Profeminists, Christian Men's Groups, and Men's News Daily, updated

The emails continue to flow in to my in-box in response to Sunday's Glenn Sacks show.  Right now, they're running about 5-1 in favor of Glenn and against me.  Sample:

Whether you are an evil man or merely a wretched brainwashed void I do not know.  But I know without doubt that your cause is repugnant and wrong.  And whether you are eventually made accountable in some way only time will tell.

Matilde the chinchilla has been reading some of these impertinent missives and is becoming rather cross!   (I can tell by the way she nuzzled close to me  while she had her almond this morning that she was feeling protective.)

To be fair,that invective is characteristic of most, but not all, of the criticism I've received. Some has been more eloquent and civil, like this recent comment by Stanton.
Anyhow...

I'm not going to become a one-issue blogger.  By tomorrow, I promise something on a topic other than men's rights and pro-feminism.  But there is one topic I wanted to touch on today.   When we were first chatting about doing his show, Glenn asked me if I ever read Men's News Daily.  I admitted I was familiar with it, but rarely visited.  Given that our topic for the show was the men's rights movement, he asked me to take another look at it.  I'm told that MND is perhaps the single most important website for men's rights advocates.  (I have no way of knowing whether that is true or not, but given the look and feel of it, I suspect that Glenn is right.)

In preparation for Sunday, I spent some time reading the various articles and following the various links at Men's News Daily.  The topic of the site never came up on the show, but I do have some reflections to share.  MND has an eclectic list of articles, some of which have precious little to do with men's rights issues. (Today I find links to articles on China, Iran,guns, and Social Security, for example).  Not surprisingly, the politics of the site are solidly right-wing.  Many columnists from the likes of Townhall or the National Review can be found spouting  their consistently conservative views at MND.  That's not surprising, of course.  To the extent that they share a political vision that transcends anti-feminism, it would seem safe to characterize most men's rights advocates as right of center, though with libertarian rather than authoritarian leanings.

Now, I've spent many years in friendship and dialogue with conservative men.  But most of the conservative men I've worked with on male issues come from a different strand of the men's movement than the rights advocates do.  I'm talking, of course, about Promise Keepers.  Back in June of last year, I posted a brief summary of the men's movement.  I argued that there are actually four distinct groups with radically different approaches to men's work:

1. The Men's Rights Advocates, represented by everyone from Glenn Sacks to Warren Farrell to Men's News Daily to Stand Your Ground.

2.  Pro-feminist Men's Groups are where my heart lies.  They include the likes of NOMAS, Men Can Stop Rape, and XYOnline.  Important leaders include Michael Flood and Michael Kimmel.

3. Mythopoetic Men's Groups, represented by the important work of Robert Bly and the Mankind Project.

4.  Christian Men's Groups, represented most famously by Promise Keepers.  (Others include International Christian Men's Institute, and New Man Magazine.)

The first and fourth groups have much in common.  Both Men's Rights Advocates and Christian Men's Groups take a variety of traditionally conservative positions.  Both are highly critical of the feminist movement; even the briefest visit to the websites of their various affiliates will make that much clear.  Frankly, I'd be willing to bet that most of the American membership of both strands of the movement voted for President Bush. 

But pro-feminist men and Christian men's groups also, surprisingly have something in common: they both place their emphasis on the ethical and behavioral transformation of men.  If you go to Men's News Daily or any other Men's Rights site, you won't read much about the responsibility of men to change.  Men's Rights Advocates believe that men don't need transformation, they need defending!  The enemy of the MRAs is feminism and those who have helped to spread feminist influences through our courts, our schools, and our culture.  But the MRAs don't believe that their members ought to engage in critical self-examination.  They don't believe that MRAs primary responsibility is to help other men grow and mature.  They rarely mention discipling or mentoring other adult men.  In the MRA world, men are victims of both a feminist hegemony and individual women.  Blame is never placed on men themselves.

