MRA’s are just Big Meanie’s

Yep, those among us who stand with the Men’s [Human] Rights Movement, an umbrella term that covers a multitude of online sites, bloggers, Men and Boys Rights organisations, MGTOW sites, in fact anyone either online or in real life who makes any statement that in way asserts that:

 Men have Rights – Human Rights.

 Are just big ole meanie’s who hate women, want women to “suffer” and believe that women should be, I guess, seen and not heard, the more vociferous, malign, and vituperative of those who object to the notion that Men Have Rights, will support their contention with outrageous statements that contrarily assert that men, all men, are bastards, rapists, inherently violent, want to dominate and oppress women, are evil, untrustworthy and in some cases a vile subhuman subset of the species Homo Sapiens who need to be culled.

But absent these obviously disturbed, seriously dysfunctional creatures, the general consensus seems to be, that the notion men have rights equable to women, is an affront, an insult, and just………..mean.

Because you see, ALL conversations, discussions and debates, whether in private conversations between individuals, or in the public domain, about Rights, about Human Rights abuses mean, that these conversations, discussions and debates and more importantly, attention and resources are, and should be about WOMENS ISSUES. Just take a look at the Directory of UN Resources on Gender and Women’s Issues.

If you put “mens issues” into the search box on the home page below is what you get:

A Blank Page

Go on, click on it and see for yourself.

Even if you click on their “suggested” search term this is what you get:

“Your search – “men”s issues” – did not match any documents. No pages were found containing “”men”s issues””. Suggestions:

  • Make sure all words are spelled correctly.

  • Try different keywords.

  • Try more general keywords. “

If one insists on shifting the emphasis to Men’s Rights, it means you are ignoring, sidelining, rendering unimportant, and devaluing women’s rights, in fact you are just being plain old rude, a horrible person, and MEAN!

Now, to be fair, as long as the main thrust of these exchanges is about, women’s rights, one is allowed to mention, in passing, the notion that men might have rights, that there might be some value in acknowledging that men and boys could have rights. In fact some daring souls have gotten away with suggesting that men and boys rights might be violated, ignored or abused they have either not been listened to or, in the case of the second example I use, Christina Hoff Sommers, cling onto a self-identification of themselves as feminist, for reasons that escape me, though I do have to say Sommers is one of the few voices raised in defence of boys, in particular.

But, to have a conversation, discussion or debate about Men’s Rights as a stand alone topic, as a subject apart from and separate from the topic of women’s rights? Big fat NO! NADA, Niet,

The reason? The people who are in charge of these discussions and debates on Human Rights, the people who have set the parameters, have dictated the agenda, and who have laid out the rules for discussing Human Rights? Women! Not just women full stop, feminists. Just go take a look at the UN site again. Because, if you look at the title it says”…….Gender and Women Issues” we all know what “women” means, so what does “gender” mean?

Not men, because there ARE no resources for men, so “gender” must mean “women” as well!

So, MRA’s are just big ole Meanie’s because they won’t follow the rules, they won’t stick to the agenda, and they DON’T want to talk about women’s rights. At all. And, perhaps because men are talking about Human Rights, and the Human Rights of only men, without getting permission from………women! Sometimes, they don’t even mention women at all, well, except to be mean and horrible about them.

MRA’s talking, discussing and debating men’s rights is just all, me, me, me, me, me, me!

So, Men suffer  and get shafted in family courts and lose their homes, their children, everything?  Ppppft.

Men have pain, anguish and feel isolated, depressed even suicidal? Ppppft.

Boys struggle in school and are discriminated against just for being boys? Ppppft.

 Men are beaten, are abused  and  are traumatised in relationships? Ppppft.

 Men and boys are raped, and boys used as cannon fodder and as child soldiers in ethnic conflicts all around the world? Ppppft.

You know what the usual response is to these issues, whether directly or indirectly, but mostly indifferently?

