"Men's Rights" Movement Doesn't Belong On TopAndrew Belonsky :: Wednesday, April 14th, 2010 3:40 pmSource: DeathAndTaxesMagazine.comThere's something queer happening among men in America. As society moves toward a more integrated, gender-blind direction, a small yet potent group of men are looking to rise up and reclaim the nation's reigns. And their mission involves a prescriptive masculinity that, frankly, seems like a step back.
The period after World War II helped solidify the macho man's role in America. Men were meant to rule their roost, help damsels in distress and answer to no one, not even their wives. As time went on, hippies, homos and women helped erode this image of the "ideal" male and helped men touch their sensitive side. No longer were men afraid to cry. Nor were they afraid of vanity, as seen in the "metrosexual" movement and arsenal of body sprays. Shit, men are even being used to peddle low-fat yogurt! Now the only images of "macho men" are on a screen, fictional etches of masculinity gone by. But certain groups want to change that.
Rutgers University Professor Lionel Tiger and some of his penis-wielding peers have been rallying to establish a "men's studies" program at Rutgers University. Men have reached a point where "they're experienced a considerable amount of dismay and uncertainty," says
Tiger to CNN. Men today feel "somewhat scorned, in principle by women." Tiger's work has been born from a fear that men are being feminized. Thus, men must explore what it means to be masculine; both on a social and biological level, and reclaim their territory.
Professor Tiger's not alone in his masculinity mission. Just ask Harry Reid. The senator enraged "men's rights" activists last month when he
claimed unemployed men are to blame for increased domestic violence. Said Reid, "Men, when they're out of work, tend to become abusive." Men's News Daily Editor Paul Elam
described Reid's remarks as "bizarre and unfounded" that "reveals an unimaginable disconnect from the millions of unemployed Americans who are not abusive." The National Organization for Men, Men and Fathers for Justice, Men's Equality Conference, the Fatherhood Coalition and at least a dozen other "men's rights" groups joined the fray and called for Reid to apologize.
He did not.
These organizations not only protest the feminization and demonization of men. They also rally against what they describe as widespread inequality against men. Marty Nemko, president of the National Organization for Men, insists that men are
consistently put on the back burner for women and "minorities," "When boys start to look into college, the very first thing they see are the colleges' brochures and websites, with far more pictures of women and minorities; the subliminal message: we don't care about white males." Thus, they feel like a "disposable sex." He goes on, "In our attempt to lift up girls and women, we have destroyed boys and men. Just as we are assiduous to avoid unfair treatment of women and minorities, we must do the same for boys and men." Other members of this men's movement are making a career out of revitalizing America's men.
A man named Brett McCay has become something of a leader for the "retrosexuals," and wrote a book with his wife called The Art of Manliness, which is chock full of outdated advice on how to keep one's sack from becoming a purse. Like what? Well, men don't cry.
We have to be "the rock" in a (presumably straight) relationship: "When something tragic happens that affects your family, be a pillar of strength during the crisis. Take care of the business that needs taking care of." It's only later, when he's alone, that a man can cry. I can only assume that these images of "manliness" don't involve any of the gay or even sensitive men roaming around. And that's why I'm worried.
Complaints about the "inequality" facing men and the loss of masculinity implicitly endorse an archaic image of the masculinity, one in which only the strong - and straight - survive. Countless boys, whether they be uncoordinated, weak or a bit fey, have been told they need to "man up." What does that even mean? Who writes the rules of what it means to be a man? It seems to me that such choices should be left to the individual, rather than a group of irate activists who claim men need to embrace "maschismo," which would basically produce cookie cutter clones. And who in the world wants a man who's just like the next?
I left the following responses under the comments section:
Andrew Belonsky,
The insinuations you've made about the men's movement would be laughable if they weren't so damaging. Accusing men's rights activists of labelling the inclusion of women and minorities at colleges and universities as a form of oppression is a complete misrepresentation of their stance. I've never come across an MRA who said anything of the sort. Please cite a men's rights activist who has said men are oppressed because women and minorities are allowed to study at college and university. I've heard many MRA's speak about the introduction of gynocentric policies that discriminate in favour of women and at men's expense. This is not even close to resembling the straw-man you're created.
