Querying the MRAs about marriage

First off, frustrating news on the injury front.  I have discovered that while I can bike easily, even coming out of the saddle on climbs, I can't run more than a few yards without calf pain.  My hopes of a quick return to the trails have been dashed.  Looks like Hugo will be spending lots of time in the gym and in the saddle over the next few weeks.

I do want to post again on marriage.  Several men, particularly "jaketk" and "Gonzman"  and "Mr. Bad" have suggested that, all things considered, modern marriage has become an increasingly bad deal for men.  The former writes:

Because of my experiences with feminism, I am wary of long-term relationships. Though I am only 22, based on the expectations women place of men, I have no real desire to become yet again the plaything, sexual or otherwise, of another person.

And Mr. Bad weighs in:

MRAs (men's rights advocates) eschew serious long-term relationships with women because of women's behavior and the bad treatment they've received from individual women and society at large (i.e., the so-called "family" courts, etc.).

And then Gonz:

...in all the bending over backwards to "protect women" marriage has become damned unattractive to men as a business proposition.

There's a huge amount of literature -- some of it over a century old -- that makes the feminist case against marriage.  Indeed, this semester I'm using Lillian Faderman's To Believe in Women, which makes the strong case that it was unmarried women, whom Faderman identifies as lesbians, who were primarily responsible for the success of the suffrage movement.  Like the Roman Catholic Church, early feminists understood that marriage is often the bane of the truly committed activist.  Nothing like wifehood and motherhood, particularly in a world where women had few civil rights, to consume all of one's time and attention.  Even today, for a variety of reasons, some feminists continue to press the point that marriage is often not in women's best interests emotionally or financially.  And though I am clearly pro-marriage, I don't believe it is something that ought to be entered into lightly.

But I am curious as to what the MRAs propose as an alternative.  In different ways, Jaketk, Mr. Bad, and Gonz all make the case that men are victimized by marriage.  Jaketk, reversing classic gender roles, worries (at 22) about being a woman's sexual plaything.   Mr. Bad and Gonz, on the other hand, worry less about being exploited by individual women and more by a legal system that they believe discriminates against husbands and fathers.  So, I would like some clarification here:  is the problem individual women (as Jaketk and other MRAs have suggested), or is it the legal system's preferential treatment of women in divorce and custody cases, or is it both?

The way I see it, there are several alternatives for men to monogamous marriage and long-term committed relationships with American women:

1.  Celibacy.  No MRAs that I've encountered are arguing for this.  True and complete chastity is a rare calling indeed.  Celibacy precludes masturbation; it channels all of one's sexual energy into other activities.  At its best, celibacy is joyful; the sense is less of what has been given up and more of what one has gained in return.

2.  Singleness without sex with others.   This comes in two subsets: voluntary and involuntary. In this category, I suppose, one would find both men who would very much like to be in a relationship with a woman (but can't find one for any number of reasons), and those who have forsworn sex with others but not with themselves (hence the difference with the previous category.)  Inevitably, I suspect, this state will become frustrating on physical and emotional levels.  (This is where it seems Joseph finds himself.)

3.  Promiscuity.  Clearly, this appeals to some. One MRA, Factory, writes:

So why should I marry? Why should any guy? It will only happen when and if I feel marriage is a fair deal. Obviously I'm not alone in feeling that men are taking their futures and putting them in women's hands when they do get married. Whatever...I'm off to the bar to go pick up a 20something for a night's fun.

Well, there you go.  Clearly, Factory has found some sort of a solution, and it is one I suspect is shared -- or at least fantasized about -- by many other MRAs.  No sexual frustration with this response to the marriage dilemma!   But seriously, fellas, how long do you expect -- pun intended -- to keep that lifestyle up?  When you're in your seventies, will you be cruising for the young and the vulnerable still?  I can't think that most MRAs, particularly those with any moral sensibilities, will find this satisfying for long. 

