms like ‘sex positive’ and ‘radical’. If you want to focus your attention on such semantic quibbles then I can’t stop you, but I’d like to politely ask that you take your attention off of whether we call ourselves the Judean People’s Front or the People’s Front of Judea, and instead focus on how we can actually make the world a better place.
Tom Martin
January 15, 2012
The strongest “patriarchies” in the world are Muslim states, the Koran a charter for female privilege. Men are legally obliged to go out to work, then give all their money to women, who are not obliged to work – nor even obliged to clean the house – and you are seriously trying to claim that in “patriarchy” men have most of the privileges?
If you have a job, give me your paychecks for the next three or four decades, then get back to me with a sincere answer about privilege – and one that doesn’t blame men.
Falsum
January 15, 2012
I’m not blaming men for anything, Tom. Not all men, anyway. I’ve already explained that. Everybody, men and women, is responsible for patriarchy but it is primarily the men who benefit. This is demonstrably true. Our benefit, however, comes with certain constraints that lead to many of the problems that men’s rights activists complain about.
I hadn’t heard that muslim states obliged their men to give all their money to women, and frankly I’m skeptical. Can you provide a source for this information? In any case, it’s a perfect illustration of my point that patriarchy limits everybody’s options. In Muslim states, men are given the exclusive rights to drive, to work, to participate in public life, to go out alone, and to show their faces in public. The flip-side of this, however, is that they must support their wives financially. I think any reasonable person would conclude that the men have most of the advantages in this situation, but still their possibilities in life are constrained by a social order that demands they fill a particular role. Patriarchy hurts everybody.
Tom Martin
January 16, 2012
The fact is, the higher up the male dominance hierarchy you go, the more likely those men are going to be married to economically inactive women – so even the top men in a so called “patriarchy” are financial slaves to their wives.
In nine out of ten “happy” marriages, women tell men what to do – so to claim anywhere on Earth is anything to do with male “privilege” is false.
If you’ve read research on human behaviour, you will know that 9 out of 10 women elect men to positions of apparent dominance. Women say it, men do it.
“Patriarchies” would more accurately be described as whoriarchies.
Don’t buy into the spin.
I didn’t read your article past your utterance on “patriarchy”, and neither will most other MRAs. If you want to talk to us, don’t use feminism’s language of blame. It is false, and sexist – and MRAs try not to roll like that.
Falsum
January 16, 2012
” ‘Patriarchies’ would more accurately be described as whoriarchies”
If that is not ‘false, sexist, language of blame’, then I don’t know what is. I am somewhat unique among feminists in that I have some hope for MRAs in general but you in particular are clearly not trying all that hard ‘not to roll like that’.
You’re also clearly not trying very hard to look at the evidence with any degree of reason or impartiality. It doesn’t take a genius to see that in the tragic plight of the men who are financial slaves to their wives hardly qualifies as slavery because the men in question can leave the situation at any time through a convenient thing known as a divorce. Women, on the other hand, have fewer ways out of such an arrangement if they live in a society that does not value their contributions in the workplace. If you want to end this dynamic, then the answer is to give women more economic power so that they do not need men to support them. This just so happens to be a part of the elimination of patriarchy and therefore a goal of the feminist movement.
The original article explains, in very specific terms, why patriarchy does not blame men, and yet you consistently ignored what I said there. I found this puzzling until your most recent post made it clear that you don’t have sufficient intellectual honesty to actually read an argument before you go about refuting it. I imagine that was probably the same approach you took to your gender studies curriculum at LSE. Did you even read any of the assigned books before you started tilting at windmills?
I welcome further replies to this comment thread, but as the moderator I require you to first read the rest of my post. Any reply that does not demonstrate that you have done this by providing a cogent reply to my discussion of patriarchy will be deleted.
Maija
January 16, 2012
I didn’t read your article but here is how you are wrong. (But no evidence or anything…because….yeah)
The STUPID, IT HURTS.
Men's Rights Movement
January 17, 2012
You are not one of us. You are a traitor. We dont agree with you on any point. We are what you are not and can never become one.
Falsum
January 17, 2012
Would you care to elaborate, MRM? Have I made an error in my reasoning, or are you simply so dogmatically anti-feminist that any admission of feminist goals automatically brands me a heretic?
Even if I am not one of you, it seems a bit silly to say that I don’t agree with you on any point. Surely we can agree on basic foundational moral and epistemic principles. Do you disagree, for example, with my normative statement that both sexes deserve equality of opportunity? What about my methodological statement that social science research should be trusted as a source of empirical guidance for our advocacy? Perhaps, to be a bit more specific, you could tell me exactly were you think we depart so fundamentally.
