History
The men's rights movement emerged from the men's liberation movement which appeared in the first half of the 1970s when some men began to study feminist ideas and politics. Early men's liberationists acknowledged men's institutional power and saw feminism as a necessary movement to address women's unequal status. At the same time they stressed the costs of traditional masculinity and the harm of the male gender role. In the mid- to late 1970s the men's liberation movement split into two separate strands with opposing views: The pro-feminist men's movement and an antifeminist men's rights movement. Men's rights activists have since then rejected feminist principles and focused on perceived disadvantages of men and what they see as evidence of men's oppression.
The men's rights movement is generally understood as a backlash or countermovement to feminism. The men's rights movement consists of diverse points of view which are hostile toward feminist ideas. Men's rights activists believe that feminism has overshot its objective and harmed men. They dispute that men as a group have institutional power and privilege and instead see men as the real victims, arguing that men are disadvantaged relative to women. Men's rights activists see men as an oppressed collective and agree that society and government have been "feminized" by the women's movement. 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. Men's rights groups generally reject the notion that feminism is interested in men's problems and some activists view the women's movement as a conspiracy which aims at concealing discrimination against men. Men's rights activists co-opted the feminist rhetoric of "rights" and "equality" in their discourse, framing custody issues, for instance, as a matter of basic civil rights. The plea for "equal rights for fathers" is frequently accompanied by a rhetoric of children's "needs" which helps deflect criticism that the rhetoric is motivated by self-interest.
The men's rights movement includes a wide variety of individuals and organizations, both united and divided in various ways on specific issues. Some groups are formally organized or incorporated, while others are casual alliances or the work of a few individuals.
One of the first major men's rights organizations was the Coalition of American Divorce Reform Elements, founded in 1971, from which the Men's Rights Association spun off in 1973. 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 Men (now known as the National Coalition for Men). Men's Rights, Inc. was also formed in 1977. In Israel, the Man's Rights in the Family Party is headed by Yaakov Schlusser, who argues against equality of the sexes for fear boys will become homosexuals and that custody should automatically be given to fathers before being examined by courts. Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF) was founded in 2005 that in 2011 claimed to have approximately 4,000 registered members.
Read more about this topic: Men's Rights Movement
Famous quotes containing the word history:
“There has never been in history another such culture as the Western civilization M a culture which has practiced the belief that the physical and social environment of man is subject to rational manipulation and that history is subject to the will and action of man; whereas central to the traditional cultures of the rivals of Western civilization, those of Africa and Asia, is a belief that it is environment that dominates man.”
—Ishmael Reed (b. 1938)
“Let us not underrate the value of a fact; it will one day flower in a truth. It is astonishing how few facts of importance are added in a century to the natural history of any animal. The natural history of man himself is still being gradually written.”
—Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)
“Postmodernism is, almost by definition, a transitional cusp of social, cultural, economic and ideological history when modernism’s high-minded principles and preoccupations have ceased to function, but before they have been replaced with a totally new system of values. It represents a moment of suspension before the batteries are recharged for the new millennium, an acknowledgment that preceding the future is a strange and hybrid interregnum that might be called the last gasp of the past.”
—Gilbert Adair, British author, critic. Sunday Times: Books (London, April 21, 1991)