4.  Mail-Order Brides.  Now, it's clear that some MRAs (ala Nice Guy and Paul Fenn, whom I quoted here) have another solution.  As Fenn writes, many men are choosing to pursue immigrant girls from more established cultures who are comfortable in their own less-complex skins and bring their own flourishes of exotica and mystery with them.   Of course, if you're a real MRA, isn't that only a temporary solution?  Importing a wife from the Philippines or Russia will work only until she understands how US laws work, right?  Once your "less-complex exotic" gets wind of what she's entitled to under American law, won't it be only a matter of time until she becomes as shrewish and demanding as any native-born feminist?

5.  Homosexuality.    I've yet to meet any gay MRAs. And human sexuality being what it is, I highly doubt many otherwise heterosexual men will become sexually intimate with other men simply out of a political aversion to American feminism.

So, MRAs, here's my question:  I know what you don't like about marriage.  You've made it abundantly clear.  Here's what I do want to know: What are you doing for sexual companionship, given your aversion to both marriage and committed relationships with American women?  Are there other options besides the five I've listed, or do these just about cover 'em?  What are you doing about sex?  Where do children fit into your plan, if at all?   When you are sick, or frightened, or lonely, who do you expect will be there for you?

Please be as detailed as possible in your responses.  I am confident you can avoid profanity and attacks on individual bloggers.  And my feminist allies are welcome to weigh in here as well, but I ask that everyone try their darndest for a very high degree of civility.

Comments

[The Gonzman]

First, I have my children. In a way, this gives me a leg up, and also since I'm not going to be having any more - surgically seen to - I have a little more leisure for detachment. Thanks to their mothers being caught out for being liars and manipulators (And due in part to me not being Joe Chivalry and covering for them) I have no doubt Gonz Jr and the Gonzette will be around to apply the bandages to the Grim Reaper after he comes calling for me.

Companionship? I have friends, both male and female. And I have learned to be content with myself; one thing from the meditation and martial arts discipline I have practiced is to draw great comfort from self and solitude. In fact, without a good measure of it, I fear I would grow mad.

Sex. Hm. The older I get, the less important it becomes. Many times I'd as soon have a few beers, some games of pool, and just go home and read or watch my Tivo, or have a game of chess with one of my children. Between my work, writing, and hobbies, I really don't have the time for the clutter a "relationship" would bring. I have plenty of relationships, plenty of friends, plenty of love, excitement, and companionship from friends and family.

As far as the actual grunting and sweating goes, while my libido has ebbed, it isn't gone, but I make it a point to specifically seek out like minded women for any sexual release I feel I may need. If a woman expresses an interest in her Prince Charming, Forever, and the white-picket fence with a Minivan, a dog, and 1.65 children, I demur, and steer her elsewhere; I'm very clear and specific that I am a devout bachelor uninterested in even sharing living quarters, nor in commitment beyond the end of any plans we may have at the time. In the past, I have been known to seek out a professional - as I have found that an expensive dinner and such is often the price for sex, why be anything but brutally honest? I see little diffrence in paying a girl directly or just picking up the tab for her indulgence.

I'm content with it, and it's a damn sight better than most get in life. I have done my time for King and Country in reproducing for the next generation, and it is now officially Gonz time, and I'm realistic enough to recognize that if I did engage in a LTR, it would be with a horrible double standard, and be unfair as all hell - so I don't even try. A woman who would deserve that kind of treatment wouldn't be worth living with, and one which would be worth living with wouldn't deserve having to put up with my old, misanthropic, crotchety, and set in my ways self. I've done my compromising, and am unwilling to do it further to please anyone else. Tried it, failed at it, and its my turn.

So why am I an MRA? Because even though I have learned to be content with the cold war in the battle of the sexes, I want better for my son and daughter. But to me better involves at the forefront that feminism gave women their say for decades, and it's men's turn now to remake themselves, for themselves.