There is a lot of merit behind the commentary from men's righs activists on men's position at colleges and universities: male students are often required to fund the women's only departments that they're forbidden from entering, yet there are no similar measures assured for men; women's studies programs often promote unsubstantiated ideology and hate-mongering myths as "facts"; men who are falsely accused of rape are considered guilty until proven innocent and, receive no recourse when they're found to be innocent (remember the DUKE innocent?), and; the "men's studies" course is based solely on the feminist theory about masculinity and, does not allow men to critique feminism -- it's why the newly formed "male studies" course was introduced by MEN.
A key issue you're failed to mention is the men's pathway to college and university. The teaching standards and the curriculum in schools is detrimental to boys and preferential to girls -- as has been pointed out by many experts, many of whom are women -- thus leading to women outnumbering men on most campuses because boys do neglected and judged by women's standards. The system places more emphasis on girls' innate abilities and ignores boys' innate abilities. It's patently obvious to anyone who has a brain that the teaching standards rate girls' superior ability to cooperately in class and, write and communicate at an advanced level over boys' superior spatial awareness and problem solving skills. Haven't you ever wondered why the majority of the "high performing" girls are hopeless at maths and science and only study art, law and other ideological-based programs at college and university? If you think it's due to "discrimination against girls" then you're nuttier and dumber than any conspiracy theorist I've never known. Contrary to what the feminazis would have you believe, there are no old men in white robes using subliminal messages to prevent female geniuses from reaching their potential in maths and science. The reason women are less successful in science and maths is because extremely high intelligence is mostly found among men. Every test and study that has been performed on the issue, whether it has been in the form of IQ tests or comparison of men and women in maths and science, has shown that most geniuses, scientists, inventors and mathematicians are men and that men are more likely to dominate the extreme ranges of the IQ scale.
Considering you're wrongly portraying all MRA's as lazy whiners who aren't as qualified as the female counterparts, I thought it was quite ironic to see you make the following error:
"As long as your qualified"
You meant to say "As long as you're qualified", right? Any journalist who doesn't know the difference between "your" and "you're" isn't qualified to work as one!
"Women can get ahead and so can men. As long as your qualified" Andrew Belonsky
Andrew Belonsky,
1. A qualified journalist knows the difference between "your" and "you're".
2. Affirmative action leads to women and minorities gaining jobs over equally qualified Caucasian men.
"Now that the playing field is beginning to level, they wonder if their son or grandson will be able to EARN a spot at that college since it won't be handed out." Christopher
It never was handed out. Only the most talented candidates were accepted into the college and university system. Academically-challeged athletes might have been included, but only because they were the best athletes available. Whether you like it not, sport has been part of the college and university curriculum for over a century. Allowing men of moderate intelligence to enter university because they excel at American football holds more merit than giving a seat to a feminazi who excels in womyn's studies.
"I personally don't think or feel that I have been discriminated against as a white heterosexual male. In fact, I look around and see a lot of privileges like disparity in pay because of race/gender in favor of white men, or the ability to marry someone I love" Clinton Jasperson
You don't have a clue. The so-called "disparity in pay" is derived not from discrimination, but lifestyle choices. Women tend to choose part-time work over full-time work and, are less likely than men to work overtime and remain committed to the same job over many years. Women will opt out of the workforce so they can have children, then re-enter in a reduced capacity so they can blend work with motherhood. While men tend to work in the high-paying fields that are avoided by most people (IE. dangerous industry and physical labour), women choose the easier, safer, more comfortable jobs thay pay less. The fields dominated by men pay more because of the demand for workers in these professions. Most women are not going to contemplate the idea of working in dangerous industry and physical labour because it's messy, dangerous and tiring work that requires a great deal of effort and strength. It's hardly fair to say that a woman who sits at a desk and answers phone in an airconditioned building deserves the same wage as the man who is risking his life in the blazing sun by working with dangerously heavy and sharp objects that can kill him.