SO WHAT? What about the womeeeeeeeeeeeeeen? Women suffer sooooooooooo much more, we need to get back to “talking about the women”!

So, if you talk about, discuss or raise “men’s issues” you are just a big ole MRA meanie, and that’s ALL you are!

 I’m hoping that if you are reading this, if you are not preparing to pen a scathing and polemic diatribe to launch a counter attack to “put me in my place * you will at least give what I’ve written some thought, think about it at least, are men’s rights now being attacked, being ignored, becoming a distant cultural memory?

I hope that you at least clicked on some of the links, yes I know, there are quite a lot of them, but take your time.  In case you are thinking that what appears to be, superficially a rather light-hearted general rant on acknowledging and giving a platform to the discussion of Men’s Rights, it is and it isn’t.

The issue of Men’s Human Rights abuses is an urgent and necessary topic, that WE as a Human species need to start having. Not in the context of an addendum to women’s rights, not as an “add on” to the Human Rights agenda under “any other business” but up front and centre.

To continue to frame the Human Rights Agenda in the context of women’s rights, and women’s rights only is in and of itself, an abuse of Human Rights.

To continue to dismiss, diminish, render unimportant or even, irritating, annoying and rude, and yes, as mean the issue of Men’s Human Rights, is scandalous, is abhorrent, and is INHUMANE.

If you, for whatever reason believe or subscribe to the view, that talking about Men’s Human Rights, addressing Men’s Human Rights abuses will somehow cause the Human Rights of women to disappear overnight, to become obsolete, to be wiped from the statute books and canons of law in whatever country you happen to be in, then you are either a fool, an ignoramus, or blind to the reality around you, and if you self-identify as a feminist and are peddling this cant, this drivel, this outrageous calumny. Then:

You are a liar, a vindictive spiteful reprehensible liar and you need to shut up! NOW.

So that decent human beings can have these conversations, can address these issues.  So that policy makers, law makers and Human Rights organisations can start undoing the damage that feminism has done, and will continue to do to the Human Race.

You are either FOR or against Human Rights for ALL Human Beings.  Pick a side.

*For anyone who might read this, and I’m only hoping that someone will, not expecting, and it triggers a feminist, of which there are many varieties, from the relatively benign but misguided, to the all out rabid invective hurling, foaming at the mouth type, who decides to “respond” fine. Likewise anyone who stands in the “I’m not a feminist but……..” camp.

Go ahead, post, comment, review, misrepresent, misunderstand and/or totally and utterly miss the point, do that, after all, you also are entitled to hold whatever opinion or view you wish. But bear this mind, just like me, your opinion,  your view, is open to be challenged, to be shown as flawed, as misguided, and as just plain WRONG.

I won’t censor, block or prevent you from “expressing your opinion” subject to my commenting policy as outlined in Housekeeping. But, you better have some damn good evidence that Men’s Rights are not Human Rights – of the “tablets brought down from the mountain top by Moses” variety!

 

© Anja Eriud 2013

Advertisements

26 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. reyeko
    Nov 23, 2013 @ 00:21:05

    You linked to me twice! I feel like a celebrity! http://i.imgur.com/3wT5Bp5.png
    You didn’t mention that Ryerson University in Ontario denied the formation of a men’s issues group on the basis that it wasn’t first and foremost about women’s issues. Perfect example of the marginalization of men in the way you talk about here.

    Reply

  2. Anja Eriud
    Nov 23, 2013 @ 00:33:52

    I believe that you address men’s rights issues with clarity, with reason and with passion.

    To be honest, I had so much “stuff” to read and check out before I posted a link to it that the issue of mens rights abuses on university campus’s got a bit lost.

    It is my intention to do a essay focusing on education shortly, in light of the current “resistence” to mens issues groups being formed on US campus’s incorporating the takeover by feminists and feminism of higher education and using universities and colleges to disseminate their bile, their cant, their lies.

