Femenists want to make masculinity a hate crime.

[Lincoln]

Men's groups promoting hatred, federal report says

A federally funded report says "masculinists" are orchestrating a backlash against feminism and blaming women for oppressing and discriminating against men.

The report's authors claim that masculinists portray men as victims and link feminism with boys' poor performance in schools, male suicide, loss of male identity and discriminatory divorce and child custody laws.

"A process of levelling the power relationships of men over women is taking hold, not only to mask continued inequality but also to attack some of the gains made by the women's movement," says the $75,000 report, School Success by Gender: A Catalyst for the Masculinist Discourse.

The report says "masculinist discourse" aims to discredit feminism and challenge the gains made by women in education, at work and in family life.

The report was written in response to a call from Status of Women Canada, a federal department, to research the subject: "Where have all the women gone? Changing shifts in policy discourses."

A disclaimer on the front of the report says, "This document expresses the views of the author and does not necessarily represent the official policy of Status of Women Canada or the Government of Canada."

Among the report's recommendations is that an organization similar to Hate Watch be established to monitor men's groups on the Web, that inciting hatred on the basis of gender should be a hate crime and that women's groups establish a network to counter the masculinists' views.

Men's groups listed in an appendix to the report said they were outraged at being "smeared."

Ken Wiebe, from British Columbia, said his Web site, fathers.bc.ca, was set up as a resource centre for fathers who have had trouble in the divorce courts. He denied it promotes hatred of women and said it demands equality.

"There is no question that I have very little patience for feminists, especially the radical variety of feminism here in Canada," he said. "But I have a wife, I have daughters. This notion that because we are opposed to the feminists' political agenda, that that somehow equates to a dislike of women, is just propaganda. That's some kind of smear campaign."

Mickey MacMillan, of Kamloops Parents of Broken Families, said he was angry at being put on the "hit list." "All I've ever done is advocate for equal parenting," said Mr. MacMillan, who represented Canada as a boxer in the 1962 Commonwealth Games.

"I have no agenda against women. I don't like feminists because I think they're radical and I think they're against men, but I don't think they should try to criminalize me. And my government paying for it, it is a disgrace."

Jim Hodgins, of the Canadian Committee for Fairness in Family Law in Ontario, which is on the report's list but does not have a Web site, said, "I think there is a serious need to look into why the government is funding this."

In an interview with the National Post yesterday, the main author of the report, Pierrette Bouchard, a professor in the education department at Université Laval, said she was surprised at what she found on the Web sites.

"At first, I thought, Well, these are just a few small fringe groups, it's not important. But eventually, I found that there were more of them than I thought and that they had a large network on the Internet, through which they are disseminating their views. That does bother me. It was very surprising.

"In conducting this research, we found attacks on feminists on a lot of sites. We were only reflecting what we saw on their sites.

"I have a feminist perspective, but just because I am a feminist, does not mean that I am incapable of seeing that boys are having certain difficulties. Nor do I put all men in the same basket. Not all men are like those I identified in the report."

She defined masculinists as activists within certain men's groups. Ms. Bouchard and the report's two other authors, her research assistants, Isabelle Boily, and Marie-Claude Proulx, began by studying how "masculinists" used the media to portray the phenomenon of boys being less successful in school than girls.

"However, circumstances led us to examine various masculinists discourses, of which school success or achievement is only one," it says.

It notes articles in the media went from discussing girls' "triumphant breakthrough" in the 1990s to placing the emphasis on boys' "malaise." The authors blame the media for spreading the masculinists misinformation. They say men's groups view feminism as a movement to oppress and discriminate against men.

© Copyright 2003 National Post

http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?
id=C78F1D80-FDE6-4715-8113-3EB1589B30B2

=================================

Well what do you all think about this?

[JohnT]

No problem, as long as we can make feminism a hate crime.

[Lincoln]

Yeah, good idea. We can all go to jail together!

[Jac de Molay]

Well what do you all think about this?

I think feminism is still an empowering movement. It's the wackos who claim all sex is really rape and such nonsense that discredit a legitimate and positive movement.

[loinburger]

I think it's telling that the report apparently says something to the effect that

Among the report's recommendations is that an organization similar to Hate Watch be established to monitor men's groups on the Web, that inciting hatred on the basis of gender should be a hate crime and that women's groups establish a network to counter the masculinists' views.

