Men's rights movement

From Citizendium
Revision as of 16:06, 24 March 2013 by imported>Michael Mills
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The men's rights movement (MRM) is a human rights movement, part of the larger men's movement, focused specifically on issues of perceived discrimination and inequalities faced by men. It branched off from the men's liberation movement in the early 1970s, splitting into opposing pro- and antifeminist groups. The movement is made up of a variety of formal and informal groups that differ in their approaches and issues.

The MRM has been involved in a variety of issues related to law (including family law, parenting, reproduction and domestic violence), government services (including edication, military service and social safety nets) health and female privilege.

History

File:SIF-Picture.jpg
Protest in New Delhi for men's rights organised by the Save Indian Family Foundation

The men's rights movement emerged from the men's liberation movement which appeared in the first half of the 1970s when some thinkers began to study feminist ideas and politics.[1]Template:Sfn The leaders of the men's liberation movement acknowledged men's institutional power while critically examining the costs of traditional masculinity.[1] In the late 1970s, the men's liberation movement split into two separate strands with opposing views: The pro-feminist men's movement and an anti-feminist men's rights movement.[1] Men's rights activists have since then rejected feminist principles and focused on disadvantages and oppression of men that they have identified.[1]Template:Sfn In the 1980s and 90s, men's rights activists opposed societal changes sought by feminists and defended the traditional gender order in the family, schools and the workplace.[2] Men's rights activists adopted the feminist rhetoric of "rights" and "equality" in their discourse, framing custody issues, for instance, as a matter of basic civil rights.[3][1][4][5] The plea for "equal rights for fathers" is frequently accompanied by a rhetoric of children's "needs" which helps deflect criticism that it is motivated by self-interest.[3]

The men's rights movement includes a wide variety of individuals and organizations, both united and divided in various ways on specific issues.[6] Some groups are formally organized or incorporated, while others are casual alliances or the work of a few individuals.[7]

One of the first major men's rights organizations was the Coalition of American Divorce Reform Elements, founded by Richard Doyle in 1971, from which the Men's Rights Association spun off in 1973.Template:Sfn[8] Free Men Inc. was founded in 1977 in Columbia, Maryland, spawning several chapters over the following years, which eventually merged to form the National Coalition of Free MenTemplate:Sfn (now known as the National Coalition for Men). Men's Rights, Inc. was also formed in 1977.[9]Template:Sfn Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF) was founded in 2005 and in 2011 claimed to have approximately 4,000 registered members.[10]


Relation to feminism

The men's rights movement is considered to be a backlash or countermovement to feminism.[11][12][13][14][3] The men's rights movement consists of diverse points of view which reject feminist and profeminist ideas.Template:Sfn Men's rights activists believe that feminism has overshot its objective and harmed men.[11][15][1] They dispute that men as a group have institutional power and privilege[16]Template:Sfn and believe that men are victimized and disadvantaged relative to women.[17]Template:Sfn[1]Template:Sfn

Men's rights activists see men as an oppressed group[11][18][19][20] and believe that society and state have been "feminized" by the women's movement.[11] Warren Farrell and Herb Goldberg, for instance, believe that all men are disadvantaged, discriminated against and oppressed and argue that power is an illusion for most men since women are the actual bearers of power.[11] Men's rights groups generally reject the notion that feminism is interested in men's problemsTemplate:Sfn and men's rights activists have viewed the women's movement as a plot to conceal discrimination against men.[1][21]Template:Sfn


Adoption

Fathers' rights activists seek a gender-neutral approach in which unwed men and women would have equal rights in adoption issues.[22]

Anti-dowry laws

Men's rights organizations such as Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF) state that men are subject to dowry harassment when women misuse legislation meant to protect them from dowry death and bride burnings.[10] SIFF is one of the many men's rights organizations in India that focus on the perceived abuse of anti-dowry laws against men.[23] SIFF has stated that they feel that anti-dowry laws have regularly been used in efforts to settle petty disputes in marriage,[24] and that their helplines receive calls from many men who say that their wives have used false dowry claims to get them jailed.[25]

Child custody

Two protestors from UK-based father's rights group Fathers 4 Justice protesting in Peterborough in 2010.

