Self Proclaimed “Expert” on the Men's Rights Movement Talks to Salon

**rohara** · 9th-April-2011

I have yet to find a major news outlet that will actually interview a REAL MRA about the MRM. Salon, true to form, interviews this guy about the growth of the MRM and of course this academic gets it all wrong as they usually do when talking about gender relations.

Article here

While I was doing research I came across what seemed like a similar movement -- the father's rights movement. What's the difference between that and the men's rights movement? Do they diverge at a certain point?
Father's rights groups focus entirely on divorce and custody. And, they claim, rightly, that as parents they have rights. They claim that men are discriminated against in custody decisions -- that women can file a false charge of domestic violence and get custody forever and prevent the father from seeing their children. That's largely where they focus their attention.
I think the men's rights groups would embrace the father's rights groups more readily than the father's rights groups would embrace the men's rights groups. The father's rights groups are very focused on one particular policy and they don't have this long litany of grievances. And I think they sometimes feel uncomfortable with how far the men's rights guys go.
The father's rights guys -- at least some of them -- they are in pain, because they really did feel like they were good fathers, and they've lost contact with their kids and lost custody. And some of them are hurting. I'm a Jeffersonian, sort of instinctively. And to Jefferson, democracy was based not just on rights, but also on responsibility. It was a delicate balance between the two. I love the fact that in minority communities, what you hear is not about the father's rights movement, but father responsibility movement. To me it's a balance. Fathering is not just an existential state of being. It's things people do. When you do it -- when you're a really good father -- you'll retain connection with your children.
Here's an interesting factoid for you: After divorce, virtually no mothers who do not retain custody -- none of them actually lose contact with their children. But about half of all non-custodial fathers lose contact with their children. It's not because the mothers are keeping them away, but because they just drift off. Mothers don't do that. I'd love to hear a zero number for fathers who don't drift off, not because they're prevented, but because they just don't.
How does the Scott Adams piece meld with the ideology of the men's rights movement?
Scott Adams' piece, to my mind, tries to have it both ways. At first he gives all the standard litany of kvetching that the men's rights movement tends to do -- which is all the places where they feel there's unfairness and discrimination toward men. And in that recitation, he's quite wrong about some things. Just to give you examples, [he argues] that women have overtaken men in college attendance and if the situation were reversed it would be considered a national emergency. No, it would actually be considered the Ivy League in 1965. It wouldn't be considered anything. It would be considered normal.
The fact is, actually, women are penalized in auto insurance, not men. Women have much safer driving records, especially for under-25 drivers. And they pay a premium, basically, for being under 25, even though women under 25 have much lower rates of accidents, especially [with regards to] driving under the influence. So, actually, women subsidize men's drunk driving. To put not too fine a point on it, he's quite wrong in some of the numbers and some of the details. But, then, he makes a complete 180 and says, Man up. It's no big deal.
Do you see the men's rights movement -- and the ideas they're espousing -- getting a wider following?
No, I don't, first of all because I don't see women in any way buying this stuff. You know, women aren't suddenly going to say, "Oh, you're right! This stuff about going to law school and medical school is a bore. Let's not do that." It's not going to happen. It's a done deal. The question for men right now is how are we going to move into this future that is more gender equal. [Most young people now] have good cross-sex friends. When you watch "When Harry Met Sally," which is from my era, and Billy Crystal says to Meg Ryan, "Men and women can't be friends because sex always gets in the way," you find that kind of laughable. My students do. What I'm saying is you're not going to go back to an adversarial relationship. You're living equality. I think that the global trend toward gender equality is not going to abate in any way.
Now, that leaves men with an existential question. Are we going to be dragged into the future, kicking and screaming -- like the men's rights guys -- or are we going to go boldly, fearlessly, and say, "What a minute: What's in this for men?" And what the data clearly shows is that the men who embrace gender equality are actually happier, healthier, live better lives, have better relationships with their friends, their wives and their kids. So I don't think it's going to catch on. Globally, the trend toward greater gender equality is going to make the men's rights movement look like a backlash movement, which is what it is.