...and that the author defends this by saying...

"In conducting this research, we found attacks on feminists on a lot of sites."

Does this mean that disliking radical feminism is equivalent to mysoginy?

Bullshit.

[JohnT]

Wait: they went to the net to find whacko's and they are shocked that they found some?

Fools.

[Spiffor]

I wonder whe the American political system will understand that lobbies and pressure groups sometimes are completely irrelevant and should be generally laughed at (and heftily fined if they waste the judiciary's time).

That will be great.

I hope these ultra-feminist cretins are discredited even more than they are now. I'm no friends with masculinism either, but I don't think either group should go to jail. However, both groups should chill and have some sex, it'll do them much good.

[Arrian]

Canadian political system, Spiff.

-Arrian

[Lincoln]

The report is from Canada Spiffor. We don't have those kind of nutty people down here...

[Arrian]

@ Lincoln.

-Arrian

[monkspider]

Originally posted by JohnT
No problem, as long as we can make feminism a hate crime.

I have been saying this for a long time here. Modern feminism is the KKK of our generation.

[JohnT]

Monkspider agrees with me!!

:drops dead:

[monkspider]

Originally posted by JohnT
Monkspider agrees with me!!

:drops dead:

You shouldn't be so surprised actually. As a commie, besides finding much of it to be supremely hateful and bigoted, I find it to be very divisive and contrary to the goals of socialism.

[Arrian]

He's dead, Jim.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's not THAT bad . Radical feminism is, but not everything is radical feminism .

[JohnT]

So says Apolytons Radical Feminist.

How the womyn treating you, Immy?

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's not THAT bad . Radical feminism is, but not everything is radical feminism .

It's pretty bad actually. I find that people tend to cut them quite a bit of slack for their past successes and I suppose that is natural. But consider this, just because there are KKK members who may believe that African-Americans are *almost* equal (or even, a scant few who would say they were actually equal) to whites, does that justify the movement as a whole? I would have to say no.

Worst of all, feminism is a movement that divides humanity into seperate groups. One thing we must learn to overcome is this "us and them" mentality and learn to treat each other with compassion regardless of what genitals we are born with.

[Imran Siddiqui]

All of them?

[Lorizael]

Radical anything is bad. Feminism is just the idea that women are people too.

[Spiffor]

Sorry, Candian system.
Well, it's the same. Our democracies tend to be way too tolerant to ignorant lobbyism / judiciary activism, and to either give it satisfaction or to let it get away with it. It is spineless and it sucks.

I hope a few responsible citizens will create an association to sue these radical feminists for whatever wrong they have done during their life. That'll teach them

Please notice that I am rather fond of reasonable feminism though, i.e the women who want to give an end to discrimination through intelligent means, not the hysterical wenches who believe sex=rape.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's pretty bad actually. I find that people tend to cut them quite a bit of slack for their past successes and I suppose that is natural. But consider this, just because there are KKK members who may believe that African-Americans are *almost* equal (or even, a scant few who would say they were actually equal) to whites, does that justify the movement as a whole? I would have to say no.

You're NUTS! As Lorizael said, feminism is just the idea that women are people too! MOST (as in 90%) of feminists simply want equality in the workforce and more CEOs and elected representatives be women. I see nothing wrong with that.

What you are doing is confusing radical feminists with mainstream feminists. To compare them to the KKK is to lose touch with reality.

[monkspider]

You're NUTS! As Lorizael said, feminism is just the idea that women are people too! MOST (as in 90%) of feminists simply want equality in the workforce and more CEOs and elected representatives be women. I see nothing wrong with that.

Of course there is nothing wrong with the things you mention. But now that women have achieved at least relative equality or better, the movement has become nothing more than a means for them to achieve more power, or matriarcal oppression to use their syntax. It is divisive, and bad. I believe all humans should be equal regardless of their gender. I think you have confused today's feminism with old-school feminism, my friend.

If you believe the feminism of today is genuinely trying to make the world a better place, rather than just gain more power, then I suggest you get in touch with reality. Such a notion is nothing more than empty-headed idealism.

[Tingkai]

First off this is one woman's opinion.

