U Not Gonna Like This

I was going to post an article pointing out an liblous article by Jeff Fecke of Minnesotamonitor.com on a blog he contributes to called Shakespears Sisters. I found that article while browsing through the Online Dating Rights forum. Instead I'm going to post an article by KellMac that I found on the Anti-Misandry forums reply to the article. HERE is the response:

I recently read an article by a well-meaning but sadly misinformed man named Jeff Fecke. He wanted to make sure his readers knew about Men’s Rights Activists, and the Men’s Rights Movement, and he took it upon himself to educate them. Unfortunately, there were just one or two things that he didn’t get quite right. While I applaud Mr. Fecke for his selfless effort, I thought I would just correct some of his misapprehensions, in the interests of accuracy and fair play. After all, isn’t that what feminism is all about?

Jeff presented his lesson in question and answer format, and called it “Explainer: What’s an MRA?” It worked so well, I’m going to use the same format. I’ll quote his question and answer, and then put my clarifying statements in blue. There are cases where I’ve had to change his wording a little bit, and I’ve highlighted his words and my words to show the difference.



What is an MRA?

He's a Men's Rights Activist, part of the broader Men's Rights Movement. He--

Wait, wait. "Men's Rights Movement?"

Yes.

How very cute. Oh! The astonishment! Do you see what he’s doing here? He’s implying that it would come as a surprise to any thinking person that there would be such a thing as a Men’s Rights Movement. Oh my. What a clever way to open his lesson. Let’s read further…

Is that like the "National Association for the Advancement of White People" or the folks who think the Christian Right is oppressed?

Yes, the Men's Rights Movement is the same kind of animal. All of these groups share a common worldview, that the traditionally oppressed groups, be they women, minorities, or non-Christians, have somehow seized control of the country and are systematically denying the straight, white, Christian men their rights.

The National Association for the Advancement of White People? The Christian Right is oppressed? I’ve never heard those before. Are you sure there IS such an animal, Jeff?

There’s a slight problem with your logic. You see, you are doing something that is very common in the feminist world. You are taking a statement that would justify your actions if it were true, and treating it as if it WERE true. You state it as the truth over and over and over again, until people believe it. And then you use it to back your arguments. Clever. Very clever.

Minorities, yes. People have been oppressed because of their ethnicity; there is indisputable evidence to support that. For example, lynch mobs, and signs reading “No Irish Need Apply”.

Non-Christians? Erm…I’m not really seeing how they’ve been oppressed. Even the victims of the Salem witch trials weren’t really devil-worshippers. I’m thinking you’re from the US, Jeff. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Women? Not so much. I’m afraid you’re going to have to back that statement up with some evidence.

So your argument fizzles out right there. But let’s move on.

That's insane!

Well, yes, but don't ignore the reason for the pushback: men's traditional privileges really are under attack. It's just that these rights, like the right to beat and rape your wife with impunity, are anathema to a truly free and equitable society.

Again with the made-up facts. Jeff, I wasn’t around before the feminist movement, but I’m pretty sure that it’s never been ok for a man to rape and beat his wife. As a matter of fact, if it happened, that man would be defending his person from the other men in his community. That it happened, I have no doubt. That it happens now, I have no doubt. That women have been and continue to be just as violent, I also have no doubt. It’s never been legal, and it’s never been a right, and the vast majority of men would never dream of doing such a thing. Would you, Jeff?

So they agitate for the right to rape and assault?

Not in so many words. But the MRAs do certainly seem preoccupied by the loss of that privilege. Look at the Glenn Sacks/Helen Smith interview we talked about early this week. It was all about how the Violence Against Women Act is a debacle for men, because, they say, men get sent to jail unfairly in domestic disputes. VAWA is a traditional hobby-horse for the MRA set.

Sorry? The Violence Against Women Act only protects half the population. What about the other half, Jeff? And besides that, how do you get from “We want everyone to be protected”, to “We want to rape and assault?”. That’s a leap of epic proportions.

Does this explain the obsession with the Duke Rape Case?