    But, you are right, the time is way past when mens issues can be relegated to a “side issue” a footnote, a sub topic of “womens rights/issues”

    Reply

  3. DaPoet
    Nov 28, 2013 @ 19:26:00

    I’m longing for the day when married men like myself – I’ve been married to the same woman for 32 yrs and have a 30 yr old son – will be welcomed in the MHRM instead of being treated with disdain for choosing to remain in a traditional marriage.

    Reply

  4. Anja Eriud
    Nov 28, 2013 @ 19:33:31

    Where have you looked for a welcome? I know of one place where being married is not a barrier, where only a willingness to speak for and on behalf of men is the only requirement.

    Even women are welcome, have you visited A Voice for Men?

    Reply

  5. DaPoet
    Nov 28, 2013 @ 22:59:22

    I have and check out AVfM daily. Unfortunately as part of their platform they are as rabidly anti- traditional marriage as the feminists and far too many of their members use the down vote option to bully and silence those who refuse to perfectly conform to their views. That is why I will continue to be an independently minded MHRA for the foreseeable future.

    Reply

    • Fidelbogen
      Nov 30, 2013 @ 02:25:07

      The problem is, that you are missing a ton of nuance in this discussion. You need to study deeper.

      Reply

      • DaPoet
        Nov 30, 2013 @ 12:07:25

        Fidelbogen I’m too independently minded to ever allow anyone or any group to ever tell me how to think.Whether it is a liberal, conservative, feminist, so called christian or the powers the be at AVfM I will always reserve the right to think for myself. Paul Elam has always been up front with his anti-traditional marriage views and has shown absolutely no interest in making that institution safe for men and their children. Which to me is the same thing as putting up a sign reading: Married men need not apply to the MHRM.

  6. Anja Eriud
    Nov 28, 2013 @ 23:14:13

    I can understand that, I personally feel AVfM is the flagship of the MHRM, and without that platform many issues would never see the light of day.

    Though I can understand the anger and hostility towards what you call “traditional” marriage, because marriage has been corrupted by the toxic influence of feminism, it has become for many men a trap, a means of divesting them of every semblence of dignity and autonomy.

    You spoke of the well of anger lying beneath the surface in many men in your poem “You Can” that anger lies within many men, and they lash out. sometimes unthinkingly. Perhaps what fuels that anger is an overwhelming sense of betrayal, of having placed their trust in someone and had that trust crushed.

    Feminism has left no refuges for men, for boys, there is no place left for men to feel joy, to feel contentment to feel pride in themselves. They have to be constantly on their guard, vigilent and wary, I imagine that having to live this way is beyond stressful, in a state of constant fight or flight?

    Marriage should be that refuge, should be that source of joy and contentment, but for many men is has not been, and it cannot be. Therein lies the source of the anger and hostility.

    Reply

    • Fidelbogen
      Nov 30, 2013 @ 17:48:22

      Yes, you do have a right to think for yourself. Unfortunately, thinking for yourself STILL does not preclude missing a ton of nuance. So I would still aver, that you could benefit by thinking for yourself more deeply.

      Reply

  7. jeff
    Nov 29, 2013 @ 11:36:27

    DaPoet and Anja,

    Married men need to check out Athol Kay’s site Married Man Sex Life. A site devoted to helping married men get their act together and improve their marriage. He quit his nursing job to go the site, write his books, and do private counseling full time.

    Jeff

    Reply

  8. Fidelbogen
    Nov 30, 2013 @ 02:29:38

    @Anja:

    I like to put this simply. “MRA” is a word that feminists use to smear any non-feminist who gets uppity, or even just sticks his/her head above the parapet for one instant.

    MRA= uppity non-feminist

    Makes things simple.

    Reply

  9. DaPoet
    Nov 30, 2013 @ 11:57:46

    Anja: Marriage should be that refuge, should be that source of joy and contentment, but for many men is has not been, and it cannot be. Therein lies the source of the anger and hostility.