I truley believe that there is a growing response to the MRM in the mainstream media that paints our movement as inefectual and not worth while. They are trying to steal our thunder in a big way and something tells me that it won't work.

**The Possible Human** · 9th-April-2011

"I truley believe that there is a growing response to the MRM in the mainstream media that paints our movement as inefectual and not worth while. They are trying to steal our thunder in a big way and something tells me that it won't work."

There is a concerted effort by all media to minimize, distort, and mis-direct the true tenants of the MRM. The basic tenants that the MRM is filled with misogynists is at the core of the propaganda campaigns. If you read the news articles related to the MRM, you will begin to notice the tone of said articles is common, it paints men who are in the MRM as being threatened by female equality, threatened by the changing gender roles, and threatened by change. At the core, propaganda says the same message in multiple and different formats, if you say the same message over and over with some changes to the structure and format, you have propaganda. The media does this very well, and they do it regardless of any moral implications.

In the article Rohara posted, the self proclaimed MRM expert characterizes the MRM movement as a backlash. Well, to some extent that is true, but the backlash is quite understandable when basic rights for men are constantly eroded by the courts, government, and the media. I truly believe that the MRM is moving past the "backlash" because it really promotes true gender equality. If women wish to have a real gender equal society, the will need to realize that it really has to be equal with no special treatment of either gender in law, government, and media.

For those that see the core issue here: Gender equality is not gender neutrality. Men will naturally oppose gender neutrality because it demeans the very essence of what it is to be a man, the same goes for women. Gender neutrality has an emotional component which resonates with women. The creation of a genderless society with gender neutrality is diametrically opposed to human nature. Our identities as human beings are centered on our genders, that will not change now or in the future.

**Marx** · 9th-April-2011

Quote from some liar

After divorce, virtually no mothers who do not retain custody -- none of them actually lose contact with their children. But about half of all non-custodial fathers lose contact with their children. It's not because the mothers are keeping them away, but because they just drift off.

Really? Oh.. how interesting, not one mother keeps the children away from the father? Reeeeaaaaaaally?

Food for lurkers

Quote from Percy

40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the fathers visitation to punish their ex-spouse
"Frequency of Visitation" by Sanford Braver, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry
50% of mothers see no value in the fathers continued contact with his children.
"Surviving the Breakup" by Joan Berlin Kelly]
37.9% of fathers are denied any visitation
66% of all support not paid by non-custodial fathers is due to the inability to pay.
[1988 Census "Child Support and Alimony: 1989 Series" P-60, No. 173 p.6-7, and "U.S. General Accounting Office Report" GAO/HRD-92-39FS January 1992

**khankrumthebulgar** · 9th-April-2011

If you do a search for Brad Paisley's song "I Am Still A Guy", he sings "I still have a pair" is his rejection of Feminist emasculation of Men. Is a cultural indication of the backlash of Men. I told one Feminist she was "not hot enough to deserve a spanking from me". She wrote back she would love that!! The fact is that the current US budget fight vividly shows how insane and stupid Feminists are in the US. A NY Congresswoman equates cutting funding to American Women with bombing them in a War. I left her an angry message and told her, "Bitch you don't have right to my wallet. Go fuck yourself".

Men are pushing back big time in the US finally. We are showing we have a pair and what liars and scum bags, that Male Feminists are. Hugo Schwyzer is paid to troll for willing "Friends with benefits" on his facebook page. The lying asshole calls Bernard Chapin a "skinhead". Hugo, David F. of Manboobz are both posting on Ms. Magazine's site "The Good Men's Project". Hugo better pray he and I never cross paths. Or my Viking Ancestors will want to take a trophy home of his head.

