Here is the private email I sent to Dr. E today. An email that was written with the intent that it be for his eyes only. I wrote this in response to a reply Dr. E sent me. He was very nice, and asked me to reconsider leaving, and asked me for my thoughts on how to recruit more women to the MRM.
These are the musings of a SAHM, who supports (or did support) the MRM. Unedited. And anything else I've sent privately I will gladly stand by if published. I'd love to see other peoples private, unedited emails. Right. Enjoy.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. E - yes, I did overreact. I was angry. I apologize for that. It didn't last long - I'm no longer angry. But my feelings of alienation remain. And I think what I wrote to you sounded like I felt victimized. And I don't. But I strongly feel the bias on your site towards SAHM's is real and it's unfair. I realize people are entitled to their opinions, but I don't see the justice in blanket disparaging remarks about an entire segment of the female population, especially when expressed to a member, or members of that population.
And I know I told tb to go fuck herself. That was most unprofessional, and most unladylike of me. I should have ignored the remark, but I think I can argue that I meant "herself" in the general sense, and I wasn't insulting her personally. I was talking about a subset of the female population, to which she may or may not belong... I was using "tb" in the global sense, nothing personal...... You know I'm tongue in cheek here, but my point is that couching insults under the cloak of "I don't mean you personally" is disingenuous. That's like saying, "Jews are dishonest, and they'll do anything to make a buck. A Jew will sell his own mother to make a buck. But, of course, Goldblatt, I don't mean anything personal to you here". Anyway, she didn't upset me more than momentarily, and I got great satisfaction from the warning. Thank you for that.
No, the problem runs deeper.
After I left, you asked at least one poster to quote specific comments. That's a fair request, and even though it was not directed at me, I will respond by quoting you a segment of an email I sent to Al this morning. I like him very much, by the way. This is not his fault, and I feel bad that my offer to help him with his site got caught up in this. I'll reconsider that. I know he's stressed out about it and I support what he's doing. And anyway, I was knee deep in it after half a ream of paper and a whole ink cartridge day before yesterday. Before the proverbial shit hit the proverbial fan.
But here's the excerpt I'll quote to you from my email to him this morning:
------------------------------------------------------
Just a small sampling of gems from that thread:
"I haven't noticed a great deal of concern from the top of the food chain of Feminist privilege (SAHM's) over fairness or justice "
"a man knows that he would be destroying his life if he let himself be supported by a woman. "
"I think you'd be swimming against the tide trying to convince SAHM's that the MRM is worthy of their time and effort. "
"i mean, SAHMs can think. but they are apt to choose not to.. because they want those things they pick up from the media to be true. ooh we are oppressed! yes its true! men are useless! yes its true!"
"SAHMs could benefit their families greatly..... Do they? Most, no."
"About the best I can say is ... no thanks, Ms. Homemaker. I don't want you and I don't respect you."
"Maybe you and Hugo can even fuck some of them if you play your cards right. Unfortunately, I'm not going to be backing you if you find out about divorce court with a housewife. I've seriously had enough of trying to support people like that."
And here's the one, Al, which ended my desire to continue being involved in the MRM:
"I believe that the priority ranking for women is self-preservation first, then offspring, followed by spouse. You almost never see women sacrificing themselves for others the way men do; men will literally sacrifice their lives for others. In my experience women won't, they're very much about self-preservation first. Thus, I believe that when recruiting SAHMs to the MRM we need to highlight what's in it for them."
And you want to know who said that? Mr. Bad. Someone I like and respect. I ask you, in the interest of fairness, to put yourself in my position for just a minute, and ponder what he's saying here. Women are all about self-preservation, what's "in it for them". In order to recruit me to the MRM, one needs to focus on what's in it for me. That, as I hope you will see, is not only complete bullshit, it's the most insulting line of reasoning I've ever read on this site. And I've read some really insulting stuff, Al.
----------------------------------------------------
Those are my examples, Dr. E, and there have been more as the thread continued, but I haven't cataloged them. And I ignored tb's posts entirely. I don't believe in saving ammunition - it only leads to guns being fired. But I have been seriously upset by this thread - and that's unusual for me. And Galt doesn't call them "gold diggers" btw. He calls them homemakers, or women. There's a huge distinction.
I have to confess to not being "in the mood" at the moment to discuss how the MRM can reach out to women. I will think about it though, after a bit. I will say however, that some simple semantic changes would be a huge help. Try replacing "women" with "feminists", or "SAHM's" with "gold-diggers" and you'll get a much better response. There are huge numbers of women who think the feminazis are a major source of evil in our society. The fact that you are alienating all of us but one on your site, might be cause for reflection. You asked.
It's small wonder you attract few women to your cause. You really want my advice? Listen to BQ. She says she knows you personally. Don't let that resource get away. You want to think big picture? Listen to her and people like her. She's the mainstream gal, she likes you, other people like her, and people like her are who you want supporting your movement if you're ever going to capture a wider audience. The people who are going to help you are the people that mainstream women are drawn to. People mainstream women can identify with. You know what I'm saying, and I know you have deep personal friendships, and that's fine. But you want to think strategy, then think strategy. Your friends can work on what they're good at, but beware of letting personal relationships drive away huge assets and obscure the big picture. What you have to fight is the perception that your movement is fringe, extremist. Again, you asked.
One example: You said in your email that the SAHP does her/his share and more. I would have loved to have seen you say that in the thread in question, in defense of SAHP's. Your message board is a huge asset. That's how I found the MRM - your board. Be mindful of that. It's your public face. Treat it as such. Just a thought.
And intellectualism will not help your cause. What you need is to appeal to mainstream, everyday people. Those of you behind the movement may indeed be intellectuals, but if you ask the rank and file population if they identify with this sort of person, they will overwhelmingly say no. The masses are turned off by the elite. So, be elite, but spin your cause so the average joe or josephine can get it and identify with you. Put people front and center with whom the average person can identify. Frame your arguments with justice as your moral backing. Everyday people, SAHM's included, respond to injustice. We don't like it. Capitalize on that. Despite Mr. Bad's comment, SAHM's are no different than any other segment of the population in terms of hating injustice. People of goodwill hate injustice. Work that. Lobby them.
Americans in general identify with the individual story - the person to whom much injustice has been done. Publicize individual stories of father's rights gone horribly wrong, but be careful not to place blame on women. Blame the system that needs to be changed. Blame legislation. Put blame on an entity people are detached from. One they can revile and lobby, not one they identify with personally.
Put people front and center to whom everyday people can relate. Then appeal to their sense of fairness. Hire a campaign chairperson who knows what the hell they're doing when it comes to image and spin. Because those are your gaping holes. Image and spin. You'll never defeat your enemy by driving potential recruits into her camp. You must pursue them, and win them, and herd them into your fold. You must convince the public at large that you represent what's good for everyone. Attack ads won't work. Positive framing of your issues in terms people can understand and relate to, and support, is the only way you will succeed. People are looking for positive values they can support. You represent that. Your task is to get people to see why your issues matter, why rectifying your issues will better society. Being positive is key. Teach them why supporting your cause will make the world a better place. People want the world to be a better place. That's the big picture, E.
For someone who wasn't "in the mood", I sure did a lot of talking ! Sorry. As my husband is fond of saying, ask a woman a question, then grab a beer and settle in to listen to the marathon.....
I didn't know you were a SAHD. I think that's wonderful.
You can exhale now. I'm done.
Take care,
(name withheld)
