Rhetorics of progress (V): First aid during debates

Whichever way you turn it, tone is just as important in a message as the medium if you want to reach an audience. You'll speak differently with a minister than with your friends, for instance. To convince someone, it's always best to speak or write the way that will make that person most receptive.

However, tone has been used for decades to silence progressive movements, and feminism in particular. Opponents would allegedly listen if feminists were more 'reasonable' or 'didn't use such strong language'. These are usually excuses not to have to listen, or a one way street to the infamous 'smarm'. Put bluntly, someone who is smarmy will focus only on formalities and not content, and will often keep coming back back to useless non-statements.

This brings me to five defence mechanisms that I've come to identify a couple of years back in a big presentation on progressive thought. I think it might be useful to run down that list again to help people arm themselves against those mechanisms.

1. Denial

"I don't see the problem."
"You're making this up."
"It's not as bad as you think it is."

Knowledge and facts are the perfect antidote against denial. Thanks to the Internet, there are hundreds of sources available to prove feminist theses and clearly point out the issues. The plural of anecdote isn't data, but it may also help to refer to examples of everyday life for people who have trouble accepting feminism.

2. Shift

"Women's empowerment is bad for men."
"Muslim women have got it so much worse, though?"
"Workers' rights trump women's rights."

Some people seem to think that one group's success will always be to the detriment of another - which is not necessarily the case. Female suffrage didn't render men powerless. It's useful here to point to intersectionality and lead the discussion back to a common theme instead of falling for 'divide and conquer'-rhetoric, that today have resulted, for instance, in the fact that the white Flemish underclasses see the Muslim underclass as its opponent, while they in fact face a shared predicament.

3. Appropriation

"We are being oppressed, not you."
"But what about our problems?"
"When is it going to be International Men's Day?"

It's always useful to check whether the person who says this, may be making sense, but similar to the shift strategy, it's important to keep the discussion on topic. It may be rewarding to speak about proportionality here (e.g. relationship violence proportionally damages women more often and more severely). As a last point, it's useful to consider whether this isn't an argument in bad faith to legitimise certain forms of oppression, such as the victim role that religious extremists or MRAs often resort to.

4. Vilification

"The status quo is fine and those who challenge it are evil."
"You are màking this into a problem."
"Feminism has a sinistre agenda."

The backlash against feminism is sometimes rooted in the fear that a now oppressed class will behave like today's priviliged class. Be on your watch for straw men (like individual examples of extremists that have appropriated the feminist label), and don't shy away from a debate on good and bad moral values. It's also helpful to acknowledge anger without pouring oil on the fire, and lead the discussion back to a calmer place.

5. Violence

"Stupid cunt."
"You need to be put in your place."
"I'll beat you up."

Leave the discussion if possible, or remove the person from the debate. To lash out in equal measure is usually a bad idea and will often lead to escalation, unless you're left with no other option. It's not a bad idea to name and shame people who do this - if they are using their real name, for instance.

MRA deconstructed (conclusion)

Harmful consequences to feminism

The tenets of MRA and their underpinnings - whether legitimate claims with false explanations or entirely false assumptions to begin with - have consequences in the real world. These consequences are not innocent. People who dismiss MRAs as petty or misled may understimate how being constantly bombarded with misogynist ideas on top of an already sexist culture can really turn some men from low-level sexists into full-blown misogynists.

Detraction from the cause of feminism

As if it wasn't enough that a lot of discussions on gender inequality are derailed by displays of ignorance (from both genders), MRAs poison the well a bit further. They force feminism even more on the defensive than it already is, and distract it from discussing the underlying issues that matter.

Gender as a horse race

MRAs play into the mainstream media narrative that the battle of the sexes is somehow a horse race where both sides have strengths, weaknesses, advantages and disadvantages. It's basically another form of the 'truth must be in the middle!' rhetorical fallacy. A more objective look will, time and again, reveal that gender-based problems are the result of one thing (patriarchy) and that this system hurts women much more severely than it hurts men.

