I'm in a quandry here because I really don't want to give this misogynous/homophobic document any more publicity than it already has, but I find it very difficult to accept the manipulation of statistics and the blatant anti-female rhetoric of "The Men's Manifesto" as published by The Men's Defense Association. While I realize it will be impossible for me to make those who preach this garbage to even consider alternative possibilities, perhaps those who stumble on this site first and opt to continue reading this misogynous treatise will do so with a more open mind. So here goes.
The author of the manifesto is one Richard A. Doyle. Apparently, Mr. Doyle served in the Korean War and came home to find his wife had fallen in love with someone else. She sued for divorce and was awarded custody of their children. Apparently his anger and sense of betrayal at what his ex-wife had done are still unresolved. He claims that the court system is biased AGAINST men and seems to think it is a conspiracy of women,the welfare system, the judicial system and even Congress itself to take away the rights of every man and turn them into God knows what. He went on to found a group to "protect" the rigths of men in divorce cases that is now known as The Men's Defense Association (hereafter referred to as MDA). While he states that the position of the MDA is not anti-women, but pro-justice, his arguments that follow tend to show exactly the opposite in my humble opinion.
According to Mr. Doyle, the discrimination against men in this day and age is "vastly greater" than the discrimination against women and calls the assertion of the opposite point of view a "bizarre hoax." (The Men's Manifesto (hereafter referred to as TMM), p.2) He apparently supports the notion that "western women are the most pampered creatures on earth, like sacred cows."(TMM, p.2) His bone of contention, from what I can gather, is that no one is talking about men's rights. That the focus today is on women's rights and children's rights. Well, perhaps if Mr. Doyle would just take a moment to think, he'd realize that such a discourse is not really necessary. Why? BECAUSE MEN HAD ALL THE RIGHTS TO BEGIN WITH AND WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND MINORITIES ARE SIMPLY SEEKING THEIR OWN EQUAL RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is obvious that Mr. Doyle supports clearly defined gender roles, as evidenced in his statement "...witness the many actresses clumsily playing tough cops and other male roles." [Italics mine.](TMM, p.2) He goes on to claim that males have achieved the greastest accomplishments in any society. Sadly, that is true. BUT...it is not for the reasons Mr. Doyle seems to think: namely, that testosterone drives men to be more successful than women. (TMM, p.7) The ability to produce great works of art, scientific breakthroughs and ingenious inventions is directly proportional to the amount of liesure time one has. That is why, for example, no great inventions have come from indigenous tribes that are still "hunter/gatherers". They simply do not have the time to "waste" on idle thought when so much time and energy must be devoted to simple survival. So it has been with women since the dawn of time. Men were sent to school and then on to institutions of higher learning. Women were kept at home and taught how to sew, cook, weave cloth, make soap, etc. Men were given the opportunity to expand their horizons. Women were not. Most women never even learned how to read until the last 100 years or so.
Mr. Doyle believes that the distinction between the two sexes is necessary. Yet at the same time, he decries the building of a special memorial to women who died in VietNam. Apparently he either thinks their lives were not worth remembering or that they should be happy to include themselves in the MEN's memorial. He seems to insinuate that women are being overdemanding by asking for their own memorial. But he seems to forget that the reason more women didn't die in combat is that the policy of the US military then, and today, is that women are NOT ALLOWED to go into battle as infantry. Had they been so allowed, the disparity in numbers of dead between the two sexes would not be near as great as it is now. Why should those women that died in VietNam have any less of a memorial than the men simply because the government wouldn't let them make that ultimate sacrifice by keeping them out of direct combat???
Mr. Doyle goes on to complain that 660% more money is spent on breast care research than on prostate cancer despite the fact that they kill equal numbers of people per year. However, he falsely claims that breast cancer is "the one cancer that kills women." (TMM, p.2) Breast cancer, while rare, does appear in men. And while women do not get prostate cancer, it seems to me that men are not as prone to seek or follow medical advice with respect to exams to detect prostate cancer. The majority of men I know have said time and time again that they would rather die of prostate cancer than undergo the rectal exam that is part of the detection process for the disease. On the other hand, women have shown themselves willing to go for mammograms and to undergo the surgery that is sometimes required. The argument that the rectal exam is humiliating is a lame one and is simply a matter of the over-inflated pride and ego. Gynecological exams, until very recently, almost always at the hands of a male doctor, are much more invasive and "degrading" (for lack of a better word) than a rectal exam. So if men are not willing to be tested or to undergo the surgery, why should the medical field waste it's money seeking a cure that will never be used???