[Hugo]

Gonz, thank you for your candor! One more follow-up: how do you reconcile "seeking out a professional" with your attendance at Tridentine Mass? Heck, you and I sound more and more like we'd get along. Though I don't "seek out professionals" and don't like my Masses in Latin, I do know what it is to live with contradictions!

Any other MRAs want to share their feelings on employing sex workers?

Still, I appreciate your clarification -- you are a vocal and important member of the MRA movement, and I imagine you speak for more than a few.

[The Gonzman]

Well, used to is the operative word - more and more it's just too damn much trouble, and entirely too hard to find someone in the trade who is (1) affordable, and (2) not forced into it by some means or another. Reconciliation or rationalization, as the case may be is that the purpose of sexual morality is twofold, for the protection and proper rearing of progeny, and the logical prohibition against taking advantage of another person for sexual pleasure - if the terms are honest and up front....

I'm seriously not into taking advantage of women for sex, or leading young girls down the proverbial primrose path, it's the fundamental dishonesty and politics in relationships that has helped sour me on the notion, though I see that as a symptom of the attack on marriage and family rather than a cause. Soi disant "modern feminists" can proclaim their distance from the "We must abolish the nuclear family!" feminists of yore all they wish, but we are seeing a direct result of the implementation of their agenda which is breaking down and diluting marriage and relationships. For it or against it or no, they are the heirs of that legacy, and in continuing to defend that legacy continue, by extension, to defending the fruits thereof.

[Dave]

What does MRA stand for?

[sophonisba]

- as I have found that an expensive dinner and such is often the price for sex, why be anything but brutally honest? I see little diffrence in paying a girl directly or just picking up the tab for her indulgence.

There's a way to avoid paying a woman for sex, directly or indirectly, but it requires being sexually attractive and good in bed. If there's no difference between the sex you'd have with a woman who's there for her own reasons and a woman who's there for yours, there's no reason for either one of them to participate without compensation. You make it sound like a very unpleasant proposition for them. If a woman won't do something fun with you without extra hazard pay, you have discovered that it's not fun for her.

You've covered the exploitation angle (and admitted that as a stranger you can't know a prostitute's life story, which I respect you for acknowledging). What I have never understood about men who go to prostitutes is how they can enjoy sex with an unaroused woman. It seems kind of pervy, and not in the good way.

[sophonisba]

- as I have found that an expensive dinner and such is often the price for sex, why be anything but brutally honest? I see little diffrence in paying a girl directly or just picking up the tab for her indulgence.

There's a way to avoid paying a woman for sex, directly or indirectly, but it requires being sexually attractive and good in bed. If there's no difference between the sex you'd have with a woman who's there for her own reasons and a woman who's there for yours, there's no reason for either one of them to participate without compensation. You make it sound like a very unpleasant proposition for them. If a woman won't do something fun with you without extra hazard pay, you have discovered that it's not fun for her.

You've covered the exploitation angle (and admitted that as a stranger you can't know a prostitute's life story, which I respect you for acknowledging). What I have never understood about men who go to prostitutes is how they can enjoy sex with an unaroused woman. It seems kind of pervy, and not in the good way.

[Hugo]

Men's Rights Advocate. (It's in the original post, but easy to miss -- I added it to the quote from Mr. Bad).

[The Gonzman]

Well, in the interests of Hugo's plea for civility, I'll pretend the snide potshot about being good in bed is merely poorly worded. In fact, I do have the proverbial little black book, and no problem getting an enthusiastic second (Or third, fourth, fifth, or regular "Call me whenever") go round. Finding a willing and enthusiastic bedmate isn't the problem - the real probem is weeding out the ones who have it in their mind that somehow they can "change" me, or think I'm not as advertised, and really want to be in a LTR, but am playing a game. It's seriously unpleasant when I get the one with the tearful scene who thought devout bachelor meant something besides devout bachelor. I honestly don't enjoy it.