Renrija Krin
January 20, 2012
Feminists are now trying to infiltrate the MRM it would seem. This has got to be the biggest load of shit that I’ve ever read. The concept of “patriarchy” IS that men have been in charge and have oppressed women since the dawn of time and are responsible for all of the world’s ills. Go read the agent orange files and then you can lecture people about what feminism really is: a HATE MOVEMENT!
agentorangefiles.com/
Falsum
January 20, 2012
(TRIGGER WARNING FOR THIS COMMENT)
Renrija,
I’m not sure if you are a redditor, but there is a subreddit called r/beatingwomen. Contrary to what I initially assumed must be the case, it is not ironic or sarcastic. It is populated by redditors-most of whom identify as men’s rights activists-making all too serious posts about assaulting, raping, and murdering women. There are similar subreddits devoted to raping women, hating women, and misogyny in general.
I’m telling you this because you have made the fallacy of equivocation. By pointing out that some feminists hate men, you have made the argument that all feminists hate men. Using the same logic, I could cite the aforementioned websites as evidence that all MRAs are rapists and have you all arrested. I think we both know that such an inference is not logical, and in fact a brief survey of feminist blogs shows that hatred of men, while occasionally present, is far from universal, just as positive attitudes toward violence against women are not an essential part of the men’s rights movement. I therefore don’t particularly care about the contents of the Agent Orange Files, because the writers of internet misandry have about as little to do with the mainstream feminist movement as gun-toting racist skinheads have to do with the Republican party. You don’t have to go undercover to discover what feminists think, as they’re usually more than happy to simply tell you up front.
The truth about feminism is that it is an incredibly diverse movement. In fact, feminists argue with each other much more often than they argue with MRAs. The only truly common denominator in the feminist movement is the entirely self-evident belief that women are people who deserve to be treated in such a way as to have the same opportunities in life that men have, and that this is not yet the case. Everything beyond that is up for debate.
As for the concept of patriarchy, I should first say that you don’t get to define feminists’ terms for them. That’s their job and their right. Patriarchy is, yes, the notion that men have been in charge for at least a few thousand years and that during that time they have arranged a society that places them in a (generally) more desirable social role, often at the expense of women. It does not, however, suggest that men are responsible for all the world’s ills. If you honestly think that feminists blame men for, say, Hurricane Katrina, then you are living in an entire world populated by strawmen.
I suggest you read some actual feminist blogs, if for no reason other than to understand what you’re arguing against. Have a look at the links in my sidebar.
Liz
January 20, 2012
There’s no denying the fact that, while equal rights need not be a zero-sum game, they are often presened that way – by both parties! I am, as you know, a staunch non-man-blaming feminist, but I won’t even try to deny the fact that there are many feminists who absolutely make generalizations about men that are hurtful, inaccurate, and wrong. It’s all too easy to get caught up in an idea of rights as negative freedom, and therefore to see those who have power as stealing it from those who don’t.
I think the mistake that a lot of feminists make (sadly, almost always angrily and publically) is to somehow assign malice to the development of patriarchal structures. We need to remember that patriarchy wasn’t created: it evolved. It gained momentum and was shaped by the diverse environments in which it grew, but we’ve now come to a point, as a culture, where it’s so woefully inadequate to the needs of our society that it has to go.
When you’re a member of a marginalized group, it’s both easy and legitimate to feel angry about that status. What’s neither productive nor helpful is to turn that anger into blame, and that’s what I see a lot of feminists doing. I can understand why that generates more anger in turn from Men’s Rights Activists, and how that leads us into this kind of spiral of accusations and hate. It’s bad news for everyone.
This is not to excuse some of the more disgusting excesses of the Men’s Rights movement – in the same way that feminists like me would like to distance ourselves from feminists who shout, “Kill your rapist!”, I’m sure that Men’s Rights proponents like you would like to distance yourselves from activists who advocate beating and sexually assaulting women in order to “teach them their place.”
I’m looking forward to a time when we can be more nuanced in our discussions of gender equality and sex-based rights and formulate social goals from that perspective.
Falsum
January 21, 2012
Very well said, Liz. There’s a lot of hostility on all sides that makes these discussions difficult to have. I think some of the comments posted above are ideal evidence of this. MRAs instinctively stopped reading the moment I used the word ‘patriarchy’.
Stomp
February 3, 2012
“MRAs instinctively stopped reading the moment I used the word ‘patriarchy’.”