I must admit that when it comes to matters like father-son banquets or all male clubs, I see no problem with them AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT RECEIVING ANY GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF ANY KIND!!! I am a Cub Scout den leader and what used to be "father-son" camping trips has, out of necessity, had to become "parent-son" camping trips. Not only because of divorce and an absent father, but because of conflicting working schedules. If women want to be able to have all ladies clubs, men should be entitled to have all men's clubs.
As for the sports issue, I'm not sure how it works but rather than give each gender team the same amount, it should be based on interest, not only of the participants but of the fans. To force a school to fund a sport that will simply drain its already limited funds simply because there is a similar sport for the other agenda is taking it a bit too far. There has to be some degree of compromise and if there isn't enough interest to field a team or enough fan participation to allow the team to at least break even, then the school should have the right to drop the sport for that gender. As for women participating in men's sports, if the woman can keep up with the men, then she should be allowed to join the team. If special training is required because she is a woman, she should not. But the opposite should not hold true. Men should NOT be allowed to join women's sports for the simple reason that men are more physically ...capable?...than women. The world's fastest female marathoner will most likely never match the time of the world's fastes male marathoner. The Olympics prove this every year. Men's times are always faster, their jumps higher or longer....Men would have an unfair advantage over women if they joined women's sports. Besides, what are the men upset about if a woman places herself at a disadvantage by competing on men's teams?
As for allowing women into men's locker rooms after the games, it is men's games that receive the lion's share of television covereage. The male participants in these sports know that a woman reporter might be coming into the locker room, yet still insist on disrobing and showering right away rather than give interviews and then take their shower. Women could do the same thing, so men should be allowed to go into women's locker rooms after games. But if the truth be told, how many men really ask??? How many TV news stations run interviews with the professional women's basketball players?
Phew!!!! That is the end of page 2! Now on to page 3!!! ;-)
Page 3 deals with employment. Of course, Mr. Doyle is against affirmative action. And if you're talking about hiring a less qualified person because of race or gender, I'd have to agree with him. But if we're talking about equally qualified persons and both need the job (as opposed to wanting it to alleviate boredom), then the job goes to the minority, be it a woman, black, hispanic, etc. Why should we be select a canditate because of race or gender? Because it is easier for the non-minority to get another job than it is for the minority.
According to Mr. Doyle, "our combat forces are too watered down with women to be effective." (P. 3, TMM) Women statistically make better fighter pilots than men. Since women are not allowed on the front lines as infantry, I'm not sure what Mr. Doyle is referring to. Women also statistically make better organizers and the task of choreographing the supplies and deliveries to combat troops is better accomplished by women. (It should be remembered that men are usually the drivers, so if the supplies don't get there, perhaps it's because they didn't want to stop and ask directions???? LOLOL-- just kidding.)
Mr. Doyle also seems to think that government and business have been hindered by women. Is he proposing that women entrust the lawmaking policies of this country (ie, Congress and the White House) to men? And let men decide the fate of the entire population, which is more than half women? Let him try to think of letting all women determine what the laws regarding men's issues would be like. Would he tolerate it? Then why should women have to tolerate it? We have been forced to tolerate it for too long, requiring a constitutional amendment to give women the right to vote, which is something that should have never been necessary. It takes both a man and a woman to create a baby, which means that both have equal responsibility for carrying on the human race. It follows that they should have equal responsibility for creating the laws that govern that race.
