Men
without Parties
7/28/15
I haven’t seen too many
comments on the new essays I’ve posted
since resurfacing. This
may, of course,
largely be because hardly anybody noticed or cared – but it also might
be because
the new stuff has given my old audience the impression that I came out
of
retirement merely to throw them under the bus.
I apologize if anyone got that impression – my
mood and manner may have
changed while I was incommunicado, but my opinions mostly haven’t. I’m still concerned about
overreach by the
illogical forces in American society (and yes, religion and PC are
still tied
as Public Enemies #1); I’ve just been trying to chill out when it comes
to
spotting threats everywhere and going through life in 24/7 rant mode.
I don’t identify myself
as an MRA, and never have, though I
can certainly see how the first few years of essays on this site might
have
given people that impression. But
the
facts are that this term didn’t even exist when I started The 1585, and
that I
bailed for a couple of years because I didn’t want to be associated
with it
after it did start to gain ground.
Although
I reject the sobriquet, however, I do still see myself in the types of
guys who
become MRAs and feel a responsibility for them, because it seems to me
that we
have a lot in common when it comes to our concerns, our life
experiences, and –
for better or worse – our personalities.
So, without being either
for or against them, here is a
thing I have noticed.
Unless this is your first
day on the internet, you don’t
need to be provided with any background about what the typical MRA is
like: He is white,
straight, upper-middle-class,
right on the line between masculine and nerdy, politically Libertarian
or at
least Libertarian-ish, and he is very often (for some reason, which I
think I
have figured out, and which I will explain later) an atheist (indeed, a
lot of
MRAs are internet-rage double-dippers, dividing their time roughly
equally between
arguing with feminists in one thread and with Christians in another).
You are also probably
already familiar with their hit list
of grievances: anti-male
bias in divorces
and custody battles, an alleged “epidemic” of false rape accusations,
circumcision,
declining numbers of male college graduates, and negative male
stereotypes on
TV seem to be the big ones. (For
the
purposes of this essay, I am not even getting into “internet nice guy”
stuff
about not being able to get laid, as I am trying to keep MRAs-proper
distinct here
from PUAs, OmegaVirginRevolters, and the like.)
The thing I have noticed
(as promised above) is that the
demographic identity of the typical MRA doesn’t line up very logically
with the
issues that the community most vociferously addresses.
Discrimination in custody
battles disproportionately affects
Black and Latino men – so why don’t we see nearly as many Black and
Latino
MRAs? Circumcision
(obviously) disproportionately
affects Jewish men, so why aren’t there more Jewish MRAs? Groundless suspicions of
pedophilia being
directed at men who work with children are disproportionately aimed at
gay men,
and yet there are virtually no gay MRAs. The
stereotype that pops up in every sitcom
and commercial of the bumbling “doofus dad” who basically counts as one
of the
children and needs the guidance of his wife to find and tie his own
shoes is a
favorite target of MRA chat-room ire, but most MRAs are unmarried and
childless. The
people who suffer most
from runaway unemployment in blue-collar fields are overwhelmingly
male, but
you don’t see a lot of hardhat types in the MRA community: the bearded
and
fedoraed guy who has become the movement’s stereotypical face
presumably went
to college, and he even talks like it, co-opting the terminology and
references
of the feminist movement in a way that only a decently well educated
person
would be able to do.
In short, I’ve noticed
that, although MRAs address issues
that affect men, the men who identify as MRAs are typically not drawn from the ranks of the specific types of men that these issues
predominantly affect.
Before anyone blows up,
be advised that this is not a
“call-out.” I don’t
think this is necessarily a damning
observation, just an interesting one.
And there may be a fairly obvious (i.e.,
boring) explanation in the fact
that people who spend most of their time arguing on the internet tend
not to
have ties and obligations to other things in life (such as a family, or
four
different minimum-wage jobs). I
realize
that the “they are overwhelmingly white, young, childless/unmarried,
and upper-middle-class”
argument could be leveled just as accurately against the feminists on
Jezebel.
This certainly explains
the phenomenon to some extent. However,
I do think there is another, more
complex (i.e., interesting) explanation to be found here.
The explanation is that
MRAism isn’t about how bad your life
is – it’s about how bad
your life might get if this or that
were to
happen.