That aside, there are prostitutes, though, who actually enjoy their job. These aren't the crack ho's you find, but there's a lot of bars and hotels where a quick twenty will find you with a higher caliber professional than the twenty dollar oral sex. A lot of women have a high opinion of the fake orgasm, but in practice that usually only works on a guy who either doesn't know how a real female orgasm feels like, or doesn't care, or both. I mean, computers are just a job to me, but I have a great deal of pleasure I derive from a job well done.

Such don't stay in the business for long - a lot of times they move along, and it's tiresome to find a new one, and you're right - I'd rather have my hand than one just going through the motions.

[Ampersand]

In this category, I suppose, one would find both men who would very much like to be in a relationship with a woman (but can't find one for any number of reasons), and those who have forsworn sex with others but not with themselves (hence the difference with the previous category.) Inevitably, I suspect, this state will become frustrating on physical and emotional levels.

I disagree. I've been a voluntary member of category 2 for years. I hope you'll trust me that I feel no significant frustration, physical or emotional, because I'm neither celibate (as you define it) nor having sex with someone else.

I've been considering whether I might be asexual. Maybe, maybe not. What's more important is to grow to the point that you can learn to serve your own, genuine sexual needs (within limits of not hurting others), rather than feeling that you're obligated to follow conventional relationship and sexual scripts.

[tekanji]

Though I am only 22, based on the expectations women place of men, I have no real desire to become yet again the plaything, sexual or otherwise, of another person.

But, somehow, it's ok for women to go through this? No one should have to be the unwilling plaything of another human being.

Though jaketk may not have intended the implication that I read in the quote, I have seen that kind of sentiment in various posts from MRAs in the feminist blogsphere. I just don't understand how someone could be more than willing to see their own oppression while being unwilling (unable?) to see how their exact circumstances apply to women - indeed how their exact circumstances have applied to women for centuries. Again, I'm not accusing jaketk, or even any of the MRAs that post on this board neccesarily, of the sentiment I describe. It's just that the particular phrasing brought to mind the mentality that I described above.

Gonzman - I respect your position and your wish to engage in contact only with like-minded women. Even when both parties have the best intentions, if their outlook on relationships are completely different then it is almost always a recipie for disaster. I think it's a very mature and wise thing to be able to recognize exactly what you want out of life and to try and seek that.

That being said, this part of your post didn't sit right with me [emphasis mine]:
A woman who would deserve that kind of treatment wouldn't be worth living with, and one which would be worth living with wouldn't deserve having to put up with my old, misanthropic, crotchety, and set in my ways self.

I fail to see how it's a positive discourse to accuse another person of "deserving" the negative attentions that you ascribe yourself. No one "deserves" to be treated badly. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I believe that you were trying to say that you feel that any woman who would be ok living with you would be a woman you would not want to live with, and on the flip side any woman you would be ok living with would not want to live with you. It may not pack the same punch as your original, but it doesn't accuse anyone of deserving poor treatment.

I think that it would be a better discussion if none of us degrade other people to sub-human level by insinuating that they somehow deserve to be treated badly by other people.

Amp - Have you considered the possibility that you're autosexual? It may be a more apt description if you fit into Hugo's second category. Although I think the Wikipedia entry is a bit narrow, since it precludes an emotional relationship with someone. I personally think that it's possible to be autosexual or asexual and have a loving, emotional relationship with someone. Of course, since I'm neither of those orientations I can't say for sure.

[mythago]

I admit to being extremely curious about #5--there does not seem to be any MRA equivalent to the "political lesbian" and there does not seem to be a significant gay MRA contingent. (Which strikes me as odd, considering how much worse gay men are treated by family courts than their straight brothers.) Feminism struggled for a long time with the whole "lavender menace" arguments, but the MRA movement does not seem to have reached that point. With no snarkiness intended, I don't understand why.

[Lynn Gazis-Sax]

Wow, I always thought I was sexually liberal for a Christian, but now that I see I'm more sexually conservative than the rad-trad Catholic among us, I wonder.