Hostility and rape threats

Because MRAs (and unfortunately, quite a number of other people) think feminism is passé, has achieved its goals or is even 'on top' now, they feel it's okay to open the gates of hell and unleash all sorts of degrading and threatening comments. They breathe new life into decades of feminism-bashing that have branded the movement as extreme, humourless or shrill.

Fear of speaking out

Ultimately, the existence of MRAs might make women more afraid of speaking out. I cannot emphasise how crucial this is. A lot of women are afraid of rocking the boat when it comes down to sexism, close their eyes to it or resign themselves to the fact that it's just the way things are. The hateful messages of MRA movements only add a new layer of pressure to that. To men who are concerned with gender equality and who want to address issues with masculinity, MRAs have poisoned the debate.

 

The tragedy of it all

There's an interesting quote I recently heard that I'll paraphrase (I forgot the source). MRA shares some aspects with the Pick Up Artist community and Internet Libertarians - most members appear to be white men in their 20s and 30s, often college-educated. They have big havens on Reddit.

In a way, all three of these groups realise that the ways our societies are structured are not okay. It doesn't work for them. These young men are bombarded with the idea that they should be successful sexual conquerors, but women don't flock to them. They're tantalised with the idea of the American Dream, but they fail at it. They keep hearing about the plight of women, but they are confused about the relative silence on the issues they face.

Unfortunately, all three take conclusions from that that are devastatingly inaccurate. Internet Libertarians want the system to become even more deregulated and unstable because Conservative media has them believe the system failed due to an excess of socialism. Pick Up Artists try to con women into sleeping with them because they sadly assume it's the only way they'll ever get laid. MRAs lay the blame for men's problems at women's feet, and forget or deny that their true enemy is the patriarchy.

MRA deconstructed (IV)

This is part IV of my series about MRAs. I'll be discussing a point that pops up frequently in their discussion groups.

 

"Women are out to get and use men"

Some men are bitter about previous relationships or come out of toxic environments with bad women - women can be every bit as shitty as men. Somehow, some men project this image onto all women, and confirmation bias leads them to seek out only stories that confirm their worldview.

    False rape accusations

This one is bound to come up in any discussion of rape. In fact, false accusations are rare and accusations seldom lead to convictions. Among the reasons why they feature so disproportionally in the rape debate is that they are disproportionally featured in the media, and here's why: false stories often end up being very spectacular and attract attention. The false accusation angle also has the nefarious consequence of hindering the actual debate about rape, its causes (rapists) and what can be done to prevent it (destroying rape culture).

What MRAs think it is: Plots to destroy innocent men's lives
Actual issue: Sensationalist media reports
Actual solution: Stop being an obstructionist little shit

    Gold diggers

Nobody in their right mind thinks that all of Hugh Hefner's peroxide brides married or lived with the man out of genuine love. The problem is that MRAs seem to be convinced women exist to syphon off a man's fortune and ignore the actual cause why 'gold diggers' are even a thing in the first place. Beyond bullshit evopsych justifications, women are simply not as rich as men and possess less power. Their road to both faces roadblocks that the road of men to these goals does not. Yes, partnering up someone for their wealth is ethically questionable, but maybe we should also question the fact that men of great wealth and power leverage these two aspects as well to attract, bind or even outright buy off women. Yet that rarely goes questioned.

What MRAs think it is: Women want a free ride
Actual issue: Powerful and wealthy men 'buy off' women
Actual solution: Empower women

    Women aren't thankful for male assistance in their cause

Some men who consider themselves feminists become very angry when women are not grateful for their assistance to the cause of equality. Here's the thing: they shouldn't be thankful. All you did is prove that you are not a shitty person. If anyone thinks that "not being a giant douche" is an accomplishment worthy of accolades, they probably are a giant douche.