Here is an interesting
fact:
Contrary to what you’d expect, suicide rates don’t go up after a big disaster that
affects an entire nation or
community. During a
war in which a
population is extremely deprived or endangered (e.g., London during the
Blitz),
or after a horrific, psychologically scarring event (e.g., America in
the
aftermath of 9/11), suicides actually go way, way down. As bad as they make us
feel, terrible things that happen to “all of us” bring people together
instead
of making them feel isolated, and suicide isn’t something that happens
when
someone feels bad – it’s something that happens when someone feels bad and alone.
(NOTE:
If this statistic is actually not true, don’t
blame me; blame the
episode of Criminal Minds I heard
it
on.)
What does this have to do
with MRAs? A lot,
if I’m right, and I think I am. (Which
was pointless to add, if you think
about it, since of course I think I’m right if I’m bothering to write
the
essay. If I thought
I was wrong about it,
in fact, then this wouldn’t even be the thing I think – the very
phenomenon of
thinking I’m wrong would ipso facto mean that I had begun to think
something
else instead. But
it sounded good.)
The key here is that MRAs
don’t just feel bad. They
feel bad and alone.
American society in the 21st
century has been an
uninterrupted culture war the whole time.
The internet has been the “terrible new
weapon” of this war, just like
poison gas was in the First World War or the atomic bomb in the Second. Virtually every week for
the last decade and
a half, a politician, celebrity, or regular person thereby rocketed to
celebrity (be it welcome or unwelcome) has “gotten in trouble” for
saying or
doing something “controversial.”
Immediately, and in predictable fashion,
roughly one half of the country
has then taken to their keyboards to defend the person, while the other
rough
half of the country did likewise to condemn him or her.
The important part is the
“predictable fashion.” When
Republican Politician, Homophobic
Business Owner, Offensive Joke Teller, or Christian Person gets in
trouble, the
conservatives will defend and the liberals attack. When
Democratic Politician, Insulted Nonwhite
Person, Fired Over Sexy Pictures Woman, or Any Religion Besides
Christian
Person gets in trouble, the liberals will defend and the conservatives
attack.
At this point, pretty
much anybody can count on being
attacked by one half of the population or the other.
The bright side, for most people, is that
they can also count on being defended by the other half.
Emphasis on most
people.
My theory, in brief, is
that I don’t think the MRA community
is really about “Men’s Rights,” whatever that term might mean. I think “MRA” is (whether
its adherents know
it or not) an umbrella term for a community-for-the-sake-of-community
of people
who feel like (be this accurate or
not), if they ever “got in trouble” for something, they would be attacked by everybody instead of
attacked by only one half of the country and defended by the other half.
This explains the
relative absence of MRAs who also identify
as members of any other minority or special-interest group. Jewish men don’t need to
be MRAs because, as
members of a minority religion, they would be defended by liberals if
they ever
“got in trouble.” Blacks
and Latinos don’t
need to be MRAs because, as People of Color, so would they. Christian men can count on
the conservatives
to take their part, as can nondivorced husbands and fathers who fall
under the
protection of the political right’s raging boner for “family.” Working-class men in
blue-collar fields, as
hosed as they get by the right wing economically, are still supported
by
conservatives philosophically
because
they are traditionally masculine.
Be advised, I’m not
saying that Christians or blue-collar
men aren’t ever sexist or even actively antifeminist – only that such a
man
would likely defend his antifeminist views simply by calling himself a
Christian or a “Real Man” rather than self-applying the term “MRA”
itself. The latter
term, as I’m in the process of
trying to argue, is mainly used by men who aren’t
in a position to use any other excuse for their beliefs and
behavior. Though he
was antifeminist to a literally
murderous extent, remember that John Russell Houser, the perpetrator of
the Trainwreck shootings in
Lafayette,
Louisiana last week, identified himself as a Christian, not as an MRA. I point this out not in an
effort to “clear” the
MRA community of association with the shootings, but only to make a
point about
how different types of antifeminists think of themselves.