Family law is an area of deep concern among men's rights groups. These issues vary from state to state and country to country. In India, father's rights have been a concern since 2000.[10] Many men feel that they are discriminated against and that they do not have the same contact rights or equitable shared parenting rights as their ex-spouse.Template:Sfn[26] The United Kingdom and United States were cited, with several other unnamed countries, as affected regions where child custody issues have become complicated by higher divorce rates, less father-child time, while there has been greater expectations for fatherly involvement in their children's lives. Authors of Unfamiliar territory write, "The current struggles of the fathers' rights movement can be understood as part of this complex and painful renegotiation of intimate relations against a backdrop of changing lifestyles and expectations."[26] Father's rights activists seek to change the legal climate for men through changes in family law.Template:Sfn See Fathers' rights movement by country for more information about custody concerns.

Men's rights activists state that the divorce rate in India has sharply risen from less than 5% in 2000, which has over-burdened the Indian court system's abilities to keep pace with the number of child custody cases. They argue that men have been parted from their children, with some only allowed to visit their children at the court once a month for 30 minutes during the to several years that it can take to resolve the custody case. To provide support services to men for shared parenting rights and father's rights, SIFF created several non-governmental organizations (NGOs).[10]

In the United States, fathers accounted for 17.4 percent custodial parents in 2007, a percentage that has statistically not changed since 1994.[27]

In Israel, the Man's Rights in the Family Party is headed by Yaakov Schlusser, who argues that custody should automatically be given to fathers before being examined by courts. He claims that children who see "a woman in control, in contradiction to nature, may turn homosexual."[28]

Divorce

Men's rights groups in the United States began organizing in opposition of divorce reform and custody issues around the 1960s. The men involved in the early organization claimed that family and divorce law discriminated against them and favored their wives.Template:Sfn Rich Doyle wrote of the view of the men's rights movement concerning the court handling of divorces and child custody processes:

Divorce courts are frequently like slaughter-houses, with about as much compassion and talent. They function as collection agencies for lawyer fees, however outrageous, stealing children and extorting money from men in ways blatantly unconstitutional... Men are regarded as mere guests in their own homes, evictable any time at the whims of wives and judges. Men are driven from home and children against their wills; then when unable to stretch paychecks far enough to support two households are termed "runaway fathers." Contrary to all principles of justice, men are thrown into prison for inability to pay alimony and support, however unreasonable or unfair the "obligation."Template:Sfn

Laws and practices regarding spousal support, maintenance or alimony vary considerably by country and culture. On one end of the spectrum are Nordic countries, like Sweden, that by 1978 assumed that divorced spouses were not responsible for one another. Support might be provided for a transitionary period for the lower-wage earner or primarily care-givers, but only in about 6-8% of the cases and only for a limited time. In most western countries alimony is provided on an ever decreasing basis due to shorter marriages and women more likely to be wage-earners.Template:Sfn Italy and many countries in Latin America, are on the other end. Women may be supported during legal separation, which is a state in which they wish to remain because of low chance of remarriage, religious reasons or to retain inheritance rights to their husband's property. Such women may be wives to husbands of privileged class. However, the rate of support is declining in Italy, as well.Template:Sfn

Although the rate of payments of spousal support is declining, both due to the reduced rates at which alimony is granted and low rates at which alimony is generally paid, there are concerns regarding men's rights when women continue to receive support after they enter into new relationships and women are supported by men who are "financially strapped".Template:Sfn In the United States, the current alimony laws are challenged for constitutionality, assignment of temporary vs. permanent financial support paid to a spouse, and fair and equitable treatment under family law; There are several men's rights attempts to reform alimony at a state and federal level, including Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.[29]

Now that women make up a large percentage of the workforce, existing laws regarding alimony in the United States have come into question.[29] A legal precedent for gender-blind spousal support, granting men's rights to alimony, in the United States was made in Orr v. Orr,[30] where the Supreme Court invalidated Alabama's statutes by which husbands, but not wives, were required to pay alimony upon divorce. This statute was considered a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The percentage of alimony recipients in the US who were male rose from 2.4% in (1996–2001) to 3.6% in (2002–2006) and is expected to increase as more marriages feature a female primary earner.[31]