Yep. The Duke Rape Case is a rallying cry because, according to the MRAs, it proves that men are constantly being falsely accused of rape. Never mind that in this case, charges were dropped -- it's proof of a biased system, according to the MRAs, which is why they believe that women should be charged for rape allegations that don't result in convictions.

No. It proves that when a woman makes a charge of rape against a man, she is automatically believed, the man is arrested, and his name and picture are splashed all over the news. Only then do we look for facts to corroborate her story.

Women should be charged for making false rape allegations. That is not the same thing as allegations that don’t result in convictions. When there is no evidence at all, and the woman recants her story as soon as her pity party is over, why should she be rewarded? Especially as the man she accused has had his life irrevocably changed. Don’t they call that slander?

What?!? Wouldn't that radically curtail the number of real reports of rape that women make?

Well, yes. That's the point. It's the same reason that any discussion of date rape or contraception is instantly decried as "legislating sex" and "requiring a contract for touching." MRAs would like the option of putting a toe (or other body part) over the line once in a while without fear that they'll end up going to jail.

How do you figure? In actuality, it’s all the false rape reports that are responsible for women not reporting real rape. Why would anyone believe her? I’m not clear on what you mean by discussions of date rape and contraception being decried as legislating sex and requiring a contract for touching. I’ve been rather intensely involved in the movement for over a year, and I have NEVER heard that. I’m gonna need some examples, Jeff.

So are MRAs concerned about anything other than raping and beating women?

Oh, sure -- they also don't want to pay child support. There's a huge segment of MRAdom that's fed by divorced men angry that their ex got custody of the kids, and now they have to fork over money to support them.

I don’t know why MRA = Rapist in your eyes, but you are grossly mistaken. MRA’s don’t have a problem with child support. They have a problem with having to sleep in their cars because the orders for child support are ruinously high. They have a problem with not being able to see their children, and having their ex tell the children that their father is a worthless SOB. They have a problem with custody only going to the father when they can’t find the mother, or when she’s in prison, or when her lifestyle is so incredibly dangerous to the children, that it CANNOT be ignored. And that rarely happens until after they’ve been to the ER several times.

Why would that be?

Well, for some men, it's the "she's taking my money" thing. They would have been much more comfortable in the 1800s when all marital property belonged to the man of the house, and divorce meant penury for the woman. Now assets are divided evenly, and the custodial parent gets support to pay for the kids. And the custodial parent is usually the mother.

All money belonged to the family, and back then the man was responsible for everything his family did, and for all of their debts. In the event of divorce, the man usually made sure his ex had support. He would not consider himself a man if he did not, and in fact it would ruin his reputation. Of course, we’re only talking about the wealthy here. Divorce was not something you could do on a whim.

Well, that is sort of unfair. Shouldn't it fall equally?

In a truly just and equitable society, it would. But we don't live in a truly just and equitable society. Women end up as the primary caregiver most of the time. And the custody system is designed to favor the primary caregiver in awarding custody. If men were more often the primary caregivers, they would more often win custody.

Men are not allowed to be the primary caregivers. They are expected to support the family. How many househusbands do you know?? Society frowns heavily on such a thing. For that matter, how many housewives do you know?? Women are out working as much as men are, either because they have to, or because they are pursuing that elusive “career”. Tell me, if you believe women are the more natural caregiver, why is it that you believe women should follow their own ambition at the expense of a home life? There’s an obvious contradiction there.

You mentioned divorced families. What about unmarried men who father children?

Well, funny you should mention that. The MRAs are big into the Choice for Men concept.

True. Half of that baby’s DNA comes from him. She can decide to kill it, and she doesn’t even have to tell him, much less have his consent. I am about as fertile a woman as you will ever know, and my husband is just as fertile. And you know what? We never once got pregnant by “accident”. It’s funny how that works.

What is that?

They believe that men should be able to opt out of being fathers to a child if they want to.

In cases where she lies about being on birth control, if the child isn’t his, if he didn’t even know she was pregnant, or if he has been deceived in some other way, this is true. That’s reasonable, wouldn’t you say? How many married men are unknowingly raising a child not their own?

