![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
'What the men's rights movement offers men is a defense mechanism - a lens for viewing sex roles which obscures an "ocean of guilt and shame" (in Johnson's words). As Michael Messner describes in his analysis of men's rights discourse, "a few highly questionable studies [provide] an emotionally charged basis for the development of an ideology of male victimization." By describing men as equal (or, often, greater) victims, the men's right lens shields men from shame or guilt; it is this lack of blame that appeals to men's rights activists.
'The purpose of claims of equal male victimization isn't to deny the reality of wife-battering (to the contrary, many men's rights activists fervently claim sympathy with individual battered women), but to deny the existence of patriarchy and male privilege altogether. In this way, men's rights activists hope to avoid shame.
'(Of course, many feminists - including me - have argued that there is no need for men to feel shame in feminism; wallowing in guilt is not only unnecessary, it's counterproductive.)
'What's sad is, men's righters are right about some things. Patriarchy hurts men, too. It's harmful to have only men register for the draft. It's harmful to men to be set on career paths that estrange them from their families. It's harmful to men who face violence from other men. Its harmful to men that some male-dominated jobs are unsafe. And for those men who genuinely are victims of severe intimate violence, it's harmful that there are almost no services available to help victimized men. (Etc, etc.)
'Which makes it ironic that the men's rights movement is primarily a movement about preventing change; about rolling back the years to bring back "Father Knows Best"; about denying that patriarchy even exists; and about attacking feminism, the only movement that's made any progress in challenging how sexism and patriarchy hurt us all.
'However much they say they want change, by denying male privilege, the men's rights movement has become fundamentally reactionary. It isn't possible to undo patriarchy if you won't even admit it exists.'
-http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2004/06/26/on-husband-battering-are-men-equal-victims/
'The purpose of claims of equal male victimization isn't to deny the reality of wife-battering (to the contrary, many men's rights activists fervently claim sympathy with individual battered women), but to deny the existence of patriarchy and male privilege altogether. In this way, men's rights activists hope to avoid shame.
'(Of course, many feminists - including me - have argued that there is no need for men to feel shame in feminism; wallowing in guilt is not only unnecessary, it's counterproductive.)
'What's sad is, men's righters are right about some things. Patriarchy hurts men, too. It's harmful to have only men register for the draft. It's harmful to men to be set on career paths that estrange them from their families. It's harmful to men who face violence from other men. Its harmful to men that some male-dominated jobs are unsafe. And for those men who genuinely are victims of severe intimate violence, it's harmful that there are almost no services available to help victimized men. (Etc, etc.)
'Which makes it ironic that the men's rights movement is primarily a movement about preventing change; about rolling back the years to bring back "Father Knows Best"; about denying that patriarchy even exists; and about attacking feminism, the only movement that's made any progress in challenging how sexism and patriarchy hurt us all.
'However much they say they want change, by denying male privilege, the men's rights movement has become fundamentally reactionary. It isn't possible to undo patriarchy if you won't even admit it exists.'
-http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2004/06/26/on-husband-battering-are-men-equal-victims/