My approach, pre-marriage, was, after a brief period of relatively freely making out during college, to draw a line where I wouldn't do anything even slightly sexual with someone I was sure I wouldn't at least consider the possibility of marrying, and wouldn't have intercourse with anyone who didn't agree in advance that I wouldn't be expected to get an abortion and he would be expected to stick around for the resulting kid. That meant years of not being sexual with anyone else (when all the available offers were people I was quite sure I didn't want to marry, however nice they might be as friends), but I could deal. The sexually liberal part is that I didn't hold myself to not masturbating, during those otherwise sexless years, and I wasn't particular about waiting till the actual wedding day once I found the man I was to marry.

[jaketk]

While I enjoy the inclusion, I am not a MRA. I do not support feminism. The two are not the same.

“Jaketk, reversing classic gender roles, worries (at 22) about being a woman's sexual plaything.”

This is my own fault for being vague. I come from an abusive family. My aunt, a feminist, was sexually abusive, though not the only one to do it. Once I got out, the men I was around were more supportive than the women, and most of the antagonism I’ve received has been from feminists. There is little difference between what my aunt would say and what most feminists continue say. Being such, it is safer for me to be wary than to risk being abused again. Though this might appear childish, I would rather be cautious than be hurt. All the same, I am just a wary of men.

As I said on the other thread, I have little interest in sex. I don’t particularly get into it. Perhaps it’s just a mental block. I end up just pleasing the other person and being done with it. And then there are physical problems as a result of the abuse. Without getting graphic, it’s painful, so I avoid doing it. And I suppose I associate the act of sex with being used.

Honestly, I see no reason for anyone to want to be involved with me at all. That is perhaps not the answer you were looking for, but I am being honest. I am not a very worthwhile person. Had I remained a child, then perhaps I would still be of some usefulness. Unfortunately, I am an adult now, so those people are no longer interested in me. I’ve outgrown my reason for being here. And though I have considered eliminating the problem by permanently removing myself, after seeing how my uncle’s suicide affected my brothers and cousins, I simply can’t bring myself to hurt them like that.

I would much like to be a father. It’s purely selfish. I think I would be a good father, better than my own, or his father. But I have nothing to offer a child, and I probably can’t have any anyway.

I do have very supportive friends and my former foster parents, though I cannot understand why they tolerate me. I do enjoy those relationships. Outside of my siblings, those are the people I’m closest to and trust. And actually, I’m more pleased when I can help them than the other way around. But they are the people I turn to, particularly my foster father, when I need help.

I just don’t see the need to turn to a sexual relationship for things I can get from my siblings or friends.

[jaketk]

"I just don't understand how someone could be more than willing to see their own oppression while being unwilling (unable?) to see how their exact circumstances apply to women - indeed how their exact circumstances have applied to women for centuries."

it also works in the reverse, which is partially why i phrased it that way. but mostly i was speaking specifically about my own experience.

[The Gonzman]

I fail to see how it's a positive discourse to accuse another person of "deserving" the negative attentions that you ascribe yourself. No one "deserves" to be treated badly. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I believe that you were trying to say that you feel that any woman who would be ok living with you would be a woman you would not want to live with, and on the flip side any woman you would be ok living with would not want to live with you. It may not pack the same punch as your original, but it doesn't accuse anyone of deserving poor treatment.

How can I put this?

There are people -Women, men, black, white, you name it - who go through life trying to manipulate their way through everything, and don't care who they walk on, whose dreams they crush, or whom they hurt. An ex-grilfriend of mine is the most stellar example of this, without recounting a litany, I fortunately soon saw that she was an emotional vampire who was into a series of relationships with people she regarded as things to be used for her own financial and emotional fulfillment, and dumped her.

A year later, she fell for a guy, and fell hard. And he did exactly to her what she did to a couple other dozen guys. It was poetic justice. She got out of life a measure of the misery she put into it.

So you tell me.