    DaPoet: That is exactly my point and I’m waiting for a MHRM group who will stand up to both the feminists and the pro divorce lobby to reform the institution of marriage and make it a safe refuge for not only men and women but for children as well. Long before AVfM came on the scene I was advocating the marriage strike simply because it is necessary for men to avoid it – for now, and I will continue supporting the marriage strike for as long as it remains an unsafe institution for men and their children, yet I have never been anti-marriage nor wanted to destroy it. Indeed before AVfM came along most MRA’s believed that the best place to raise happy and well adjusted children was in the two parent family composed of a mother and a father. And until AVfM decides to give up its anti-marriage stance I see no reason for me to be a member nor to support it.

    Reply

    • Anja Eriud
      Nov 30, 2013 @ 13:11:34

      “……….I was advocating the marriage strike simply because it is necessary for men to avoid it – for now, and I will continue supporting the marriage strike for as long as it remains an unsafe institution for men and their children, yet I have never been anti-marriage nor wanted to destroy it. Indeed before AVfM came along most MRA’s believed that the best place to raise happy and well adjusted children was in the two parent family composed of a mother and a father. And until AVfM decides to give up its anti-marriage stance I see no reason for me to be a member nor to support it.”

      I am a bit confused, you support the “marriage strike” but object to AVfM’s “anti-marriage stance” are you not, both as an individual and an organisation dedicated to Men’s Human Rights BOTH in your own way holding exactly the same position?

      Perhaps from different perspectives, but essentially acknowledging that the parameters under which modern marriage MUST be conducted, MUST be engaged in is toxic, is legally, socially and culturally a negative, punitive and damaging place for ANY man to put himself into?

      As the State(s) meaning almost all western states encroached further and further into “marriage” and stripped men of all rights WITHIN and after marriage, the concept, the institution itself became corrupt, became something so far from, so unrecognisable from its original intent that “marriage” is perhaps no longer even the appropriate word to describe the chains that wrap themselves around a man who enters into this “bond

      Personally, I would counsel any man contemplating entering into this legal bond to – DON’T. DO NOT!

      Just yesterday on AVfM, a poster started a thread on new “cohabitation” legislation” in the UK, it is appalling, it is a direct response to the falling rates of marriage, it is the state once more extending its reach into the private business of individuals. It is designed to cast the legal net further to disenfranchise, to coerce MEN into financing and funding WOMEN. Ultimately it is yet one more tool to force the transfer of wealth from MEN to WOMEN. Against their will.

      With regard to AVfM generally, I rather like Paul Elam’s brash, in your face style, if it was a case of just “style” I would end here, but it is not, Paul Elam has written some of the most important essays on the core issues of the MHRM, as have others, such as Diana Davison, I imagine her “style” would grate on many people’s nerves, she doesn’t “do” polite” but she DOES do, insightful, incisive and intelligent.

      AVfM is a place of many “voices” not all in agreement, and not all holding exactly the same opinions, but isn’t that what healthy debate is about?

      Hasn’t the silencing of male voices been the ultimate goal of feminism, and hasn’t it worked? The Achilles heel of feminism has ever been its insistence on consensus, on parroting the party line, consensus in and of itself is not a bad thing, but consensus that demands unquestioning obedience?

      Surely, the goal is to build from a base of one over-riding principle? Men’s Rights are Human Rights.

      How one approaches that foundational principle is an individual choice, and each individual is entitled to voice his or her opinion from the context of their own deeply held beliefs?

      Many roads lead to Damascus – but the goal IS to reach Damascus.