The other thing to remember is that a lot of these men's groups are driven by anger, some of it justified, but anger nonetheless.

They go about making stupid statements like:"I have no agenda against women. I don't like feminists."

Well obviously the guy has an agenda against the women who are feminist so he's making a contradictory statement. He doesn't know how to communicate his opinions.

What does he mean when he says he doesn't like feminists. Is he against the feminists who simply believe that women should be treated the same as men?

Is there any validity in the report? I went to Parents of Broken Families website that was mentioned in the report.
http://www.parentsofbrokenfamilies.com/unruh/index.htm

At first it looked pretty harmless and it raised some fair points, but then there was a bit about some guy name Jeffrey James Unruh.

The first webpage says this:
"Jeffery Unruh has been unemployed yet the family court decided to impute an income based on "average male income" of a man in B.C. Notice that the legislation refers to "Average Male Income to impute an income. If he does not pay it because he is unable or otherwise the "Family Court" sends him to jail."
"His wife has denied him access to the children yet the court imposes no sanction on her."
"Generally the fathers are victims of vindictive child abusing mothers who deny access and use the prejudice in the corrupt family court to turn loving fathers into imates of jails."

The woman sounds greedy and evil.

But there's also a link to a Kamloops newspaper story that says:
Unruh, 42, was cited with contempt of court and jailed indefinitely Wednesday because he refuses to pay. He was ordered in 1996 to pay $300 a month for each of his five children, plus $500 a month in spousal support.

Unruh claims his Christian beliefs do not allow him to abide by the court order, as he believes only God governs marriages and families.
...
Aside from his religious conviction, Unruh also says he won’t pay because the family justice system is unnecessarily adversarial and pits parents against each other, to the detriment of children. He says he harbours no animosity to his ex-wife and is willing to support his children whenever they live with him.

A local men’s advocacy group has promised to support Unruh in his fight. Mickey Mac Millan, the president of Parents of Broken Families, said his group will mount a letter-writing campaign, a petition drive and possibly courthouse protests.
----

This seems more like a case of stupid men rather than hate.

Edit: and this Unruh guy is an *******. He says he only willing to support the kids when they live with him. What a great dad.

[Ned]

This is just more of "for every action there is a reaction." What disturbs me about the "report" is the recommendation that free speech be turned into a hate crime. Has Canada nothing equivalent to the 1st Amendment in its constitution?

[Lancer]

If masculinity is a hate crime, then all successful women sports figures are guilty.

[Japher]

I have very little experience with feminism, radical or otherwise, yet I find the retaliation of creating a similar male version of such groups juvinile. The same way I would never insist that their be a Anglo-American club at school to counter the African-American clubs...

I do think it is a little disturbing when men are still expected to behave like "gentlemen" around "women" when they wish for this "equality". I always get looked at weird if I don't hold a door open for a women, give her my seat on the BART, or make direct eye contact at all times when working with them... I treat women with the same amount of disrespect as I do everyone else on this planet, if they can't handle it then F'em... and if a group of men want to whine about in return, then F'em too..

[Spiffor]

Monkspider:
My former roommate was a feminist, and I had quite a few serious discussions with spike feminists back when I was in the European Parliament.

To say there is a relative equality between men and women is true on many points, but completely overlooks several points :

- the woman's image is still widely associated with sex. Sexist ads still are galore, and are way more sexist towards women than towards men (same for porn, in which women manage to be even more disgraced than men).

- Women still do much more work at home than men. The trend of more household-equality, after being a fashion for some time, has become extremely slow. Feminists have to mobilize both men and women to understand equality.


Besides, feminist groups now include many men, and no, they aren't all gays . I remember the last meeting at ym party, where I decided to take part in a feminist debate : there were (slightly) more men, and they always talked to the point we wondered if we shouldn't do some affirmative action for the women present

[Lincoln]

:"I have no agenda against women. I don't like feminists."

A femenists is not necessarily a woman. Just ask Imran.

[Lancer]

Spiffor, that's why liberal men join such groups, they figure they'll get laid. In fact, what they didn't figure on is that those women are all lesbians. So, they start bopping each other, and that's why you have so many gay liberals.

[Spiffor]

Japher :
I open the door to men and women equally Well, granted, I tend to open the door more to women, because I just love opening the door to old people, who happen to be generally women.