Christian Men's groups, as I've said, almost always share that same hostility to feminism.  But visit their websites, and you will see that the emphasis is NOT on defending men but on changing them.  Read, for example this article from this month's New Man magazine: Talk Your Walk.  It briefly tells the story of a man learning to become more humble and learning to better express his feelings to his wife and daughter.  It's also a lesson about the real goal of the Christian Men's movement; as the article says:

Jesus sets the standard as the perfect role model, the only example necessary...  It’s a wise man who practices the character of Jesus in order to develop gentleness and self-control in speech.

Now friends, that's a tall order. Whatever else may be said of Christian men's groups, they are most decidedly not "defending men just as they are"!  They are not interested in blaming men's suffering on women. Rather, they are interested in guiding men to become ever more Christlike, a process which surely is long, intensive, and requires much in the way of mutual support and hard work.  Most pro-feminist activists are also interested in helping men develop some of those very same characteristics cited in New Man; most of us (regardless of faith) are big believers in "developing gentleness" in men! 

And over at Men's News Daily, I find many things that Christian men's groups would find objectionable.  To give just one example, at the top of the page, there's a link to poker babes.  In two words, we've got sexual objectification of women and a promotion of gambling.  That's not a link you'll ever find at Promise Keepers!   The Christian men's movement, as one might expect, places a huge emphasis on male sexual purity.   For example, helping men win the victory over porn addiction is a critically important, perhaps even central, focus of the movement.  But to put it mildly, I haven't found anything negative about porn at any of the men's rights sites.  Indeed, to the extent that they are discernible,  the sexual ethics of most Men's Rights sites are decidedly libertarian if not positively hedonistic.  (For a blunter example of what I mean by the connection between MRAs and hedonistic exploitation, check out this blog hosted by Men's News Daily.  Warning: not entirely work safe.)

I am an evangelical of a sort, though with fairly progressive views compared to the stereotype.  Over the last few years, I have been to one rally and a couple of small group meetings of Promise Keeper (PK, as it is called).  Though I disagree with many of the conservative social positions of its members, I have far more respect for PK and its allies than I do for the men's rights movement.    That respect is rooted in the understanding that the fellows in the Christian Men's Movement are, like pro-feminist men, doing the hard work of individual and social transformation.  Pro-feminist and conservative  Christian men are both committed to ending the sexual exploitation of women.  We are equally committed to creating "new men" of character, self-restraint, courage, and gentleness. We have much about which we disagree, but we do agree on the need for men to be transformed.  In that, we share something that our MRA brothers do not.

I'll have more on the similarities between pro-feminist men and Promise Keepers another time.

UPDATE:  Men's News Daily has a link back to this article with the charming headline:

AMBUSH: Pro-Feminist 'Girlyman' Hugo Schwyzer Takes Potshots at MND's Politics, "Hedonism"

Ambush, huh?  Where can I get the pro-feminist "girlyman" t-shirt?  Oh, and I am not a miltary historian -- what exactly is a "potshot"?  What's the etymology?  I'd like to know, so I can know whether I am being accused accurately. 

And they have another banner linking to Glenn's site which reads:

Glenn Sacks Gores Misandrist and Feminist Apologist Hugo Schwyzer...

Huh.  Gores.  I'll go inspect my torso for signs of injury.  (Oh, and I like the play on Glenn's name -- "sacks" can be a fine verb in that sentence,if only you add a comma after it.)

Comments

[Kat]

*offers more almonds for Matilde's obvious distress*

[Hugo Schwyzer]

Matilde, as a rodent, does not normally like felines. But you are obviously a discerning and special Kat.

[graham]

The comments and emails you've been getting are simply astounding.

Your graciousness is equally fairly impressive too! :-)

[Amanda]

If you go to the blogs of these self-proclaimed men's rights activists, you'll see all sorts of pin-up pictures of women, usually with hostile captions.

[Anne]

Oh if only women would STOP posing for all those "pin-ups" then men would have nothing to exploit.

[Hugo Schwyzer]

I certainly share with you, Anne, an eagerness to provide women with well-paying alternatives to selling their bodies in any of the facets of the sex industry, from "pin-ups" to prostitution.