The word outlaw
didn’t originally mean “criminal,” but referred instead to someone who,
as
punishment for a crime, was sentenced to a life outside of the law’s
protection
– i.e., someone else who committed an offense against this person would
not be
punished. This must
have felt pretty
scary and terrible. And
I think this is
the feeling at the heart of the MRA community, even possibly extending
to the wider
Troll community: The
feeling of having
been absent on the day when the rest of the country picked teams for
the
culture war – on not being able to count on any and all possible future
slights
against them being “policed” by one half of the country or the other.
At this point in the
argument – if they haven’t already –
many liberals are probably more than ready to object “What are you
talking
about? These guys
are straight white
males, and so they’ll be defended by the conservatives, duh!” I think the flaw in
this reasoning is that conservatives don’t actually defend all straight white males:
They defend straight white males who
are also Christian and/or traditionally masculine (ideally
both).
Remember back at the
beginning, when I pointed out that most
MRAs are atheists and nerds? There
you
go. Sure, as
straight white males, they
were born into an identity that could
have entitled them to the protection of the right wing, but
they “outlawed”
themselves by rejecting Christianity and/or sucking at sports (and
let’s remind
ourselves here that, regardless of the paths they took afterward, the
first
thing was admirable and the second thing couldn’t be helped).
If you yourself happen to
be either a cisgender female or a
trans man who was still living as female in childhood, you may be
inclined to
roll your eyes at the “sucking at sports” thing, but please do not
underestimate
the profound impact that athletic prowess – or the lack of it – has on
the
psychological development of boys in this society.
Once a boy begins socializing with other
boys, the very first thing he learns about himself and his status in
relation
to them is whether he can or can’t run faster than they do – followed
closely
by awareness of his prowess at knocking them down, and of his skill at
catching
or throwing the ball in ball-based games (the boys who are not merely
bad at
catching or throwing, but who are actually “afraid of” the ball, are
the
absolute lowest on the totem pole – a status that does not change until
college
at the earliest).
Yes, girls also run
around and play ball games with one
another – but, to the best of my knowledge, girls’ intragender social
standing is
not based primarily on their
respective
skills at these activities, even in early childhood.
Subsequent to those early
indicators of likely eventual
athletic prowess, the second important thing that most boys learn about
themselves is whether they are popular with girls.
Granted, kids in elementary school aren’t
actually hooking up or going on dates – but regardless, by second or
third
grade it is common knowledge which boys a lot of the girls have crushes
on and
which boys none of the girls have crushes on.
The boys may not care yet, and a majority of
them may even still think
that girls are “gross,” but there is still a vague sense that the boys
who get
crushed on by the girls are “better” than the boys who don’t. The opinions of girls can
still function as
an indicator of male status even at an age before actual interaction
with them
is prized or even permissible.
Though many MRAs lift
weights or engage in other
traditionally masculine activities now,
as adults, I would be very
surprised
if any significant percentage of them were star athletes in childhood. From what I have observed
while lurking on
their message boards these past few years, the psychology of the
typical MRA
positively reeks of “playing catch-up.”
Once again, please understand that I am not
“calling them out” when I
say this. Do not
confuse this essay with
PUAs trying to weed out who is or is not a “true alpha.” I don’t do that, and I
don’t even believe
that “alpha males” exist in human society in the true sense (although
the term
is useful as a descriptor of a certain personality type).
I also think it would be
dangerously off-base to fall into
the trap of assuming that MRAs are merely “losers” who are
“compensating” for
having been considered insufficiently masculine in childhood. The use of that taunt may
be tempting to
those who hate them, but I think it’s a vast oversimplification. As I’ve said already, I
think the MRA
identity is primarily about the absence of a peer group, or of a
political
column you can count on to “have your back.”
Certainly, no-one will disagree that jocks can
also be sexist jerks, but
adoption of an avowed MRA identity is less attractive to jocks because
they
already have a peer group (“sports guys”), one which remains intact
even into
middle age, when they merely transition from being men who play sports
into
being men who watch and talk about sports.
This brings us to a
paradox.
I think I have worked out a resolution to that
paradox, and that this
resolution might be the most illuminating thing that has yet been said
about
the rise of the MRA movement.
But first, the paradox.
If, as I have argued, the
mode MRA is, in addition to his
other defining characteristics, almost necessarily an atheist, and the primary motivating factor in the
formation of an avowed MRA identity is the painfully felt absence of a
peer
group, then this begs the question:
Why
don’t they just stick to being atheists, and have that
be their peer group?