Hugo is a dirt bag, so are most of the Male Feminists. The Dream Women video is the worst example of self loathing Door Mats and Homosexual Girly Men I have ever seen. These losers will never stand up for nor defend themselves. Gender Issues are National Security issues. Three Cabinet Level US Women decided to take the US to war in Libya. Which is now a proven clusterfuck.

The war is going so badly, to turn it around will require according to US Army General Carter Ham "US Boots on the Ground". Which means US Men will again be required to die to promote Feminists causes in the Middle East. Men according to an article this week in Business News continue to suffer long term employment problems in the "Mancession". Many of their jobs will never return. So the Men ignoring Gender issues are doing so at the risk of their economic and physical survival. If this does not wake them up. Maybe it is better to thin the herd of idiots who don't care if they survive. Maybe we have to breed the stupid males out of our gene pool.

Women's concerns are only about their needs. Screw the rest of us. The US budget battle confirms this reality. Feminists were more concerned with Planned Parenthood than paying our Military people at War. Fighting for the Nation. I say it is time to crush the Feminists ruthlessly and without mercy. It is unraveling for them. Society is defunding their pet projects. Their Bitch Boy Obama is now being betrayed by Oprah Winfrey who is not, Is Not endorsing his reelection. She is more concerned with pissing off her viewers than Goldmann Sachs house boy.

Obummer is a Loser. Who is incapable of making hard decisions. Harry Truman he isn't. He is not even as competent as W. was. Whose policies he is following. MSNBC this week had a panel on David Rattigan's show. Saying it was George W. Bush's policies term 4. Obama is not his own Man. His primary interest is golfing, Basketball and Vacations.

**Lady Catherine** · 10th-April-2011

Quote from The Possible Human

Gender equality is not gender neutrality. Men will naturally oppose gender neutrality because it demeans the very essence of what it is to be a man, the same goes for women. Gender neutrality has an emotional component which resonates with women. The creation of a genderless society with gender neutrality is diametrically opposed to human nature. Our identities as human beings are centered on our genders, that will not change now or in the future.

Perhaps it's my bias as a shrink or the fact that I'm a pan-romantic, but I have to question this. Are you aware of gender queer -androgynes or agendered- people? Do you realize that gender is not the same as sex? Gender neutrality is opposed to human nature, but there is a whole hell of a lot more to human nature than two genders. I am reminded specifically of the Hijras of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, the Fa'afanine of Polynesia, the Sworn Virgins of the Balkans, the kathoeys of Thailand, Xanith of the Oman, Waria of Indonesia(with the Bugis people having five genders) among many more.

No, I'm not advocating gender neutrality because it would be an effort doomed to failure, my point was to show that gender is much more complicated than the man/woman dichtomy.

**Percy** · 10th-April-2011

Caff, those you mention are a very small minority of men.

Feminism is 'felt' far more by white, heterosexual men.

That is the congregation we largely are.

WE are the target of Feminist hatred, agitprop, laws and excoriation. The vast and wide variety of us who do not measure our differences in sexual proclivity but in our love for and disappointment in women.

**Lady Catherine** · 10th-April-2011

T_T

I was just getting a bit overzealous, I don't doubt that heterosexual men* feel the worst of feminism.

*I refuse to make this a race issue, and I don't think feminists are the allies to males like my husband-who is a bisexual androgynous "genderfuck"(his word)

**Black Knight** · 10th-April-2011

Quote from Percy

Caff, those you mention are a very small minority of men.

Feminism is 'felt' far more by white, heterosexual men.

That is the congregation we largely are.

WE are the target of Feminist hatred, agitprop, laws and excoriation. The vast and wide variety of us who do not measure our differences in sexual proclivity but in our love for and disappointment in women.

