Have you ever ventured onto the net on a mission to try and gain a more detailed take on a subject and found yourself, after a number of hours/days/years, focusing on subject matter not directly associated with what your original journey was?
Yeah, you know the drill.
I can’t remember when or how I discovered this thing called the Men’s Rights movement but it’s been a concept that has captured my interest for a few months now. I’m pretty certain that I’d discovered it while looking into society’s general take on the subject of domestic violence and some of the feminist voices and the opposition to them relating to D.V.
I’ve previously opined on my views about the White Ribbon Campaign about how it appeals to men to accept responsibility for controlling violence towards women. I won’t focus on that mindset, fair minded enquiry alone should put that one to rest.
What I’d like to detail is my understanding so far of the MHRM.
Now, I’m inclined to accept that due to the availability of social media etc, there’s alot about the topic which is emergent in the contemporary conversation around what is spoken of as the MHRM. And it takes time to get your head around who these people are and what they are saying. Suffice to say, it is something that is continuing to grow in popularity each day, even if the naysayers are dismissive of it.
Also, I’m not academically based enough to offer any more or less an esoteric position on the subject as I don’t see myself as knowledgable in that respect. I only offer a layman’s take on the subject as I see it. And as common sense is often a collection of our individual and collective bias and experience I’m cognisant of this influence on my own perception.
That said, I believe, I have an obligation to be aware of the others in this equation as I am a part of a community and the matters being discussed by proponents of the MHRM as they can potentially affect anyone.
As I currently understand it, the reaction to the results of the social policies that effect men negatively, is the primary aspect of the MHRM. And it’s appreciation of these influences that creates these results, a secondary.
Although the current and historical basis of these influences, in my opinion forms the more interesting part of this conversation-as the results are a foregone conclusion for those affected by them, the affects side of the topics covered is where people harmed by this ideas offers more information on a personal basis thus making it relatable to the individual.
I’m not going to go into detail to cover off on the specific personalities that feature in this review but aim more to look at the base concepts and how they’re interpreted in order to collate a picture of what the MHRM is.
As I see it at the moment, the current western social/legal systems, on a global scale, are on a mission to promote the position of women in society. The basis of this movement stems from the claims of the concept of gender inequality. The issues of D.V, wages and employment, sexual relations and family are all given the treatment by proponents of this concept.
And it’s the concept of inequality, as it’s presented, that deserves scrutiny if you want to understand how people today argue this point. And this is where it gets interesting because this concept appears elsewhere in the misuse of the concept of intersectionality.
In analysing the idea of inequality and how these social actors define it, you’d do well to first start by web searching the idea as it is represented by the various governmental/activist groups as that’s where this idea gains access to power.
As an example, here in Australia, we have an organisation for human rights, named the AHRC and if you Google their page on inequality you’ll get a picture of what I’m talking about. Condescendingly titled “Face the Facts”, you’ll be treated to an infogragh of their take on the subject. Now it’s right and proper to first acknowledge that the issues they talk about do exist in an abstract sense as described in a mathematical definition but that’s not my issue with their view. As always the devil’s in the detail and it’s when you look at the facts as represented by research you’ll see a different picture as to why these effects are manifest.
Again the internet is a valuable resource to discover the details of this conversation. It always pays off to question the narrative, especially if you find it comforting. And this is where the MHRM really starts to put their rounds on target.
The MHRM currently seems to be at odds with contemporary and historical feminism and its influence on social policy and historically with a concept called gynocentrism. The political influence (of feminism) can be seen in the everyday take on the subject of women’s rights, reference the general conversation relating to gender politics you see in the media and politics.
Gynocentrism, in vulgar terms, simply refers to recent civilisation’s apparent predisposition to place femininity in a protected position even if its not portrayed as such initially. Reference the subject of D.V and it’s overwhelming deference to female victims with assistance or the wage gap idea.
The questioning the common acceptance, even if it’s done unwittingly, of these two influences is what the MHRM has offered me thus far. And when I discuss the issues related to these subjects with friends, specifically or otherwise, I find my opponents taking stances that the MHRM critiques and in doing so, I’m reminded of a quote by a British economist on the way the everyday person is influenced by ideas whether they have done their homework on the subject or not.
The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.
Some defunct economist or ideologue, polemicist/activist etc, the influence is present in the conversation. This is how faulty ideas survive scrutiny and myths live on.
The failure to grasp the full picture or to solely view a subject through a set of lenses enables a platform to be deceitful. And people are aware of this. This is why ideas such as the freedom of speech exists. You can’t fool everyone all the time.
So for the time being, as I currently see it, those two concepts-gynocentrism and the feminist ideologies are the two leading ideas that the MHRM are leveraging their approach to the topic on.
I’ll endeavour to examine the subjects in writing at another time in order to more fully grasp the angle being presented and see how it sits with what’s happening out there in the real world. I’ll work on being more concise as well. This post seems to jump along the track but it’s a rough collection on my thoughts so far.