Wha--?

Yeah, I know. Their argument is that women can get abortions, but men don't have control of pregnancy after their semen leaves their bodies, so men should have an abortion-like option of legally terminating paternity in order to get out of paying child support.

Yep. Pretty much. If abortion is good for the goose, it’s good for the gander. Likewise, he should be able to prevent her from having an abortion if he wants the child. If she doesn’t want it, that’s fine. She can pay child support, or sign away her parental rights.

But--but--don't women actually go through pregnancy?

Ah, yes, but you're applying logic. The law right now says that what happens in your body is your business. I'm free to go get a vasectomy if I want to avoid fathering any more children, for example. But a fetus is contained inside a woman; if that ever changes, I suppose men would have the right to abortions for any children they carry to term. But given that child support is for the child, not for the mother, it seems a bit ridiculous to give men an opt-out clause.

Oh please. The woman carries it, but she did not create it on her own. It’s half him. What, you think men don’t love their children? I’ve been pregnant and given birth twice. One was a high risk pregnancy, with a lot of problems. Women’s bodies are made to be able to do that. It’s no big deal. No big mystery. Don’t let your girlfriend tell you differently.



And Jeff, seriously, “abortions for any children they carry to term”? Isn’t that a little late for an abortion? Or are you one of those who believes a child is not alive until after it has taken its first breath? Really, Jeff.

You brought up abortion--I'm guessing the MRAs aren't exactly pro-choice, are they?

They're pro-choice for men. They think, by and large, that abortion is fine, if it gets them out of fatherhood when they want to, and they think, by and large, that abortion is evil if it keeps them from being fathers when they want to. They're big fans of spousal notification laws, and as you can see by the "Choice for Men" rhetoric, they're also big fans of having the legal system help them manipulate women into terminating pregnancies that they would otherwise carry to term.

Not at all. If she wants to carry to term, more power to her. It’s all about choices.

So is there anything that the MRAs have a legitimate point on?

They're right about the fact that society in general views a "successful father" as a guy who brings home the bacon, not a guy who cares for his kids. Of course, for most MRA's, that's just a way of complaining about child support, but they're right that the law struggles to balance the interests of both parents in child custody cases. (Of course, as Liss reminded me, while women are usually given physical custody, in contested cases men have a better-than-even chance of getting some form of custody. And while joint physical custody is rare, joint legal custody is the norm in all but a few cases, contested or no.)

Of course, if fathers are undervalued as caregivers, it's for the same reason that women are undervalued as employees -- because neither fits the model of what men and women are "supposed to do."

Jeff said, “in contested cases men have a better-than-even chance of getting some form of custody.” Bwahaha! What do you mean by some form of custody? He gets them every other weekend, Wednesday night, and for two weeks in the summer? Tell me, could you have a deep, meaningful relationship with your wife on such a schedule? I’m thinking no.


Jeff said, “So is there anything that the MRAs have a legitimate point on?” Um, you’ve done an extremely poor job of proving illegitimate any of the points you’ve addressed. Is this more of that feminist logic?
How do you solve that?

With the novel idea that men and women should be able to map out their own destinies, free from being directed on what they're "supposed to do." It's a political ideology called "feminism." The MRAs with legitimate gripes would be well-served to embrace feminism. But given the overall hatred of women woven into the fabric of the movement, I won't hold my breath.

Ah, but if men were allowed to map out their own destinies, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, now would we? There are extremists who hate women, yes, just as there are extremists in the feminist movement who think men should be eliminated. There is no overall hatred of women in the movement, my poor, deluded friend. There is disgust at feminism. Big difference.



And there you have it, boys and girls. He got most of it right. Well, he got some of it right. *Sigh* I’m afraid he didn’t really get any of it right. But Jeff, I have to give you an A for effort.



Class dismissed.



Not only that the "swarm" formed and Mr. Fecke got a REAL EDUCATION about the MRA movement as there were nearly 2300 comments left on that post.

That that should teach the little commie s.ob. huh....