People who sow misery do not deserve to be happy, because their happiness comes at the expense of another person's unhappiness. And I wouldn't make any reasonable woman happy. I do as I please, my stuff is my stuff, no, we're not getting "our" house - this is "my " house - I'm set in my ways. I will continue to do certain things regardless, and the only people who would deserve to be treated that way - way down on my list of priorities - are people who do that themselves. So does that make me like such people? If I pretended otherwise, it'd be deplorable, to be sure.

There are plenty of people in the world for whom relationships are down on the list of priorities. So long as I stay in that circle, and everyone is honmest and up front, I fail to see the hurt caused.

If I sought out manipulators to hurt them back, yeah, I'd be as bad as them. So I don't.

And anyone who isn't emotionally exhausted deserves someone who isn't jaded and cynical. It's also better they seek elsewhere from me.

I don't seek to add to the misery in the world, but at the same time I am profoundly indifferent to the supposed plight of sch people who do add to the misery of people reaping what they sow. I'm not going to contribute to it, but neither will I mourn it or have anysympathy for them. It's what they get.

[mythago]

jaketk, anyone who excuses the sexual abuse of a child deserves a boot to the head, whether or not they are a feminist. I am shocked (but, unfortunately, not surprised) that anyone would be antagonistic to you because your abuser was a woman.

[tekanji]

Jaketk - I sympathize with your pain. I'll get into that in a moment, but I want to try to show you why I find your opening sentence problematic. I'm going to take your words and modify them to reflect my own experiences:

I've come from an abusive relationship. My boyfriend, a man, was emotionally abusive, though not the only one in my life to do it. Once I got out, the women I was around were more supportive than the men, and most of the antagonism I've received has been from men. There is little difference between what my boyfriend would say and what most men continue say. Being such, it is safer for me to be wary than to risk being abused again. Though this might appear childish, I would rather be cautious than be hurt. All the same, I am just as wary of women.

The silly thing is that it didn't take many changes to your paragraph to make it reflect well my experiences. But if this has made you think that all feminists are like the women you describe, then I urge to you read more about feminism itself. What your aunt did to you is deplorable and is anti-feminist.

Personally, after my experiences it would be so easy to just write off men as sexist, abusive jerks who are incapable of seeing women as anything but masturbation aids. Thinking that way would have saved me a few bad experiences, but it also would have kept me from some of the good ones. It's also unfair to the men that exist that are trying to do the right thing, and especially to the ones who do do the right thing.

I'm so sorry that you had to go through that kind of horrible experience. Like I said in my previous post, no one should ever have to go through that. I know it probably won't mean anything coming from a complete stranger, but I suggest considering therapy. I've recently started it to deal with my own experiences of abuse, and I've found that, if nothing else, it's a space that I can let my emotions go without fear of judgement. There may also be support groups in your area worth checking out; unfortunately, male victims of abuse are at an even greater disadvantage than female ones when it comes to availability for that kind of help, so it may not be easy to find.

Also, I'd just like to say that you're not alone. Your experiences are typical of abuse victims; indeed the whole point of abuse is to make the victim feel that sie is sub-human and not worthwhile in any way. But while the abuser can make you feel that you don't deserve to be alive, sie cannot actually take your true worth. It may be buried under all the baggage that your abuser left you with, but it is there. And if you're able to find it, then you can start living the kind of happy life you deserve.

Gonzman - The woman you described is an abuser. What she did will never be right, and I can't fault you if you want to ill-wish her in particular. It's hypocitical of me, but I do think that all abusers are a waste of space, since their mission in life is to hurt other people. I've said some downright nasty things about my abuser, the least of which is that I hope he dies.

That being said, I think that you understand the basic point I was trying to make: If I sought out manipulators to hurt them back, yeah, I'd be as bad as them. So I don't.

I can't advise you on how to deal with your anger at abusers; I don't even know how to deal with my own. But my point is that insinuating that someone "deserves" abuse is just a lesser form of trying to hurt them back.