But the fact that some young women make poor choices out of economic necessity does not mitigate in any way men's responsibility to not objectify them. I have a far higher opinion of male self-control than that.

[Amanda]

You're right. And if women started wearing burquas, men wouldn't stare at their cleavage. Once again, we must remember that if it has a penis, it's blameless.

[Scarbo]

I see cleavage, I stare. Discreetly. I'm a normal male, I like to look at pretty women.

Am I "sexually pure"? I have thoughts about sex just like any other man I know. I don't cheat on my wife, and wouldn't dream of doing so.

So, are you now going to tell me that I need to change?

[Ambrose]

Men objectify women because there have always been women who let them.

[Hugo]

No, Scarbo, not necessarily. But there's all the difference in the world between a momentary appreciative glance at a woman on the street and lustful staring. (If you aren't sure of the difference, ask a woman -- most know the distinction between a complimentary look and the penetrating gaze).

If your staring is perceptible either to the woman at whom you are gazing, or to your wife, you bet your boots you've got a problem.

And if you're buying magazines to look at 'em, or going online to look at 'em -- yup, you've got work to get done. And brother, it can be done.

[David]

Hugo,

I don't beleive you really understand the men's movement. I think you're trying to put people into neat little boxes and label them.

For instance: Mens news daily. Most of my mens activist friends loathe this fascist site. Its by no means a loved site amongst vast swathes of us. Of course Glenn would cite it as being important, he used to write there (maybe he still does, I dont know).

Secondly, you only seem aware of a very small number of men's websites. This is not entirely surprising, as some of the more important ones are hidden. Nevertheless, you can't characterise a movement based on such a limited view of it.

Thirdly, the men's movement isn't really a top-down, ideologically driven movement like the feminist movement is. Its very much a grass-roots uprising. Most of these guys are not making money out of it, we don't have professorships in posh universities that pay us to talk about these things all day long. We do it because we're sick of men like us never having a voice in the media on gender issues, we're sick of being constantly characterised as rapists and abusers, and we're sick of the injustices we see happening around us.

Lastly, I am bisexual. And I'm a very commited men's rights activist, and I don't think you have the first understanding of men like me so stop spreading bigotted views about people you don't understand. I don't think you are a hateful man, but I do think you are planting seeds that can grow into hate.

I don't think you see us as individual human beings. I think you're more dedicated to upholding an ideology, whatever the costs. Please Hugo, don't put an ideology before real humans.

I'm leaving now because I know you're all going to start pissing on me and I'm really not in the mood for it.

[zuzu]

Sorry to see you piss and run, David.

[Rhesa]

Hmmm...I didn't see David's post as a "piss-n-run" affair. Some generalizations can go so far before they're no longer applicable, right?

Not that I disagree with you, Hugo, but the first question that came to mind after I read David's comments was, "Is he an exception to the rule?"

If none of this makes sense, I blame it on work.

[Hugo Schwyzer]

Well, as someone who has been teaching courses on men and masculinity for years, has worked with groups ranging from Men Can Stop Rape to Promise Keepers to Big Brothers to the Boy Scouts to NOMAS, David doesn't get himself off on the right foot with me when he questions whether I know much about the men's movement. Again, as my post pointed out, the men's movement is multi-faceted, in ways that go beyond the capacity of any blogger to describe.

For the record, Michael Kimmel's "Manhood In America" provides a very similar encapsulation of the men's movement as a whole, though he and I interpret things a bit differently. (That could be a whole other post.) Now, if David doesn't think Kimmel has any credibility on men's issues, that's another matter -- but it's a bit like saying that Phil Jackson doesn't know basketball.

Men's News Daily receives an astonishing number of hits and is regularly cited as representative of the men's rights movement. The fact that David doesn't list any of his "important but hidden" websites makes it impossible to respond to him as to whether there are other segments of the men's rights movement that are in complete disagreement with the MND crowd. If you have a men's rights site that is demonstrably more influential than any of the ones I listed, send it on over!