When encountering “stupid” one should turn the wheel to the right. Patriarchies had more stable two-parent households than this current Matriarchy and it was cheaper. I’m tired of my money paying for people who condemn me/Masculinity and Fathers yet have worst results from all the redistribution of wealth from men to women it promotes. I will not have women’s income increased at my peril nor that of other men and fathers. Besides, The Matriarchy we’re currently under has had disastrous results compared to our noble father-headed households, less taxes, less angry hateful despicable women too. No wonder Feminism is losing numbers and why it has to lie and claim we’re under a Patriarchy when all the single-mother households and sole mother custody (With FEMINIST BLOCKING SHARED PARENTING REFORM BILLS evrey year) indicates that we’re actually under a Matriarchy (like we would actually surrender our kids to you under a Patriarchy, how stupid do you think men are?)
Check YOUR Privilege FEMINIST. we’re HERE NOW.
EDIT: REST OF COMMENT DELETED FOR THREATENING LANGUAGE.
Liz
February 3, 2012
This is the sort of thing that makes me wonder why anyone would want to call themselves a Men’s Rights Activist. Violent language, the perpetual chip on the shoulder, the jargon, the capslock…if Men’s Rights Activists accomplished their goal, is this the world they would create? Not one I particularly want to live in, thanks.
Stomp
February 3, 2012
“if Men’s Rights Activists accomplished their goal, is this the world they would create? Not one I particularly want to live in, thanks.”
I CHOOSE (CAPS) to live in a world where I am no longer constantly attacked as a Patriarch, man, my sexuality, my family or otherwise.
EDIT: REST OF COMMENT DELETED FOR THREATENING LANGUAGE.
Falsum
February 5, 2012
Nobody is attacking your family, Stomp. If by the word ‘patriarch’, you imply an antiquated head-of-household role in which you demand your wife’s obedience, then we might be attacking you personally. But there’s no reason to bring the rest of your family into the discussion.
I’ve deleted the violent language in your comments, as threats are not welcome on this site. Please refrain from such statements if you reply again. While you’re at it, you might want to do some proofreading, because I’m really not entirely sure what you’re trying to say.
Liz
February 5, 2012
This is the zero-sum worldview I was talking about: the idea that this person can only achieve personal freedom for himself by depriving me of my own freedoms.
Yardley
February 11, 2012
Hmmm… well, if we’re talking in global terms, obviously I’d agree with your analysis, only an idiot wouldn’t. But you’re just being disngenuous by speaking in such large terms and then trying to apply the mainstream feminist movement.
A feminist movement in less affluent areas of the world, well, that’s critical. And that’s not to say there aren’t women’s groups in those areas. But “feminism” in the sense that you’re referring- ie, the entity that MRAs oppose- is a white-bread, uber-privileged white girl’s movement that has its sights almost completely set on the Western societies where its members are based. And I don’t agree that in the Western world, women are significantly disadvantaged relative to men. Which brings us back to the dissonance here.
Falsum
February 11, 2012
Thanks for the constructive, coherent and polite comment, Yardley. I think you’re the first MRA in this thread to leave one.
You have, however, fallen for a frustratingly common ethical fallacy which holds that so long as a given identifiable subgroup is in a better state than their counterparts in some other place or time, they must have nothing to complain about. If this were a valid argument, then Martin Luther King would have had no right to complain about the conditions of black Americans because slavery had ended a century before his time.
Oppression is not a binary thing. There are degrees of oppression and there are different varieties of oppression. While women in the first world are generally allowed to drive, vote, and work, they are still significantly held back by sexism. Studies have shown conclusively that women earn less than men for the same work. Women are vastly under-represented in corporate, community, and political leadership. When women try to post on the internet, they are subjected to a deluge of comments about their appearance, sexist insults, and even rape threats. When women are sexually assaulted it is still common for people-judiciary officials included-to suggest that they were somehow asking for it through their dress or behaviour, which is one reason why the conviction rate for sexual assault-a crime second only to murder in cruelty-is so low. If you pay attention to American politics, you will see a well-funded and aggressive campaign to rob women of their bodily autonomy. If you pay attention to the conversations surrounding you on a daily basis, you will hear women’s aptitudes, opinions, and general social value continually dismissed in casual conversation. I could go on, but the point is that women have a long way to go before reaching full social equality.
Even if this were not the case, feminism would still be a valuable ally for the men’s rights movement because of the point I made in the original post: a lot of the complaints made by men’s rights activists about paternity, military service, incarceration, and the like originate with patriarchy. Patriarchy places men and women in separate boxes and though the men’s box is considerably better decorated than the women’s box, the fact still remains that there are a great deal of people of both sexes that would rather not live in a box. There are men who would rather be fathers than breadwinners and men who want to resolve disputes peacefully without having their manhood called into question. Similarly, there are women who would rather be breadwinners than mothers, and women who would like the opportunity to shoulder the full burden of military service in times of national emergencies. Surely these men and women should be working together. The enemy of feminism is patriarchy, and whether you know it or not, your enemy as an MRA is the same thing.