      Reply

  10. DaPoet
    Nov 30, 2013 @ 13:48:47

    It is not Paul Elam’s style that is the problem but his anti-marriage stance is something else entirely. It is one thing to go on strike in order to seek change and reform of an institution; but it is quite another to advocate the abandonment and/or the destruction of an institution that is the bedrock of our society. After all the destruction of the two parent family composed of a man and a woman has always been and will always be the goal of second wave feminism – I personally see no need to aid them in that quest. No does there seem to be a place within the MHRM for men in long term marriages – like myself – who are determined to see their marriages through to the end instead of – bailing out – abandoning their families for a movement that does not nor will ever respect their choices.

    Reply

    • reyeko
      Nov 30, 2013 @ 14:59:10

      One of the moderators on the AVfM forums is a married man like yourself, long term with kids. Anti-marriage is not the same thing as anti-married-people. Being against marriage is not being against stable families.
      You’ve shared your perspective as someone who’s been married for over 30 years which places likely in your fifties. I’m in my early twenties, my perspective is that marriage is pointless, it is a legal contract where no such thing needs to exist. Two people can be together, have children, raise a family, and be happy all without the requirement of the government approving a marriage license. Traditional marriage is a relic of the past which in the industrialized world no longer needs to exist. There is nothing unique or special about marriage other than the legal system around it which is entirely in favour of the woman.

      Reply

      • DaPoet
        Nov 30, 2013 @ 16:22:46

        Reyeko as an individual who enjoyed reading history while growing up and as an adult I tend to take the long view instead of conforming to the the smoke and mirror viewpoints of “up and coming young whipper snappers” 🙂 who all to often are proven wrong in the long run. It just so happens that France attempted to abolish the institution of marriage during the French Revolution, by turning marriage into an institution of Adultery, only to reinstate marriage back to its rightful place within their society. And it was the destabilization of marriage and the family attempted by the Russians that helped to being about the eventual fall of communism.

        I agree with you that men should today avoid marriage but strongly disagree with its abandonment and destruction as an institution. IHMO it would be much more productive and makes more sense for those within the MHRM to pull over and change out the flat tire – by working to reform marriage and making it safe for men and their children – instead of abandoning their car or in this case marriage on the side of the road.

        And speaking as an individual who comes from a broken home: I would have much preferred my parents to have stayed together instead of living the hell created by their self centered choices.

      • reyeko
        Nov 30, 2013 @ 18:15:34

        Here’s the thing though, it is just an institution. The form the institution takes now is not what it once was and ‘fixing’ it back to what it once was isn’t something I see as possible let alone good. Marriage in the historic cultural sense rather than the modern legal sense will always exist and two people co-habitating and raising a family together without bothering with even addressing the modern institution of marriage is basically what marriage was always intended to be. There is no reason to take part in the modern institution of marriage.

    • Fidelbogen
      Nov 30, 2013 @ 18:16:28

      If you feel that there is “no place in the MHRM” for people like yourself, then you should park yourself there, willy-nilly, and by that very action, a “place” will be created.

      “MHRM” is an umbrella term for a loose coalition of people, organized only around the idea that men have human rights like anybody else. Paul Elam is not *the* MHRM. AVfM is not *the* MHRM.

      What Elam has made memorably clear, is that “the toothpaste cannot be shoved back into the tube”. Elam has also made his stance against male disposability and gynocentrism pretty clear.

      Nothing about this precludes any man individually taking the traditional yoke upon himself. That is strictly a personal decision. The problem is that under the feminist regime, the underpinning for such a way of life no longer exists, and so no man is morally obligated to take the traditional yoke upon himself.

      The real question is what kind of regime we would envision for the future, after the feminist regime has been overthrown.

      My guess is, that it would be a regime where male disposability and gynocentrism are not culturally enforced. So if a man wants to enforce those things upon himself individually, that’s his choice alone.

      Reply

      • DaPoet
        Nov 30, 2013 @ 18:51:20

        Fidelbogen There is another group who thought abandoning the institution of marriage and engaging in “Free Love” without commitment was a swell idea. So far the actions of this group has led to the creation of a group of parasites content to live off of someone’s else’s money while raising their children to be as spoiled and self centered as they are. Their actions have led to a drastic increase in the rape of men of their financial resources and the rising abuse of children which they are all too willing to ignore whenever any member of their gender chooses to express their dark side.