After all, there was a big atheist movement
that was really popular only
a few years ago.
Exactly.
There was
one.
Whatever happened to that?
Well, as I argued in this
essay a few weeks back, a
few things happened there. One
thing
that took a lot of steam out of the atheist movement is the simple fact
that
George W. Bush isn’t president anymore, so there aren’t as many
high-profile
things for atheists to complain about.
Another, possibly even more important, thing
was the allegations made by
several female atheists of sexual harassment at TAM and the World
Atheist Convention
in the early years of this decade.
I am
neither disputing nor supporting these allegations at this time, only
pointing
out that they – along with the insistence of many female atheists that
the
movement should focus more on concern for the victims of religion’s
negative
propensities than on “out-debating” believers vis-à-vis the veracity of
scripture – had a splintering effect on the united atheist movement for
which
many atheists, whether fairly or unfairly, still blame feminists/women. I think a lot of white
male atheists felt an initial
twinge of joy and vindication at the prospect of being able to say “I’m
an
oppressed minority too, and so I get to be part of the liberal good
guys now,”
and see liberal feminists as having told them, in essence, “You can’t
sit with
us.”
There is a third thing,
though. It’s
something that, as far as I know, hasn’t
yet explicitly been brought up, and I think it may have more to do with
the
slow transformation of so many atheists into MRAs than either of the
first two
things, or even than both of them combined.
It’s so simple that I can’t believe I’m the
first one to think of
it. But sometimes
the most obvious
explanations are the hardest for people to see, precisely for this
reason.
The third thing is that
Christians aren’t nearly as much fun
to debate as Feminists.
I’m totally and
completely serious. I
think that most MRAs are, first and
foremost, Logic Fanboys. And
I think
they started off wanting (admirably) to debate religious
fundamentalists, since
those people are both the most dangerous and the most wrong. But the problem is, it
isn’t very much fun to
argue with those people. They’re
so
stupid that it’s a lot like hunting an animal that’s already dead. Where is the sport? The glory?
Plus, the incipient MRAs felt stabbed in the
back to begin with by so
many female skeptics telling them that they should focus on being nice
instead
of kicking ass in debates (“um, thanks for telling us that we’re not
supposed
to do, like, the one thing that
we’re
good at”), and then the various “elevator incidents” and whatnot at the
atheist
conventions were the last straw. Male
atheists started arguing with feminists.
And once that happened, there was no going
back for a lot of them, because
they had finally gotten a taste of what it was like to debate an
educated
person who knows how to do something in an argument besides dump
cut/pasted
Bible quotes on you, tell you you’re going to hell, and log off.
I could say more, but
I’ll save it for another piece. This
essay was supposed to be an analysis of
how we all got here, who we all are, and what we’re all dealing with,
and I’ve
done that. I do
think something needs to
change, though, and quickly too: There’s
an election coming up next year, one of the candidates is going to be a
woman,
and the other one, whoever he is, is going to be a lunatic. I think most MRAs are
liberals at heart, and
have only temporarily forgotten that.
I
believe that when most MRAs dream, they dream not of smashing feminism,
but of
smashing religious fundamentalists.
I am
convinced that this was their original goal, and that they thought they
would
become heroes for doing it, and that they only got pissed at the
feminists
because they felt like the feminists were tying their hands. (And feminists, let’s be
honest, you were tying their hands a little
bit, come on now.) Indeed,
an
examination of many MRA blogs and YouTube channels reveals that, when
they’re
not screaming at feminists, they’re leftist about virtually everything
else: not
just against the fundies, but also against the gun nuts and the racists
and the
plutocrats, and even in agreement with the feminists about mainstream
women’s
issues like abortion and birth control (remember, I mean MRAs as distinct from PUAs, who are
overwhelmingly conservative).
If any self-identified
MRAs made it all the way to the end
of this essay, then I honestly thank you for your good sportsmanship,
and I
want to close by saying that I think a lot of your complaints have
merit. As for your
plan to address them by leaving YouTube
comments in which you tell random women to kill themselves… Well, for now, let’s just
call that odd. Yes,
that will do. It
was an odd decision, is what that was. It may not be like hunting an animal that’s already dead,
but it’s an awful lot like shooting a wolf from a helicopter.
|