Mens' rights advocates often have a general idea of the problems associated with gender roles, but as TJ (aka The Amazing Atheist) points out... the overall concept flies over their heads.
The specific issues that are brought up by MRA's that supposedly disempower males are usually actually further evidence that patriarchy is still alive and well within our country.
To put gender issues into context, you must first realize what patriarchy is. It's instilled attitudes towards both genders which ultimately favor male domination. With the set notion that females are weaker, it's actually no surprise that when domestic abuse is caused by the woman, it's not taken as seriously. The main role of the woman in society is to be the damsel in distress and when the helpless damsel ends up being the abuser then the male victim is more likely to be seen as weak and/ or the issue isn't taken with proper consideration. This idea of the dominating/ strong male is also another reason why patriarchy plays as a disadvantage to homosexuals. Sexism = Homophobia.
So yes... when a man takes on the role of being submissive, weak, indecisive (all traits to which a patriarchal society lends to the female gender) then he is indeed disadvantaged because patriarchy seeks to keep male domination intact. When the courts side more often with women in child custody battles it's because the general attitude is that women belong more so at home raising the child (while the male should be out making the money to support his family).
As for the issue which TJ brings up with circumcision, I would argue that that's more of a childs' rights issue. Societies have plenty of overlapping domination structures and one of them is the nonconsensual violence used against children (corporal punishment, circumcisions... etc).
While it is a nice thought that MRA's do recognize gender inequality and specific roles, the main basis for all these roles (patriarchy) is overlooked and therefor misunderstood.
No comments:
Post a Comment