Mr. Doyle denies that women have ever been discriminated against in the employment market. In a way, he is right. There has been no discrimination when it comes to menial tasks like cleaning ladies and maids and factory workers. But when it comes to the power positions, the decision making, women have been and continue to be the victims of a male dominated power structure bent on maintaining that control. The proverbial "glass ceiling" does exist. Mr. Doyle denies that the fact that women earning 72¢ on every dollar a man makes proves discrimination. He complains that we're comparing the money a beautician or a factory worker makes compared to the salaries of the big wheeler dealers. Which proves my point that women ARE discriminated against in the higher echelons of management.
I must disagree with his contention that men have greater natural motivation, but I will have to agree with a greater natural aggression. It is hard to get motivated when one is not only responsible for doing her job out of the house, but also for doing the housework and childrearing after coming home or before going to work. There are admittedly some men who share equally the household tasks, but overwhelmingly, women who work outside the home also perform the lion's share of domestic chores too.
Mr. Doyle asserts that men prepare themselves better educationally then women. However, until recently (meaning in the last hundred years), most colleges refused to admit women. The knowledge that many men possess regarding work was passed down to them from their working fathers before them. And while Mr. Doyle also asserts that women, at their option, do not choose to pursue a career full time, talk to almost any married woman and ask her how much child care costs and how willing her husband was to stay home and take care of the children all day. I have a degree in civil engineering and had the potential to make at least twice what my ex-husband was earning as a mechanic. But when we chose to have children, he did not want to stay home and take care of the kids all day and clean the house and do the laundry and prepare the meals every day, seven days a week, 24 hours a day. He didn't want to be tied down to the home that long. So while women SAY they choose not to have a career, what choice do they really have? If they try to force the man to stay home, he might simply leave her high and dry with the kids to take care of.
Mr. Doyle, getting a bit off the topic, asks what would happen if in divorce court, affirmative action were applied and as many men were awarded custody of their children as women. First of all, it will never happen. And NOT because there is a conspiracy against men out there. But because MOST MEN DON'T WANT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF BEING THE SINGLE CUSTODIAL PARENT!!!!! I have many friends who are divorced and of those friends, only one ex-husband has custody of one of his daughters (and not because the mother didn't want her daughter with her, but because the daughter chose to live with her father) and only one shares equal custody of their children, each parent having them 3 1/2 days a week. Speaking from personal experience, my ex-husband has the opportunity to see his children as often as he wants, especially now that he's laid off work. But the ONLY time he sees them for extra time is at holidays. He does not call, he does not come to their school functions, their scouting functions, their parent-teacher conferences. He does not contribute to the counselling they are undergoing as a result of the divorce. He does not call them in between his visitations unless it is to remind them to do something for his step-daughter. He has recently told me he can no longer afford to give me child support since he is laid off. But he is paying the bills that he and his new family have. From my own personal experience and that of the divorced (and even married) women I know, most men want to be with their kids when it is convenient for them and when it doesn't interfere with the plans they already have. If so, then the men let the mothers take care of the kids. And the men who DO seek custody of their kids, in ALL of the cases with my friends and family, the reason has not been because they are concerned for the kids but because they are angry at their ex-wife and are seeking to hurt her by taking away her children. In other words, they seek custody out of spite.
End of page three. Taking another break to clean my sons' room. (And charging them a per hour rate because they had been told to do so a week before they went for their biweekly visit to their fathers. Since they didn't do it and I can't legally keep them from him without facing a possible contempt order, I'm doing it and charging them.)
Now on to page four. Well, on second thought, I'm going to skip most of page four. It deals with the prison system, which is in complete need of a MAJOR overhaul. The disparity with which men and women are treated in prison is the least of the problems facing this outdated, barbaric system of "rehabilitation". I do want to address a few points Mr. Doyle raises. He seems to insinuate that the women who murder their husbands in self-defense are basically lying. (have to run to the school...be back later!)
OK...I'm back...now where was I???