Obviously I can't list every men's website out there. I carefully picked just a couple that would be representative. Warren Farrell is one of the fathers of the men's rights movement; few would argue that. And Men's News Daily gets cited frequently and gets more hits than any other men's rights site out there.

...And while David demands respect for the complexity of the men's rights movement, he is dismissive of the feminist movement, calling it "top-down"...

I've also, as even Glenn Sacks pointed out, taught Gay and Lesbian history. As a straight man, I've worked as an activist on gay issues for years. (Hello? All Saints Pasadena? Flagship church of GLBTQ affirming Episcopalianism?)

Are there gay and bisexual men in all four groups of the movement? You bet. There's no question pro-feminist men are the most publicly receptive to gays and lesbians, but I am well aware that gay and bisexual men, both out and closeted, can be found throughout the entire men's movement.

[David]

I couldn't help myself, I had to come back. I guess I hoped for some kind of bridge to be built between my world and yours.

I have to say I'm feeling more depressed than ever. I didn't demand respect, I just was pointing out that I exist. But you only seem to want to think about things that can be neatly labeled, categorised and simply placed into groups. Anything outside of those top-down imposed labels and you don't seem to show any interest in it.

I don't care how many degrees or fancy-sounding groups you are a member of, you clearly don't understand me or my friends and you clearly show no interest in understanding us either.

The fact that MensNewsDaily.com gets a lot of hits has no relevance to whether it speaks for the men's movement. Its primarily an American conservative website, and I guess it gets a lot of hits from conservatives. So what? I'm not an American, and I'm not a conservative. And guess what: there are lots of us non-american non-conservative out there lol

Equally, the fact that its been cited as being representative of the men's rights movement just shows that there are others out there with an equally narrow view.

If you are a scholar you should greet something that doesn't fit into your current model with interest, not dismissal or distain. To embrace the new and the unknown is the only way we grow.

[Hugo Schwyzer]

Then help me, David -- give me one of your important but hidden websites. Prove me wrong! Please, with all respect, I am interested. But simply telling me you exist without providing much else is not enough to help your cause.

[Amanda]

"Men objectify women because there have always been women who let them."

Really, there's nothing that's not women's fault. Even if one man shoots another, I'm sure a woman is to blame somewhere. His mother?

It's the women of Afghanistan's fault that they have to wear the burqua. If they wanted to, they could just take it off, no? Sure, they'd get killed, but they still have a choice.

[Kat]

*kindly offers Matilde some more almonds*

No one, of any complexity, can be slapped with a label and put in a box. No one. To me the most important thing is to listent to each and try to understand. I don't think David is doing that very well. But, I'm new here, so I'll stop with that.

[Jeff JP]

I don't think David is doing that very well. But, I'm new here, so I'll stop with that.

I don't agree with your criticism of David. However, Hugo doesn't listen very well. When a man posts something Hugo doesn't like, he just labels the man a "misogynist." Most of the feminist dweebs here behave similarly.

[Hugo Schwyzer]

Um, where did I label David a misogynist, Jeff? Help me out, my friend.

And as always, Jeff, try and restrain yourself from using even mild epithets like "dweeb" I'm sure it's just code for "misguided and wrong", but still... I do want to keep even this heated and difficult discussion reasonably civil.

[djw]

My understanding of potshot is that it's a classist insult against those who hunt for food (thus, the pot), but those who hunt for sport. Could be wrong.

[djw]

that's by those who hunt for sport..

[John]

DJW is basically right, although the language of class war is profoundly unattractive. The expression is in common use here, to "take a pot-shot" is to snipe at someone. As for the whole "Mens' Rights" mess, I've posted a tangential response on my weblog.

[zuzu]

I don't agree with your criticism of David. However, Jeff JP doesn't listen very well. When a liberal posts something Hugo doesn't like, he just labels the liberal a "conservative." Most of the conservative dweebs here behave similarly.

[djw]

Well, sneering at people who have a compelling reason to hunt from those who do it for the sheer fun of it ain't too pretty either :)

Of course, this ugly form of classism is pretty much entirely antiquated here in the states.

We have the same common use meaning as in NZ.