        That group of course is the very one the MHRM is opposing and unfortunately way far too many of those who claim to be fighting for men’s rights are blindly following that same path from the other end of the spectrum. A very well known FRA once declared that he wasn’t interested in fighting for men’s rights as a group but for the rights of fathers. He was dead wrong because neither the rights of fathers nor the rights of men can be secured without the other. While the abandonment and/or destruction of the family is at the very heart of the social problems our society is struggling with today. Fix marriage and our society will in time recover and heal. Abandon and/or destroy marriage and our society will end up on the trash heap of history as just another failure right where it belongs.

  11. DaPoet
    Nov 30, 2013 @ 13:57:39

    There is no doubt that Paul Elam and AVfM are playing an important role in reshaping the men’s movement. However – like I told him years ago when he was the managing editor for Men’s News Daily in a comment – It will take a leader like Martin Luther King Jr. and a Selma like event to make our society sit up, take notice and make the lasting changes necessary to end the gender wars. Unfortunately that leader has yet to emerge but one thing is absolutely certain Paul Elam is not nor will ever be that leader. He is simply one of many helping to clear and prepare the way for that leader to emerge.

    Reply

    • Fidelbogen
      Nov 30, 2013 @ 18:27:24

      I do not agree that it will take a Selma-like event to “rip feminism a new one”. The present situation (depending on how you define it) is a different kind of struggle. It is basically an information war – a war of propaganda, of memes and counter-memes, and is played out on many fronts.

      Thus far, Toronto-like events seem to be working pretty well. What’s presently lacking is an overall coordinating framework. Such a framework is suggested HERE:

      http://zerotolerance4feminism.blogspot.com

      Reply

  12. Anja Eriud
    Nov 30, 2013 @ 14:26:16

    @ DaPoet

    I am going to preface my response with this statement. First, in light of your last comment, there is an obvious history between yourself and Paul Elam, to which I am not privy. Secondly, I am not comfortable with the direction this exchange is taking, on two counts, one a discussion about a third party who not actually a party to the discussion namely Paul Elam, it smacks of, to be honest “gossip” and I loathe gossip.

    Two, in the interests of fairness I would ask you refrain from any further comment on Paul Elam unless and until he chooses or not to enter this discussion. It would be not only unfair but decidedly dishonorable to continue to make statements without allowing the subject of those statements the right to reply?

    Are we agreed?

    This of course does not apply to a general discussion about the site AVfM.

    With regard to the MHRM as an entity, I believe that the point I made at the beginning of this essay was that the MHRM is an umbrella term, that encompasses a multitude of platforms, voices, perspectives and stances, whether one agrees or not with those multitudinous sources, each voice has the right to BE heard, one does not have to agree, one does not have to support, but one is honour bound to LISTEN first.

    Listening does not imply acquiescence, nor agreement, the difference one would hope between the voices of the MHRM and feminism is those voices are NOT silenced, there is no outcry from within that those voices be muzzled.

    I disagree with many opinions, stances, perspectives, I find many ideas not to MY liking, but from the time I was 12 years old I have incorporated THIS lesson from my father.

    “I disapprove of what you have to say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it”

    Generally attributed to Voltaire

    http://www.voltaire.ox.ac.uk/www_vf/about_voltaire/didnt_say.pdf

    Edit: Least there be any doubt, I will and would apply this criteria to ANY third party, (a living person that is) referenced in ANY comment on this blog.

    Reply

  13. DaPoet
    Nov 30, 2013 @ 17:21:07

    Anja the institution of marriage managed to survive those who wished to destroy it during the French Revolution, out lived communism and will persist in one form or another in spite of the attacks of the feminists or those within the MHRM who wish to abandon it. 🙂

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: