Note: This post, and the comment thread, is ONLY for Joseph Zhang and myself. I’ve opened a general comment thread where others can post to discuss this if they so choose. If you are not Joseph Zhang, and you comment here, you will be put on perpetual moderation. And no, it does not matter which one of us you’re here to support. I will still moderate you if you post in this thread and you’re not Joseph Zhang (or myself, obviously).
Also… please be aware that I’m not holding either Joseph or myself to any obligation to respond in the open comments thread. Everyone has lives and things to do. So if you have something to say to Joseph or me, you can post it in the open thread, but I can’t promise that we’re going to answer it… at least, not right away.
And finally… this blog is, first and foremost, a safe space. As such, I am only allowing these 101 discussions on this thread between Joseph and I, the open thread, and “I Don’t Understand You MRAs”. They are not allowed anywhere else on this blog. Victims are safe here, as are feminists, and I fully intend to maintain this. Please do not post about this issue anywhere else but the three threads mentioned above. Doing so will result in a ban, and this applies to all sides, not just MRAs.
I’m also going to go ahead with big TRIGGER WARNING on this one. We’re discussing 101, here, so there is stuff from both myself and Joseph that will be triggering. You’ve been warned.
Sorry it’s taken me so long to get started on this, Joseph. The comment thread under this is specifically for you and me, and no one else. I’ll make this blog post about answering your questions, and we can go from there in the comments.
Before I start, though, I want to apologize for this being as long as it is. It was 12 pages total in Microsoft Word when I typed it up. Now you understand what took me so long…
1) What are the core ideas with A+, or more specifically, feminism that you buy into upon which you are willing to hang all the associated ideas with, so that you are willing to self-identify with that set of ideas?
It’s as simple as this: “Atheism+ is a safe space for people to discuss how religion affects everyone and to apply skepticism and critical thinking to everything, including social issues like sexism, racism, GLBT issues, politics, poverty, and crime.”
I don’t see A+ as trying to “take over atheism” or all of that bullshit a minority of its critics are spouting. It’s just another group, like American Atheists, or the Secular Student Alliance, or the Center for Inquiry, and so on. I think A+ has the potential to be a charitable group, setting up activist opportunities. I also have no problem with the name because I am fully and completely aware of its origins, as I was there for it. I understand where it’s come from, and why.
My absolute favorite metaphor for this (not my own), is the Big Atheist House. At first, everything was fine. Most of us atheists hung out in the main room, and everything was pretty much okay, except for one thing:
There was a small group of atheists that were… shall we say… extreme assholes. They were dismissive of minorities. They had this air about them as if they owned the house and the rest of us were their guests, even though we all have “paid in”, as it were, to own this house. And a minority of that minority was rather predatorial, too, sometimes being inappropriate with women and men and the trans-gendered.
So some of us started speaking out. We initially assumed that our pointing this out wouldn’t be controversial at all. After all, we’re atheists, here… bastions of rationality and skepticism, largely intelligent, reality-based thinkers (for the record, I’m not being sarcastic; I really did believe this, and I still do… for the most part). We figured that the small minority of… well… creeps… would be pointed out, and the majority would turn around and say “listen… you either change or you can’t be in the house anymore. Creeping people out isn’t cool. Acting entitled isn’t cool. We’re all human beings, here, and nobody’s better than anybody else.”
But that’s not what happened. Instead, we got yelled at for “disturbing the peace”. People we originally assumed were feminists or such turned out to only pay lip service to feminism when it could be used as ammo to score points against religion.
Finally, people started yelling at us to go away.
And that’s exactly what we did. That’s exactly why Jen McCreight called for a “new movement” in the first place; to do exactly what y’all wanted us to do: “go away”.
Atheism+ was us honoring that very request and going away… and we’re still being yelled at for it.
For some reason that none of us can figure out, the idea that we atheists are still human and, as such, it’d be good for us to look internally and wonder if maybe we could be doing more to bring in women, POC, the transgendered, and so on, is a really controversial idea. It shouldn’t at all be controversial; it should be a given. And yet it’s not a given… it’s apparently “taboo” to even talk about it.
And, quite frankly, it’s not an issue just being noted by the SkepChicks and the FtB bloggers. After all… DJ Grothe wrote a whole article wondering why the percentage of women attending TAM has plummeted. Where Grothe went wrong was blaming SkepChicks, which I find absolutely pathetic seeing as they were set up for the soul purpose of sending women to TAM in the first place. So obviously others outside A+ have recognized that there’s a problem, here. The disagreement lies, I think, in the source of the problem and the solution to it. I happen to agree with the SkepChicks and the FtB bloggers partially on what the problem is (I think there’s more to it than just a sense of entitlement with certain members of the “community”, as it were), and I agree completely with their solution, and that is to shine the light on ourselves and see where we can make changes as a whole.
I think I went off in answer to this first question, but essentially, I believe very strongly in social justice. I’m a Socialist, to be entirely honest. I do believe in the Libertarian idea that “you have the right to do whatever you want as long as you do not violate another person’s right to do whatever they want”, so I do think drugs and prostitution and such should be decriminalized at worst, legalized, taxed, and regulated at best. But there are places where I believe the government should be quite large. In pretty much every area of economics (I do not believe in an unregulated market or in “buyer beware”), in health care, and in protecting the under-privileged (women, people of color, homosexuals, the trans-gendered, minority religions, atheists, the poor, and so on) I believe that the bigger the government, the better. Of course, I expect our government to be reformed, first. Our government is not at all trustworthy. However, it is not trustworthy because our “free market” owns the government. We do not currently live in a system of “Government by the people”. We live in a system of “Government by Wall Street”.
Once we change that, the government can be a hell of a lot more trustworthy. Reform the Electoral College to be much fairer, eliminate corporate donations to politics at all levels, reform political campaigns so that, instead of costing millions, they’re free, eliminate the two-party system (either by giving third parties an actual fighting chance, or eliminating the whole idea of political parties all together)… and that’s just to start. Then we’ll have a government that we can trust, because it’ll be us, the people, doing the governing, and not Wall Street. Then the government can do what it’s supposed to do, and that’s run the country.
Social justice is extremely important to this. And yes, I do think my being an atheist is a part of that. Part of what I hate about religion is how it justifies bigotry in the extreme. The Bible is a compendium of extreme racism, homophobia, misogyny, and worse, and fanatic Christians, Jews, and Muslims take that as far as they can. Just look at Uganda’s “Kill the Gays” bill. Look at how minorities are treated in Muslim countries in the Middle East. Look at the Catholic Church. Look at the Westboro Baptist Church.
It’s all there.
That’s what I rejected when I rejected religion. Why would I tolerate it in a secular society, as well?
2) What is it that you think that the MRM is about, that you would refer to it in a negative light? Can you give me specific examples that influenced you to reject the MRM and assign a negative to it?
Here’s the thing with the MRM. In writing, I understand it wholly and completely. I really do agree in general that the way our society treats men is not all roses and peaches. It’s not systematic oppression, like minorities (women, people of color, the transgendered, minority religions, atheists, the poor, etc) experience, but it’s not as if men are unanimously treated as gods, either.
Despite what our kyriarchical/patriarchal society would have us believe, it is possible for men to be stay-at-home dads while wives have a career. It is possible for men to like working with children without being sexually attracted to them. It is totally possible that the wife is the reason for the divorce, and in such cases, the husband should win custody and the wife should pay child support.
And more personally, just because I’m 25 and a virgin doesn’t mean I’m broken (even if it’s not by choice). Just because I’m not a strong, muscle-bound gym rat doesn’t mean I’m some kind of worthless loser who doesn’t deserve a “man card”. Just because I prefer daiquiris to beer doesn’t make me a pussy.
So, in actuality, there’s a lot that I do theoretically agree with the MRM on.
Here’s why I can’t be an MRA:
I can’t be associated with this kind of shit. And this kind of shit. And this right here. And this. And this. And also this. And this. And stuff like this. And then there’s this. And I just can’t be associated with this. And this. And this. (Note on that last one: it’s not the initial story, which actually turned out to be an April Fools prank… it’s the response to the story.)
And yes, I do think the word “mangina” is as much a misandrist word as it misogynistic.
And that’s probably about 0.00001% of all the stuff I’ve seen: homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, misandry… now, maybe my exposure to the MRM has been limited; as you can see, a lot of what I’ve found comes from A Voice for Men. But that’s how the MRM was presented to me… and not just online, but offline, too.
I mentioned in the comments of “I Don’t Understand You MRAs” that there’s an unofficial feminist group on my campus that I belong to. Someone (who would have found a rather cozy camaraderie with Chris Keys) tried to start an MRA group on campus, as well. It fell flat after two semesters with only ten members, while our feminist group is going strong with over twenty members and growing after only three semesters. It’s probably in part because we do takes men’s issues seriously, and, because it’s a feminist group in name, founders (all of whom are women), mission, direction, constitution, etc, it espouses, and promotes, equality for all, regardless of gender.
The guy who tried to start the MRA group did so with the publically stated mission of “tearing down feminism” and “keeping gender roles intact”. He was thoroughly against the feminist group and wanted it destroyed. The stuff they spouted out was some seriously bad shit… misogynistic, transphobic, homophobic… even misandrist in the extreme at times.
So that’s my experience with the MRM. I don’t see anything about equality, or wanting to change societal norms to recognize all people as purely human, in there at all.
I see an awful lot of crying that women are becoming more independent and open. I see an awful lot of whining that women are, more and more, openly demanding that they get what they want. And, ultimately, I see a lot of complaining about the slowly-growing number of women in positions of power.
I believe very strongly in ignoring gender (outside of the biological drive to reproduce, anyways), because I don’t believe it is important at all. My experience is that feminism agrees with me, while the MRM is insistent on ensuring that there are males and females (with no one deviating from that binary), and that culturally-defined “roles” not only remain intact, but are strongly enforced. My experience is that it’s all about protecting privilege.
My final issue with the MRM is how many Nice GuysTM it attracts.
I was one of these myself for many years… the kind, in fact, that worshiped Bill Hicks. I fully believed in the line “Chicks Dig Jerks!” and that it wasn’t fair. I lamented the fact that “Hitler had Ava Braun/Manson had Squeaky Frawn/Ted Bundy got lots of dates” and I wondered what I was doing wrong. I have come to loathe this mentality now because it is perhaps an ultimate kind of selfish hypocrisy. What I was saying (and what all of these kinds of guys were and are saying) is that I have standards, but women should not have standards. Women I’m attracted to should have to fuck me, because I’m a Nice GuyTM. I’m not a jerk like [the guy that particular attractive girl is actually kissing/dating/flirting/fucking/whatever with].
So if I wanted to fuck Keira Knightley, who is she to have standards that I don’t fit? And of course I was completely ignoring the blatantly obvious double-standard I was engaging in (I can have standards, but she can’t).
That was my mindset then, and that is the mindset behind things like “Chicks Dig Jerks”, specifically because “jerk” is here defined as “every guy that’s not me fucking that girl I find attractive.” In other words, the “jerks” here are so because they’re fucking that girl and not the person hypocritically crying about all this.
I eventually came to accept that the women I was attracted to had standards of their own, and I very simply didn’t reach those standards. So instead of getting all depressed and screaming about how unfair it is that “Chicks Dig Jerks”, I had to do what I needed to do to reach their standards. So I started working out, doubling down on practicing guitar… doing everything I could do to change the things that I could actually change.
There are hurdles I can’t change, like my social phobia. If I had the choice, I would never leave my house, preferring the internet. I do go out, and I can force myself to be social, but it is an incredibly hard thing for me to do… it can even be painful, sometimes, as the stress can induce some pretty horrid headaches.
But what I can change, I will change. Because I can, and because I have to, for myself.
Basically… I’ve stopped blaming women for having standards and finally faced the common denominator in every rejection: me.
3) How long have you been a feminist?
About three years, now, though I’ve only been active in it for the last year, maybe a little less.
4) How much research have you done into the issues of the MRM? Can you discuss the issues with the same ease that you can feminist issues?
A good amount. I’ve had to. As far as discussing the issues… I think so, at least as far as I understand the lipservice…
I’m a male. I was raised by women. I was taught that everything about me was evil because I am a male. I was taught that all rapes are my fault. All injustices to women are my fault. I was taught that women are special delicate and superior creatures whereas I was merely a brute and just barely human because I was a male.
I used to be a feminist. My mother’s definition of feminism is this: men and women ought to be treated equally and with respect. I wholeheartedly subscribe to this. This is called “humanism”.
To be blunt, your mother was not a feminist. She paid lip-service to the actual understanding of feminism (what you say is her definition of it), but did not believe in it. It sounds to me like your mother was an abusive woman who latched onto feminism in much the same way that bigots latch on to Christianity. They pay lip-service to the whole “love your neighbor” and “turn the other cheek” and all that hippy/peace stuff Jesus taught, but in practice do the exact opposite.
My favorite understanding of feminism is “the radical notion that women are human beings, too”. I’m a feminist because I don’t think it’s cool to walk up to a strange girl in a bar and smack her in the ass. I don’t think it’s right to not take “no” for an answer. I don’t think it’s awesome to invade her personal space.
(Note: the “you” here is in reference to a generalized “you”; the reader. I’m not referring to you, specifically, Joseph.)
It’s one thing if you’re friends with her, or you’re already dating, and these things are a natural part of your relationship. But to violate the personal space of a random stranger, just because she’s a woman you happen to find attractive enough for a one-night stand?
And even then, even if you are friends, she may have certain boundaries that she doesn’t like being crossed. Calling her a bitch because she calls you out for violating one of those boundaries is… again… wrong. You’re the aggressor, here. She’s reminding you that she has boundaries. Calling her a bitch when she does this says more about you as a man than it does about her.
I will go ahead and say this: I do, in fact, believe that the reverse is true. Men have personal boundaries, too, and they have every right to call a woman out for violating those boundaries when they do, and those women cannot, and should not, vilify the man for stating and defending his boundaries.
So yes… as far as I’m concerned, it goes both ways.
I also believe that victims should be respected.
I want you, Joseph, if you can, to imagine yourself in the following scenario. I will apologize ahead of time if you have actually been here. So I’m including a trigger warning here, and if you want to skip it, feel free.
Imagine that you’ve been somehow sexually abused, by a woman. This woman is not a stranger; she’s someone who’s been a part of your circle of friends for years.
At first, you say nothing. Then, after a little while, you broach it with one of your friends. He suggests you tell the group and alert the cops. You’re not so sure, but you do it, anyways.
Now, imagine that the rest of your friends react callously. They show sympathy, of course, but this woman is still welcome, even when you’re there. Your “friends” don’t respect your boundaries and constantly invite you to parties where she happens to be, as well.
Eventually you’re forced to make a choice: continue allowing yourself to be put in this situation, or remove yourself from this circle of friends entirely.
This happens all the time. It happens quite a bit to woman. It also happens to men.
It’s happened to women that I personally know.
This, Joseph, is Rape Culture. I’m not just reading about it; I see it in front of me.
I lived with the stereotypical angry black feminazi for three years, steps away from UofT, where most of them went. I’m sure you’ve seen the videos. I’m sure that you’ve seen the verifiable lies that were promoted about Warren Farrell (BTW: Have you read his books? At least one of them?). You know that one woman who’se earned the appellation of “F’ing Scum! Girl”? That is what I lived with, for three years. And I was treated in that manner regularly for three years.
Like I said in the comments of I Don’t Understand You MRAs… I had never heard of Warren Farrell until this protest. I cannot comment on him at all. I’ve started looking into him, but I’ve not read much, and what little I have read has not been positive.
I’ve had all the conversations about how this so-called patriarchy and rape-culture meant that all women are eternally victims and that all men are eternally oppressors a million times. I’m aware of most of the arguments, though I haven’t had them for some time. I seen into and past the ideology of gender/victim feminism. That’s why I reject it.
This, I think, is a distortion of the idea of Rape Culture. I’ve yet to hear any feminist insist that all women are somehow “perpetual victims” and all men are somehow “perpetual oppressors”. It is not a comment on gender but a comment on culture. The point is not to make women into perpetual victims; it’s to protect actual victims, especially rape victims (since it happens more often to them than any other victim), from being further victimized by our society.
If you’re not a victim, then you’re not a victim; regardless of gender.
And again (because I know it won’t be assumed, even though it should be), every part of this applies to both genders. Male rape victims face very similar challenges within the Rape Culture. Male rape victims are blamed just as much. Just think about prison rape, for example. We dismiss it as not that bad because these are criminals. They deserved it. Of course that’s total bullshit. I really cannot think of any crime, not even serial killing, that qualifies someone as being “deserving of rape”. So no, women are not the only ones victimized by rape culture. Men are, too.
In point of fact, the reason Rape Culture is so ubiquitous is because it’s one of those things where it’s perpetuated by all. Everyone, regardless of who they are, what gender they identify with, and whether or not they are actual victims of rape or any kind of sexual assault/harassment, is both a victim and a perpetrator of Rape Culture. That includes me, and you as well. The difference is that many of us have actually realized it and are trying to change it. So there are no “bad guys” when it comes to Rape Culture.
The same applies to patriarchy. Yes, women perpetuate patriarchy, too. Women have even benefited from it. That doesn’t make it a non-thing; that just makes it a hell of a lot more complicated than the dictionary definition. It’s partly why I don’t see patriarchy as the main problem, but just one of many problems in a larger structure called the kyriarchy. Kyriarchy is the real issue; patriarchy is just a thread. However, it’s not an unimportant thread. I do believe that the patriarchy is one of the strongest parts of the kyriarchy and tearing down the patriarchy will weaken the kyriarchy exponentially.
So yes, I believe that men have rights. I do not, however, believe that the MRM is interested in men’s rights in any way, shape, or form. I believe that the MRM is better described as anti-feminism or perhaps Pro-Patriarchy; but not in any way interested in men’s rights, and this is mostly because every single person I’ve ever met, both online and offline, who cares even a little bit for men’s rights, is a self-described feminist. This is how I was introduced to both issues, so it shouldn’t be any surprise that I’m a feminist; it was the feminists who took the issues I care about in relation to men seriously; not the MRM.
When it comes to the issues men face in our society, I’m not interested in railing against feminism, because doing so does nothing. I really do believe that most, if not all, the issues we men face stem from the exact same biblical/traditional gender roles that have plagued women, as well, and it is through tearing those down that we can fix the problem. I don’t see the MRM moving to do this. I do see feminism moving to do this. As such, it is feminism I support.
And yes, as with all things, there are fanatic feminists. I’m convinced that fanaticism is an unavoidable consequence of being a social species; it is an “advanced” expression of tribalism, in other words. This is actually one of my interests as an anthropology student. So yes, feminism will have fanatics. So will atheism, and theism, and philosophies, and religion, and politics, and countries (it’s called “patriotism”), and yes, even musical acts, sports teams, authors, actors and actresses, and so on (after all, “fan” is short for “fanatic”… and for the record, I’m a proud Led Zeppelin fanatic… also known as a “Zephead”… ).
What I don’t think is right is defining an entire movement by its fanatics unless that movement does nothing to distance itself from its fanatics. To say Andrea Dworkin is the end-all, be-all of feminism is disgusting, especially since feminists today have, in fact, distanced themselves from some of the more fanatic ideas of Andrea Dworkin; and we should allow feminists to do that.
And no, I’m not saying Chris Keys is the end-all, be-all of the MRM, too. I simply have yet to see anyone in the MRM distance themselves from him (with the exception of driversuz in “I Don’t Understand You MRAs”, which I was very happy with), and my total experience with the MRM has made it look more like what Chris Keys spouts than what I think you want me to see as the MRM.
I will grant you this, however… maybe it has to do with a difference in cultures. I said this on “I Don’t Understand You MRAs”, and I’ll repeat it here. I know nothing about how the society in Canada works. Maybe the way these issues are viewed by the different factions up there are the complete opposite from my experience. Maybe the Canadian MRM would have more in common with the feminists I know while the Canadian feminists would have more in common with the MRM I know. I should note that I don’t actually believe that… in fact, I’m quite sure it’s not true at all, judging from the kind of shit I’ve read from the likes of Paul Elam and JohnTheOther.
Thing is, I’m not Canadian. The way I understand these issues is filtered very much by my Southeast USA experience (largely in Georgia and Florida). Down here, feminists are largely humanists/egalitarian promoting equality for and acceptance of all, regardless of gender identification, skin color, sexual orientation, etc, while the MRAs down here are largely religious/libertarian bigots who are afraid that the “secret Commie/Muslim/foreign nigger” (I should note that this is a direct quote; I hope my use of the n-word can be understood in that light, though I take full responsibility for any offense caused by its use) who is our president is intent on “taking away our guns” and “promoting USSR-style Communism” (which wasn’t actually Communism, but Authoritarianism). They see feminism as part of this plot. The religious ones are largely anti-choice (I refuse to call them “pro-life” because they aren’t), anti-secularism, anti-science, anti-market regulations, and so on. The ones who aren’t religious are exactly the same except they don’t support teaching Creationism in a science classroom and they’re usually pro-choice.
I have yet to meet any MRA down here where I live who is an egalitarian at all.
So perhaps the difference is in one of cultures. Perhaps the difference is one of Canada vs. the USA.
I don’t know for sure.
I do know that I spoke out against the tearing down of AVfM’s men’s rights posters when one of the participants posted about it at the A+ forums. I really do believe this was a bad idea.
But I also know what I see online on AVfM and the Men’s Rights subreddit and other MRM sites, and I’m not impressed.
I’m all for egalitarianism. What’s more, I can actually understand objecting to certain views espoused by certain feminists.
As an example: I’m not against sex work at all. That doesn’t mean I don’t acknowledge the problems inherent within the work, especially as they affect women (sex slavery, coercion, etc). But I’m not against it as a legitimate profession. I know that there have been, in the past, feminists who have been against sex work, and have completely ignored the voices of sex workers to maintain their anti-sex work positions. Hell… look at Taslima Nasreen on FTB. She’s a prime example. But just because I disagree with those specific feminists does not mean I throw out feminism. Feminism is not, as a rule, against sex work. In fact, I find that the vast majority of feminists I know, both online and offline, are more than happy to welcome, listen to, and consider, the voices of sex workers in the discussion of sex work overall, and support it as a profession even if they have issues with aspects of it that absolutely do need to be changed.
I’m a humanist, an egalitarian, and all of that. But I’m a feminist first and foremost because a) women simply haven’t achieved the total equality that feminism was started to fight for in the first place, b) the religio-biblical patriarchy that enforces traditional gender roles is the source of most of men’s problems in this society (they stem entirely from the idea that the husband is the breadwinner, the woman is the homemaker), and c) even if b was not the case, my experience is that feminists (the ones I know, at least) are doing more for men’s rights than the MRM (that I’ve experienced).
This is already very long, but I’m trying to include everything, here.
So I’m going to end this post with some questions for you, Joseph.
1. Do you believe that “no” always means “no”, and there will never be a situation in which “no” will mean “yes”?
2. Do you believe, in lieu of that, that a woman is allowed to change her mind during the act of sex (at any point during it, including foreplay), and if she does, it has then changed from consensual sex to rape?
And let me go ahead and answer the question I know you’ll ask me, here. I fully accept that some rape accusations are false. And I do not agree that post-sex regret means the sex was rape.
“False accusation!” and “(s)he just regrets it after the fact!” are entirely-too-common forms of victim blaming when someone is raped. Everyone, from the accused party to the average Joe, will throw these in to other things like “what was (s)he wearing?” and “what kind of person was (s)he?” (this last one is especially common in the case of prison rape, so it’s way of blaming male victims of rape who are in jail for other alleged crimes) and so on. That’s why talking about actual cases of this is so fucking hard… because the well’s been poisoned, as it were, by people accusing actual victims of rape of lying or regretting a consensual act. Thus, some people assume that the person who’s been accused of rape is guilty, even if (s)he’s not, because of how many times the “false accusation” charge has been used… well… falsely. In other words, the “innocent ‘til proven guilty” is fully in play, here, in that we’re assuming that the victim is innocent of lying until it’s proven that they were lying.”
(Note: never forget that there are generally two parties in a court case… thus, assuming that the defendant is “innocent until proven guilty” means you have to assume that the plaintiff is “guilty until proven innocent” of lying [the opposite, of course, is also true]. And you can’t get out of this because the latter is the logical consequence of the former; believing one causes the assumption of the other.)
So on to the rest of the questions…
3. Do you agree that someone under the influence of drugs is not in a state of mind that allows for decisions like whether or not they want to have sex, and as such, taking advantage of that person and having sex with them is rape? (Please note the lack of gender specificity, here… it’s done on purpose.)
4. Can men be raped by women?
I should note that I’m asking you this because in my experience, with MRAs, largely the MRAs I’ve known offline, the answer is “no. Woman cannot rape men.”
5. Can husbands be stay-at-home dads while women have careers without hurting the family in any way?
6. Can a man enjoying working with children and not harbor any pedophile tendencies whatsoever?
7. Is it possible for men to be at fault in a divorce, thus making the alimony he has to pay justified?
8. In lieu of your answer to 7, which do you think is more common: divorce being the husband’s fault, or divorce being the wife’s fault?
9. Do you believe that there are situations in which a woman is/would be obligated to have sex with you, regardless of whether she wants to or not?
10. If you are a humanitarian/egalitarian as you say, then why identify with the MRM? Why not eschew both labels in favor “humanist” and/or “egalitarian”?
11. As a continuation of question 10, isn’t the MRM as man-centric as feminism is (supposedly) woman-centric?
I turn the floor over to you, Joseph…