Black men feel it harder in some ways. Although we mostly dont marry anymore so alimony's near-unheard of, child support and cuckoldry are the biggest two issues a man will face besides prison and difficulty of finding employment. Maury's paternity test guests are largely black - a little reflection of the black male consensus to not marry and verify DNA, which this site seems to agree with

Unfortunately, a lot of black men are only taking these steps because they'd rather avoid child support via ignorance of paternity, and nobody wants to commit to even a good wife. So they're doing the right things for the wrong reasons. They're very MGTOW but ultimately dont consider possible children as priorities since they will survive with or without them, welfare state tyvm. Why be a provider when the position is no longer necessary? The taxpayers will buy diapers and similac, why waste money better spent on one's own interests?

Many times the mother is no good for relationship material and gives you 3 kinds of hell whenever you visit, or try to. Nobody's putting up with a bratty baby momma if it isn't absolutely necessary, which is isn't, thanks to the taxpayers. The black mother no longer needs the father to provide for her child, and the father doesn't need to put up with this bitch's "baby momma drama" to be sure his seed is surviving. This is the current state of the black family - there is none. There's no financial need. Sure, the kids are all fucked up but most people dont remember what it's like to have a custodial father anyway

And if more black men chose to marry we'd be just as exposed to alimony and property division as any man of any race is. No affirmative action for divorce, we're just as fucked as caucasians/anglos, asians, and latinos. I was planning on marrying before I understood the risks, but now? HELL NO. I'm a man going my own fucking way, doing my own fucking thing. Why should I let myself be punished for being born without a uterus? MGTOFW

**shaazam** · 10th-April-2011

""They claim that men are discriminated against in custody decisions -- that women can file a false charge of domestic violence and get custody forever and prevent the father from seeing their children. That's largely where they focus their attention""

ya ! it sure is men's focus !!

the Jews in the extermination camps were focused on survival - they had abandoned any hope of being treated as human beings - only the SS were considered as humans

of course new age gals perceive men as patsys and suckers of the lowest order - it is the privations and indignity that guys force on wimyn in the
First World that wimyn are fighting against

Dworkin had a final solution to address this problem of men and their nasty inconsiderate ways

**Douglas** · 10th-April-2011

Quote from Percy

Feminism is 'felt' far more by white, heterosexual men.

While on the whole I think that discrimination is felt most by working-class, white, heterosexual men, I don't put all discrimination down to feminism.

I think the harmful effects of feminism is probably felt about equally by men regardless of race creed or religion; but mostly heavily by children; and also by most women.

Quote from shaazam

... it is the privations and indignity that guys force on wimyn in the
First World that wimyn are fighting against

No, they are fighting against purported privations and indignity, isolated privations and indignity, gender-balanced privations and indignity and invented privations and indignity.

The feminist movement wishes to impose it's ideal of female supremacy (under the guise of bland sex-sameness) on societies that - on the whole - don't want it. Most women in many of these countries, just like most women in most western countries back in the 50's, are quite content with the balance of privilege and sacrifice, responsibility and authority, that they have.

**khankrumthebulgar** · 10th-April-2011

Michael Kimmel is the source? You are kidding me. The old shaming language, wow that's a shock... NOT. Not mentioned suicide rates, the Mancession, reproductive rights, occupational death rates, Life expectancy you know minor shit like that. That Salon.com is providing disinformation, that the Good Manginas Project is being funded by Ms. Magazine is a laugh. It shows they are circling the wagons and losing. We are gaining ground. That the War in Libya was started by Women is also ignored by the Assholes at Salon.com. That Men are being expected to die to promote Feminism in Conservative Muslim cultures is also not mentioned.

That Men's taxes in the US are being siphoned off to promote Female Employment when it is Men who overwhelmingly have been hurt by the Financial Recession brought about by too much credit. None of these realities are mentioned. The Innocence Project has caused the release from Prison of hundreds of Men. Who were wrongly convicted and incarcerated some for decades. In Dallas it is nearing 50 Men who have been released. I guess Men incarcerated for decades does not count. How about the "Workers" killed on the job. Since they are dehumanized as Workers and not Men, it means Men are disposable.