What MRAs think it is: Women are unthankful
Actual issue: Holding some cool opinions doesn't merit you a medal
Actual solution: Support a cause because it's right, not because you want the kudos

    Women can be picky about their sex partners

In a culture that encourages or at least condones men racking up their number of sex partners and does the reverse for women, it is not surprising that men are - in general - less picky than women are when it comes down to sexual partners. However, that is not 'female privilege' or whatever MRAs would like to call it. Men are often at liberty to consider only a few factors in whether they wish to sleep with someone. For women, there are far more background factors, such as slut-shaming, fear of rape, bodily harm and a cultural context that tells her wanting no-strings-attachad sex is demeaning by nature. Also, the MRA whine chorus about 'picky women' is uncomfortable to me for a final reason: it comes off as nice-guyish entitlement, as if they mean to say "why won't these women sleep with me?".

What MRAs think it is: Female privilege.
Actual issue: Slut shaming, rape culture, male entitlement.
Actual solution: End slut shaming and rape culture.

    Women trap men with babies

In sexist jokes as old as the Methuselah's beard, marriage is depicted as a cage that robs men of their freedom. Claims that women deliberately get pregnant and then expect unsuspecting men to provide for the child play into this. It does happen. But more often that not, marriages are cages for women: even in societies where they are not expected (anymore) to be homemakers, household chores and raising kids is still primarily their responsibility. By the way, instances of men deliberately controlling women by getting them pregnant or removing their access to birth control are way more rampant.

What MRAs think it is: Trapping poor sods in life of financial slavery
Actual issue: Sexist views on marriage
Actual solution: Engage in healthy relationships

 On to the final part!

MRA deconstructed (III)

This part III of the series about Men's Rights Activists or MRAs. This part focuses on what a lot of them accuse feminists of to have caused in perceptions of men. The accusations can be briefly summed up by the title.

 

"It is not okay to be a man anymore"

What is a man? What does it mean to be a man? MRAs love to complain that traditionally 'male' character traits are now suspect thanks to feminism. This statement is stupid for two reasons, because most serious feminists don't believe in gender essentialism (so no trait is inherently male or female), and it's men who will bring up 'male' traits when they try to defend unacceptable behaviour, such as the "boys will be boys" thing after stories of sexual harrassment.

    Men are (deliberately) misunderstood

The myth of the misunderstood man ties into the previous paragraph. Again, if the problem with things like sexual harrassment is truly that women misunderstand men (it isn't), then maybe men should try to communicate more clearly. For instance, the thing with catcalling is that women understand all too clearly that men do it to impress their buddies - but men don't understand how it makes women feel degraded and unsafe. Falling back on being "misunderstood" is lazy as shit.

What MRAs think it is: Harmless intentions are twisted into malign ones
Actual issue: Male entitlement and privilege
Actual solution: Respecting boundaries

    Misandry is real and nobody ever talks about it

An individual woman can certainly hate men as a group, so in a literal sense, 'misandry' does exist. However, it doesn't exist in an institutionalised, systematic way like misogyny does. All signs that would indicate men being oppressed in certain areas of life are a consequence of a social order created and maintained by empowered men. The biggest and most empowered perpetrators of 'misandry' are other men. 'Misandry' is problematic because it gives the impression that it is an equal counterweight to misogyny, which is far from the truth.

What MRAs think it is: An unseen (female) conspiracy that keeps men down
Actual issue: Patriarchy hurts men, too (in different ways)
Actual solution: Destroy patriarchy

    Gender quota hurt men

Gender equality is not a zero-sum game. Of course, in a Board of Directors has eight positions and gender quota suddenly require two members to be female, some men on the previously all-male Board will be dropped from it. That creates a dent in male privilege, but it doesn't exactly hurt men across the (no pun intended) board. If we want to have women as our equals, it requires that we are prepared to share power.

What MRAs think it is: Political correctness gone mad
Actual issue: Men are still firmly entrenched at the top of all power structures
Actual solution: Correct sexist assumptions and attitudes that maintain these structures

On to part IV.

MRA deconstructed (II)

This is part II on the topic of Men's Rights Activists or MRAs. Let's deal with their first big core tenet.

"Feminism ignores the challenges that men face"

One of the basic tenets of MRAs is that feminists ignore or downplay the challenges that men face as a gender. Not only is that not true, but feminists also have a right to do so. Do we ask a black power movement to please think of the white people, too? There's something dishonest about that, especially because men often only bring up issues that affect men when they discuss women's issues. But let's take a look at some of these issues.