Domestic violence

Men's rights activists, citing a number of academic studies, assert that domestic violence by women is ignored and under-reported,[32][33] because men are reluctant to describe themselves as victims.[33] They state that women are as aggressive or more aggressive than men in relationships,[34] that domestic violence is sex-symmetrical,<ref name="Dragiewicz2011 b">{{cite book|author=Molly Dragiewicz|title=Equality with a Vengeance: Men's Rights Groups, Battered Women, and Antifeminist Backlash|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=OHr7yWfEjQYC&pg=PA84%7Caccessdate=October 22, 2011|date=12 April 2011|publisher= [[Un

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Messner, Michael A. (1998). "The Limits of the "Male Sex Role": An Analysis of the Men's Liberation and Men's Rights Movement's Discourse". Gender & Society 12 (3): 255–276. DOI:10.1177/0891243298012003002. Research Blogging.
  2. ↑ (2012) "Interrogating recuperative masculinity politics in schooling". International Journal of Inclusive Education 16 (4): 407–421. DOI:10.1080/13603116.2011.555095. Research Blogging. “The concept of recuperative masculinity politics was developed by Lingard and Douglas (1999) to refer to both mythopoetic (Biddulph 1995, 2010; Bly 1990) and men’s rights politics (Farrell 1993). Both of these rejected the move to a more equal gender order and more equal gender regimes in all of the major institutions of society (e.g. the family, schools, universities, workplaces) sought by feminists and most evident in the political and policy impacts in the 1980s and 1990s from second-wave feminism of the 1970s. 'Recuperative' was used to specifically indicate the ways in which these politics reinforced, defended and wished to recoup the patriarchal gender order and institutional gender regimes.”
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Williams, Rhys H. (1995). "Constructing the Public Good: Social Movements and Cultural Resources". Social Problems 42 (1): 134–135. DOI:10.2307/3097008. Retrieved on March 4, 2013. Research Blogging. “Another example of contractual model rhetoric is in the language of the Men's Rights movement. As a countermovement to the feminist movement, it has concentrated on areas generally thought of as family law—especially divorce and child custody laws. The movement charges that maternal preference in child custody decisions is an example of gender prejudice, with men the ones who are systematically disadvantaged... Men's Rights groups... have adopted much of the rhetoric of the early liberal feminist movement... Similarly, along with the appeal to "equal rights for fathers"... the Men's Rights movement also uses a rhetoric of children's "needs"... The needs rhetoric helps offset charges that their rights language is motivated by self-interest alone.”
  4. ↑ (1995) “"All We Want Is Equality": Rhetorical Framing in the Fathers' Rights Movement”, Images of Issues: Typifying Contemporary Social Problems, 2nd. New York: A. De Gruyter, 201–202. ISBN 978-0-202-30539-4. 
  5. ↑ (1992) "The Rhetoric of Rights and Needs: Moral Discourse in the Reform of Child Custody and Child Support Laws". Social Problems 39 (4): 400–420. DOI:10.2307/3097018. Research Blogging.
  6. ↑ (2008) Does feminism discriminate against men? A Debate. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-531282-9. 
  7. ↑ Farrell, Warren (2001). Father and Child Reunion:How to Bring the Dads We Need to the Children We Love. New York: Putnam. ISBN 1585420751. 
  8. ↑ (2003) “Fathers' Rights”, American Masculinities: A Historical Encyclopedia. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications. ISBN 978-0-7619-2540-8. 
  9. ↑ Chafetz, Janet Saltzman (2006). Handbook of the sociology of gender. New York: Springer Science+Business Media. ISBN 0-387-32460-7. 