I think you're better than that. I also think that you're capable of expressing anger at your treatment, and those who treated you that way, without using the abuser's frame. Because, really, when you buy into their line of thinking then they're winning.

[The Gonzman]

The whole idea isn't so much wishing them ill, but being indifferent to it because it is a logical consequence of their behavior. And the older I get the more I see that "As ye sow, so shall ye reap" isn't merely some flip proverb, but a terrible warning.

I'm not the wrath of God. It's not my job to go out and be some emotional relationship vigilante. But such people will eventually poison themselves, and they have done it to themselves, and I have no sympathy for them. If they have not been moved by the suffering they have caused, why should I be moved for theirs when it comes back to them, and come back to them it will. They have worked hard to have pain in their lives as the giver, and they should expect nothing but to wind up on the recieving end sooner or later.

And it may be cold, but it is the way it is supposed to work. The proverb says, "Stupid is supposed to hurt."

[tekanji]

I think at this point we're just arguing semantics.

I understand what you're saying, but because the rhetoric of "deserving" to be hurt was used to systematically destroy my self-esteem, I can't support the use of it. Even when it's applied to someone that is, as you say, reaping what they sow.

[jaketk]

tekanji – Thanks for the kind words.

I’ve read quite a bit about feminism. I make it a point to try to understand ideologies and opinions that I disagree with. However, it is not the rhetoric that causes harm, but the people behind it. I do not doubt the good intentions behind feminism. But how it has been used is quite contrary to what the ideology purports. I’ve been more active in the past two years in raising awareness about male victims of abuse, because of the stigmas and the lack of services. Most of the resistance I have met has come from women’s and feminist groups. That strikes me as the opposite of promoting equal treatment, particularly with the wild accusations that follow as to why anyone would have an interest in helping male victims, though I do enjoy the astonished looks I get when I admit that I take full responsibility for what happened to me.

Of course, all this could probably avoid by only mentioning what happened between the men in my family, but such is my stubbornness.

The best defense I’ve learned is to simply expect nothing from people. Starting at the bottom prevents any disappointment because there was nothing anticipated. If I do not expect to be believed for instance, then I cannot be disappointed if I am not believed. It is perhaps severely detached, but it allows for some amazing surprises.

[mythago]

jaketk, there are a lot of anti-feminists who use "what about men?" not out of genuine concern for victims of abuse, but as a way to bludgeon feminists for daring to suggest that a man might ever do anything to a woman she didn't deserve. I'm not in any way saying this justifies the treatment you have received, mind you.

I'd suggest that you look to the gay men's community in this area--there are many gay men's organizations that have resources for helping male victims of abuse, and I doubt you're going to get any that will turn you away because your abuser was not also a man.

[The Gonzman]

jaketk, there are a lot of anti-feminists who use "what about men?" not out of genuine concern for victims of abuse, but as a way to bludgeon feminists for daring to suggest that a man might ever do anything to a woman she didn't deserve. I'm not in any way saying this justifies the treatment you have received, mind you.

And there are an equal number of feminists who use similar arguments as a way to try to minimize and diminish the male victims of abuse, like jaketk and myself, and apply statistical morality to it - since we're "so small" we can suck it up, or go to a gay male's shelter, or something that isn't a real fit for our needs - but in any even it isn't something worthy of any widespread concern.

I'd suggest that you look to the gay men's community in this area--there are many gay men's organizations that have resources for helping male victims of abuse, and I doubt you're going to get any that will turn you away because your abuser was not also a man.

*sigh* Yeah, a place where if we're not uncomfortable, we wear the face of the straight father who just beat the snot out of his gay son and threw him out.

No, we'll probably wind up huddled under a bridge somewhere. What the hell. It's been good enough for years, why change now? After all, we're only straight men, it's not like we're real people or anything.