    Glass cellar

As a corollary to the glass ceiling, men deal with the 'glass cellar'. Overwhelmingly, the world's most dangerous, unsanitary and menial jobs are done by men. One reason for this is very similar to why not many women get selected for jobs in the upper echelons of business and politics: the people who select them are men. In other words, it's men who saddle other men with these dangerous jobs, out of the sexist assumption that it's 'men's work'. Secondly, male-dominated environments such as the military tend to be hostile to women, making it less likely for women to choose them as a career path.

What MRAs think it is: Women getting off scot-free from dangerous professions
Actual issue: Employers (mostly men) are sexist to other men, too
Actual solution: Unionisation, reduce hostility to women in male-dominated professions

    Men are more likely to die violently

Male life expectancy is generally lower than female life expectancy. The causes are complex and manifold, but a significant number of these causes relate to violence. The biggest perpretators of lethal violence are men. Violence perpetrated by men is a problem that men must solve.

What MRAs think it is: Men are valiant knights who die protecting women
Actual issue: Men are raised to believe violence (against other men) is acceptable
Actual solution: Raise boys to be less violent

    Men are stereotyped as (potential) rapists

The famous term 'Schrödinger's Rapist' describes the uncertainty women feel when they are spoken to by men they do not know. Some men take offence at this description, but instead of being offended, they'd better realise that some 20% of women in the US alone get raped in their lifetime. As is the case with general physical violence, rape is an important issue that men must address among themselves: the onus is not on potential victims to protect themselves, the onus is on stopping potential rapists. Nothing will subside women's fears more than there simply being less rapists around.

What MRAs think it is: A slanderous attack on the vast majority of men
Actual issue: Rape culture leaves rapists largely unchecked
Actual solution: Stop rape

    Men get the short stick in a divorce case

As a result of the fact that men generally earn more money (which is in itself a result of systematic sexism), they often end up paying alimony. The evidence that the justice system is rigged to favour women in divorce cases is scant. We can assume that men will stop being required to pay child support if pay equality becomes a reality.

What MRAs think it is: Women manipulate courts to advantage them
Actual issue: Income and power disparity, society sees women as mothers
Actual solution: Pay equality, degendering of marriage roles

On to part III.

MRA deconstructed (I)

Let's go back in time about a decade. Back then, I was right in the middle of my university years. As I said before, my thoughts on social progress and politics weren't as organised and coherent as they are now. Our alma mater offered a course on gender, for instance, but I wondered why it focused almost exclusively on women, as if men didn't matter. The answer is the same as the answer to questions why there are things like a Black History Month: because all the other stuff already (implicitly) focuses on men. It's the default.

If you grow up as a boy, you don't really see that. It's a thing that sits there in the background. What you do notice, is the steady portrayal of men as dumb savages or bumbling dads. You notice that men can be negatively portrayed in ways that women cannot be portrayed without drawing ire from various groups. You don't really know why that is, but you start assuming it's because of feminism. After all, you think, women have gotten the right to vote, have access to contraception and there are whole segments of the media and retail world devoted almost exclusively to them. Female-on-male violence, for instance, is also often played for laughs. You feel that that just isn't okay.

Fortunately, as I grew older and started burrowing deeper into the world of gender and social justice, not only did I discover the true reason behind forces like this, but I also gained perspective. While the 'savage caveman' caricature may be offensive, it was not created by women. Some women may believe it, but it was there long before they gained a voice in the media. Commercial industries that focus on women tend to do so in ways that reinforce gender stereotypes, and almost all of those focus on beauty or romance, not self-actualisation or intellectual development. Guess who leads those industries? I don't think I need to tell you that. Oh and when a woman slaps a man on television, it's because men by and large think men should be strong enough to take it, lest they be thought of as... a woman.

Now, this trip down the memory lane brings me to the topic I'd like to discuss: Men's Rights Activists or MRAs for short. They are mainly an American phenomenon, but I have no doubt that European men will be sensitive to some of the movement's messages as well. I certainly think that when I was around 20 years old, I might have found myself agreeing with a lot of what they were saying. This is the reason I'm devoting attention to MRA right now, in hopes of dissuading other men to go down their dark path.