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 Kumar, A. Men’s Movement in India: Story of Save Indian Family Movement (pdf). {{{booktitle}}}, New York: Foundation for Male Studies.
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 Maddison, Sarah (1999). "Private Men, Public Anger: The Men's Rights Movement in Australia". Journal of Interdisciplinary Gender Studies 4 (2): 39–52. [e]
  12. ↑ (2004) “The Fathers' Rights Movement: Extending Patriarchal Control Beyond the Marital Family”, Citizenship Revisited: Threats or Opportunities of Shifting Boundaries. New York: Nova Publishers, 61–62. ISBN 978-1-59033-900-8. 
  13. ↑ (2005) “Men's Collective Struggles for Gender Justice: The Case of Antiviolence Activism”, Handbook of Studies on Men and Masculinities. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. ISBN 978-0-7619-2369-5. 
  14. ↑ Is the men's rights movement growing?. Salon (March 29, 2011). Retrieved on March 10, 2013.
  15. ↑ (2010) “Men's movement”, Culture Wars: An Encyclopedia of Issues, Viewpoints, and Voices. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, 354–356. ISBN 978-1-84972-713-6. 
  16. ↑ Kimmel, Michael S. (1987). "Men's Responses to Feminism at the Turn of the Century". Gender & Society 1 (3): 261–283. DOI:10.1177/089124387001003003. Research Blogging.
  17. ↑ (2000) Sexual Politics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Pres. ISBN 978-0-7486-1247-5. 
  18. ↑ (2001) “Feminism, masculinity and the human services”, Working with men in the human services. Crow's Nest, N.S.W.: Allen & Unwin, 3–4. ISBN 978-1-86508-480-0. 
  19. ↑ (2009) An introduction to masculinities. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-8179-2. 
  20. ↑ (2001) “Masculinity in Context: An Epilogue”, Promise Keepers and the New Masculinity: Private Lives and Public Morality. Lanham: Lexington Books. ISBN 978-0-7391-0230-5. 
  21. ↑ (2001) “Gender Politics in Men's Movements”, Gender Mosaics: Social Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press, 343–351. ISBN 978-0-19-532998-8. 
  22. ↑ Shanley, Mary Lyndon (2002). Making babies, making families: what matters most in an age of reproductive technologies, surrogacy, adoption, and same-sex and unwed parents. Beacon Press, 46–47. ISBN 0-8070-4409-1. 
  23. ↑ Men demand fair play, 20 November 2009. Retrieved on 20 October 2011.
  24. ↑ Gilani, Iftikhar. Shoaib Malik controversy to hit Pakistan-India relations, 6 April 2010. Retrieved on 20 October 2011.
  25. ↑ Dhillon, Amrit. Men say wives use India's pro-women laws to torment them, 24 December 2007. Retrieved on 20 October 2011.
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 Collier, R, Sheldon S. Unfamiliar territory: The issue of a father's rights and responsibilities covers more than just the media-highlighted subject of access to his children, The Guardian, 2006-11-01. Retrieved on 2011-11-24.
  27. ↑ Custodial Mothers and Fathers and their Child Support (pdf). United States Department of Commerce (2007). Retrieved on 2011-11-24.
  28. ↑ Edelson, D. Men's Rights Party vies for votes, Ynet, 2008-12-11. Retrieved on 2012-11-03.
  29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 Levitz, J. The New Art of Alimony, The Wall Street Journal, 2009-10-31. Retrieved on 2011-11-25.
  30. ↑ Orr v. Orr,  440 US 268  (Supreme Court of the United States 1979)
  31. ↑ Raghavan, Anita. Men Receiving Alimony Want A Little Respect, The Wall Street Journal, 2008-04-01. Retrieved on 2009-02-03.
  32. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Miller2005
  33. ↑ 33.0 33.1 Doward, Jamie. Battered men get their own refuge, The Observer, GMG, 21 December 2003. Retrieved on October 22, 2011.
  34. ↑ (2008) “Female perpetrators of intimate partner violence”, Claire M. Renzetti and Jeffrey L. Edleson: Encyclopedia of interpersonal violence. SAGE Publications, 257–58. ISBN 978-1-4129-1800-8. 
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Men%27s_rights_movement&oldid=844513"