[bmmg39]

"First, I have my children. In a way, this gives me a leg up, and also since I'm not going to be having any more - surgically seen to - I have a little more leisure for detachment. Thanks to their mothers being caught out for being liars and manipulators (And due in part to me not being Joe Chivalry and covering for them) I have no doubt Gonz Jr and the Gonzette will be around to apply the bandages to the Grim Reaper after he comes calling for me....So why am I an MRA? Because even though I have learned to be content with the cold war in the battle of the sexes, I want better for my son and daughter. But to me better involves at the forefront that feminism gave women their say for decades, and it's men's turn now to remake themselves, for themselves."

Gonzman, I found your comments about you and children generally moving. Thank you.

bg

[bmmg39]

Hugo: "Jaketk, reversing classic gender roles, worries (at 22) about being a woman's sexual plaything."

No, not reversing gender roles, but rather challenging them. I bristle when a story of male victimization at the hands of a female gets put into "The Lighter Side" of the news, or when it's suggested that the story has a "twist."

"Celibacy. No MRAs that I've encountered are arguing for this."

"Any other MRAs want to share their feelings on employing sex workers?"

Yeah, I will. I think my thoughts on the matter can be summed up in one word: "Ewwwww!" And that word would be the same even if I were interested in becoming sexually active. Ewwwww!

I shall assume that you mean the word only with the meaning of "chastity," not its true meaning of "the state of being unmarried." ("Celibacy" and "chastity" have disparate meanings, you know.) As I've said here before, I don't "argue for" chastity, but I certainly don't argue against it, either, and have defended it from pejorative references. What does a boy gotta do around here to get acknowledged?

Gonz: "Well, in the interests of Hugo's plea for civility, I'll pretend the snide potshot about being good in bed is merely poorly worded."

You noticed that, too, huh...

"No, we'll probably wind up huddled under a bridge somewhere. What the hell. It's been good enough for years, why change now? After all, we're only straight men, it's not like we're real people or anything."

I invite you to the website for the Domestic Abuse Hotline for Men. The good women and men up there are in the process of building a shelter for abused men. They might be able to direct you to a place within proximity of you that might be able to meet your needs: http://www.noexcuse4abuse.org/support.html

boy genteel
End violence against men AND women.
www.vawa4all.org

[tekanji]

Jaketk and Gonzman -

I'm sorry that both of you have had such terrible dealings with feminists. I have only seen the kinds of feminists who avoid the "what about men?" line in terms of talking about general oppression. When it comes to personal experiences, I've never had to witness a feminist dismiss the pain an abuse victim has gone through simply because of hirs gender.

I recently found out, during a conversation about rape, that one of my friends is in the negligible percentage of guys falsely accused of rape. When I brought up the stat (2% of all rape accusations, if memory serves), he reacted badly. When I asked, he told me his story and how he was put through 3 months of hell waiting for the second rape kit to go through forensics and come back negative (the first one had come back negative soon after it was taken). So, yeah, I understand that statistics don't always hold up in the face of real life situations.

But, being a feminist myself, I am embroiled in many different feminist circles. I have been privy to various different views, some of which I disagree with, but all my experience has taught me that the feminists you have unfortunately encountered are in the minority. It is possible that, because of all the anti-feminist "what about men?" non-victims, that there's a higher percentage of women in the abuse shelters that have trouble recognizing and dealing with men who are true victims, but overall I think that most feminists are interested in living up to the spirit of the movement.

I'm sorry if I'm sticking to this point too much, but I believe that it's important to find common ground in these debates. Especially since the experiences of male victims are important to the feminist movement, and I don't like the thought of losing your voices to the anti-feminist side because of bad experiences.

The lack of good support networks for male victims is a problem, but it's one that female feminists can't solve. Not only do we have our hands full with our own issues, but we are not men. While most of abusive experiences can be shared regardless of the gender of the abuser or the type of abuse, there are some areas that need to be dealt with separately. Because of this, what I would like to see is male victims working with feminist and pro-feminist men to address these issues and on a national, and perhaps even international, level work together with current female shelters to raise awareness and support for all victims of abuse. But, to do that, we need to learn to work coperatively instead of against each other.