Make no mistake: MRA is a hateful ideology through and through, akin to White Power and religious fundamentalism. While it couches itself in the language of the oppressed and may occasionally make an interesting point about masculinity, it is all about maintaining privilege. I will try to deconstruct some of MRA's basic assumptions and more seductive aspects here and prove why their movement makes no sense. In the next section, I will try to explain how their ideological foundation leads to other ideas and actions that makes it hard to ignore them as a factor in the debate about gender and equality, not matter how much I'd love to see them as little more than an absurd self-parody with no influence beyond a group of men that was already bitterly misogynist.

On to section II.

The myth of the man-beast

Mealy-mouthed crusaders of Internet misogyny, better known as 'Men's Rights Activists' or MRAs, sometimes complain that thanks to feminism, men have gotten a questionable reputation of beastly savages unable to contain their primal instincts of murder and rape. 

As usual, MRAs blame feminism for something that men actually have another group to blame for: patriarchy, and by extension, themselves.

Earlier, I wrote about how the idea of what it means to be a man or how you can define yourself as a man, is a trap. It's always going to end up being restrictive.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't combat clichés. All too frequently, men (and some women) invoke their so-called inherent primal nature to justify violence, stupidity and generally inappropriate sexual behaviour. But, let's not forget that no proof has ever been offered for arguments made by evolutionary psychology. Even if they were true, they are no excuse. We have managed to get ourselves potty trained, too. No one will defend shitting in the street because it's something animals would do or our ancestors might have done.

Let's become aware of some damaging internalised ideas and behaviour:

• Men are taught that displaying grief, pain, fear or in some cases affection is a sign of weakness. However, getting in touch with the full range of human emotions and how to express them leads to a richer experience in life and makes it easier to relate to others, ultimately improving overall life satisfaction.
• Men are taught that they should dominate others, especially women, either as benevolent protectors or as predators. Letting go of that social imperative produces more egalitarian relationships and less frustration for not meeting goals that might not even contribute to your happiness.
• Men are taught that subtlety, nuance, caution and a fine command of language is a sign of indecisiveness and weakness. However, by getting a grasp on the shades of grey that are simply a part of life, understanding of how the world works deepens, and leads to decisions that are better-argued, with better outcomes.
• Men are taught that verbal or physical violence is an acceptable answer in many situations. By restraint and resorting to violence only as a very last resort, situations are less likely grow out of control and breed lasting resentment.
• Men are taught not to say sorry or sincerely apologise. By learning to admit mistakes, you become more honest with yourself and more open in your dealings with others.
• Men are taught that they are or should be sexually insatiable and incapable of long-term monogamy, conflicting with the other essentialist view of women seeking the comfort of a long-term sexual relationship. An individual approach to sexuality that depends more on what a person wants for themselves instead of feeling pressured to do what they think they are supposed to do will lead to improved relationships and a better sex life.
• Men are taught that some, if not most women, are there to be ogled and in some cases harrassed and assaulted for crossing some arbitrary line of decency, while at the same time not desiring sex. Breaking this mental dichotomy and viewing women as individuals with individual desires, moulded by social pressure just like you are, leads to less generalising and essentialism.
• Men are taught that some occupations are manly and some are not. The more equal the gender ratio becomes in a line of work, the better the decisions are that get taken.
• Men are taught that minorities and women are often out to get them or have a secret desire to oppress them. Realising that minorities and women have legitimate grievances resulting from centuries of systematic oppression that still exist today, but are invisible to you, will make you realise that progress is not a zero-sum game. Others' rights do not infringe on yours.
• Men are taught that no sometimes means yes. By instead going for enthusiastic consent, you can be sure that partners are into it just as much as you are. The risk of ignoring boundaries is not worth it.

Now, as a last point, it is obviously true that the things men are taught can be and will be enforced by some women as well. This can be frustrating, but you should realise that women can be influenced and immersed in patriarchy just as much as men. Changing some women's binary gender thinking is not your job, but you can at least make a difference for other men.