This following quote really got under my skin. "The courts jail male repeat offenders for life for stealing a few hundred dollars, or for rape with no physical harm and far less mental harm than that suffered by many men in divorce." (p.4, TMM) I literally reached for the computer screen and tried to reach through cyberspace and shake Mr. Doyle violently, yelling, "HOW CAN YOU RAPE SOMEONE AND CAUSE NO PHYSICAL HARM????????????????????????" The very act of rape is physically invasive and causes physical harm. Perhaps Mr. Doyle is talking about not only being raped, but stabbed, beaten, bruised or otherwise maimed as well. As for the mental harm suffered by men in divorce cases, I have very rarely seen it. My ex had a new girlfriend less than a month after we had decided to file for divorce. He hadn't even filed yet. He made no fight to get custody of the kids and was relieved that I wanted to keep them with me. I've yet to see a man who has suffered mental anguish at the hands of the court system when going throught a divorce. I know men who are angry that they have to support their children, but I don't consider that mental harm. Just pride and selfishness.
Mr. Doyle goes on to assert that men are the victims of violence more than women. This might be true, but who is committing the violence against men? I'd be willing to bet that while a majority of women suffer at the hands of men, the majority of male victims of violence are NOT victims of women. Mr. Doyle was correct in saying that testosterone makes males more aggressive, and often that aggressiveness comes out as violence. I'd be willing to bet that the most men are victims of other men, much the same as women.
I'd like to know what statistics were manipulated to come up with the assertion that female partners and wives are just as likely to initiate violence as male partners and husbands. I guess maybe when a woman slaps a man's face for some rude comment or unacceptable behavior, that's considered starting the violence? It's the only way I can think of to come up with any sort of support for that statement.
Women are far more likely to abuse children (especially boys) and the elderly? Well, let's put it this way. If someone plays strikes 100 matches around a stack of fireworks and someone else strikes even 25, who is more likely to set off the fireworks??? Historically, women have spent most of their time in the home and have had to endure the endless rigors of childrearing and caring for the elderly than men have. If men spent as much time in the home, caring for colicky kids, parents with dementia who need to have their diapers changed, rebellious teens and screaming toddlers as women did, I'd bet the rate of male abusers would far exceed women abusers. That's not a justification for abuse, but an explanation of why the numbers may be like they are. Nor do we know what Mr. Doyle considers abuse. I'd venture a guess that the degree of severity of the abuse by women is MUCH less than that suffered at the hands of men. Not always, I'm sure. But in a majority of the cases, I'd be willing to bet it is.
Women are more violent than men????? Got me on that one too. But since that statement is from the same source as the one about women initiating more violence than men, I guess the same arguements could apply.
Women are more dangerous because they use weapons more. Since most women are far overmatched when faced with a male attacker, it is understandable why they are more inclined to use a weapon. However, they are not necessarily more dangerous simply because they possess the weapon. Only if they use it recklessly do they become more dangerous. OK...I will admit that they are more dangerous to their attacker if they have a weapon.
Violence by women is increasing because they are using violence against their attackers. Violence by men is decreasing (so the source says) because they have begun to realize that women are not just gonna sit back and take it without a fight.
The next issue Mr. Doyle deals with is child abuse. Again, I ask, why on the punishment section where the punishment is never mentioned? Hiding perhaps? So someone misses his lame explanations??? Only one percent of child abuse involved behavior that the PUBLIC considers abusive???????? SO WHAT???????? Public opinion is NEVER a good measure for what is right!!!!! If that were the case, slavery would have continued; women would still not have the right to vote and blacks would still be in segregated schools. I'd be interested to see the breakdown of gender/age/race when determining what is abusive and what is not abusive.
67% of claims are unfounded? What does unfounded mean? No hard evidence? That does NOT mean it doesn't happen...just that whoever is doing it is tricky enough to hide all the signs. Children's rights are SORELY underrepresented in courts and the judicial system as well as society on the whole.
As for harassment suits, I agree some, maybe even most, are probably for financial reasons. But there are some situations where a lawsuit is the ONLY way to make a man stop his harassment of a woman. Mr. Doyle lets his true colors, and his political motivations, show when he says that the Anita Hill testimony was an attempt to deny a "patently decent conservative" a seat on the Supreme Court. I wonder if a liberal had been up for the nomination if Mr. Doyle's protests would have been as loud.
Whew!!!! And I said there wasn't much to comment on on page four! See how wrong one can be? But at least I'm willing to admit it. ;-)
This is getting way too long, so I'm gonna have to create another page for the rest. Many more pages if this keeps up! LOL.