According to the historian Judith Allen, Charlotte Perkins Gilman invented the term masculism in 1914,
when she gave a public lecture series in New York entitled "Studies in
Masculism". Apparently the printer did not like the term and tried to
change it. Allen writes that Gilman used masculism to refer to the opposition of misogynist
men to women's rights and, more broadly, to describe "men's collective
political and cultural actions on behalf of their own sex", or what Allen calls the "sexual politics of androcentric cultural discourses". Gilman referred to men and women who opposed women's suffrage as masculists—women who collaborated with these men were "Women Who Won't Move Forward"—and described World War I as "masculism at its worst".
Definition and scope
A Dictionary of Media and Communication (2011) defines masculinism (or masculism)
as "[a] male counterpart to feminism. [...] Like feminism, masculism
reflects a number of positions, from the desire for equal rights for men
(for example, in cases of child access after divorce), to more militant
calls for the total abolition of women's rights." According to Susan Whitlow in The Encyclopedia of Literary and Cultural Theory (2011), the terms are "used interchangeably across disciplines". Sociologist Robert Menzies wrote in 2007 that both terms are common in men's rights and anti-feminist
literature: "The intrepid virtual adventurer who boldly goes into these
unabashedly mascul(in)ist spaces is quickly rewarded with a torrent of
diatribes, invectives, atrocity tales, claims to entitlement, calls to
arms, and prescriptions for change in the service of men, children,
families, God, the past, the future, the nation, the planet, and all
other things non-feminist."
The gender-studies scholar Julia Wood describes masculinism
as an ideology asserting that women and men should have different roles
and rights owing to fundamental differences between them, and that men
suffer from discrimination and "need to reclaim their rightful status as
men". Sociologists Arthur Brittan and Satoshi Ikeda describe masculinism as an ideology justifying male domination in society.
Masculinism, according to Brittan, maintains that there is "a
fundamental difference" between men and women and rejects feminist
arguments that male–female relationships are political constructs.
The political scientist Georgia Duerst-Lahti distinguishes between masculism, which expresses the ethos of the early gender-egalitarian men's movement, and masculinism, which refers to the ideology of patriarchy. Sociologists Melissa Blais and Francis Dupuis-Déri describe masculism as a form of antifeminism; they equate masculist and masculinist, attributing the former to author Warren Farrell.
The most common term, they argue, is the "men's movement"; they write
that there is a growing consensus in the French-language media that the
movement should be referred to as masculiniste. Dupuis-Déri writes that members of the men's movement refer to themselves as both masculinist and masculist. According to Whitlow, masculinist theory such as Farrell's and that of gender-studies scholar R.W. Connell developed alongside third-wave feminism and queer theory, and was influenced by those theories' questioning of traditional gender roles and the meaning of terms such as man and woman.
Ferrel Christensen, a Canadian philosopher and president of the
former Alberta-based Movement for the Establishment of Real Gender
Equality,
writes that "Defining 'masculism' is made difficult by the fact that
the term has been used by very few people, and by hardly any
philosophers." He differentiates between "progressive masculists", who
welcome many of the societal changes promoted by feminists, while
believing that some measures to reduce sexism against women have
increased it against men, and an "extremist version" of masculism that
promotes male supremacy.
He argued that if masculism and feminism refer to the belief that
men/women are systematically discriminated against, and that this
discrimination should be eliminated, there is not necessarily a conflict
between feminism and masculism, and some assert that they are both.
However, many believe that one sex is more discriminated against, and
thus use one label and reject the other.
According to Bethany M. Coston and Michael Kimmel, members of the mythopoetic men's movement identify as masculinist. Nicholas Davidson, in The Failure of Feminism (1988), calls masculism
"virism": "Where the feminist perspective is that social ills are
caused by the dominance of masculine values, the virist perspective is
that they are caused by a decline of those values. ..." Christensen calls virism "an extreme brand of masculism and masculinism".
Sociologist Andreas Kemper
describes masculism as a variation of masculinism whose goal is to
oppose what its adherents see as female domination, making it
fundamentally anti-feminist.
Many masculists oppose co-educational schooling, believing that single-sex schools better promote the well-being of boys.
Data from the U.S. in 1994 reported that men suffer 94% of
workplace fatalities. Farrell has argued that men do a disproportionate
share of dirty, physically demanding, and hazardous jobs.
Masculists cite higher rates of suicide in men than women. Farrell expresses concern about violence against men being depicted as humorous, in the media and elsewhere.
They also express concern about violence against men being ignored or minimized in comparison to violence against women, asserting gender symmetry in domestic violence. Another of Farrell's concerns is that traditional assumptions of female innocence or sympathy for women, termed benevolent sexism, do lead to unequal penalties for women and men who commit similar crimes, to lack of sympathy for male victims in domestic violence cases when the perpetrator is female, and to dismissal of female-on-male sexual assault and sexual harassment cases.
A masculist approach to gender studies,
which have frequently focused on woman-based or feminist approaches,
examines oppression within a masculinist, patriarchal society from a
male standpoint. According to A Dictionary of Media and Communication
(2011), "Masculists reject the idea of universal patriarchy, arguing
that before feminism most men were as disempowered as most women.
However, in the post-feminist era they argue that men are in a worse
position because of the emphasis on women's rights."
South African masculinist evangelical movements
In the wake of the abolition of apartheid, South Africa saw a resurgence of masculinist Christian evangelical groups, led by the Mighty Men Conference (MMC) and the complementary Worthy Women Conference (WWC). The latter saw the development of what theologian Sarojini Nadar and psychologist Cheryl Potgeier call formenism: "Formenism,
like masculinism, subscribes to a belief in the inherent superiority of
men over women (in other words, only men can be leaders), but unlike
masculinism, it is not an ideology developed and sustained by men, but
one constructed, endorsed and sustained by women" [emphasis in original]. The Mighty Men movement harkens back to the Victorian idea of Muscular Christianity.
Feminist scholars argue that the movement's lack of attention to
women's rights and the struggle for racial equality makes it a threat to
women and to the stability of the country.
Scholar Miranda Pillay argues that the Mighty Men movement's appeal
lies in its resistance to gender equality as incompatible with Christian
values, and in raising patriarchy to a "hyper-normative status", beyond
challenge by other claims to power.
The Worthy Women Conference is an auxiliary to the MMC in advocating a belief in the inherent superiority of men over women. Its leader, Gretha Wiid,
blames South Africa's disorder on the liberation of women, and aims to
restore the nation through its families, making women again subservient
to men.
Her success is attributed to her balancing claims that God created the
gender hierarchy, but that women are no less valuable than men, and that restoration of traditional gender roles relieves existential anxiety in post-apartheid South Africa.
Many scholars describe the movement or parts of it as a backlash against feminism. As part of the manosphere, the movement, and sectors of the movement, have been described by scholars and commentators as misogynistic, hateful, and, in some cases, as advocating violence against women. In 2018, the Southern Poverty Law Center categorized some men's rights groups as being part of a hate ideology under the umbrella of male supremacy while stating that others "focused on legitimate grievances".
History
Forerunners
The term "men's rights" was used at least as early as February 1856 when it appeared in Putnam's Magazine.
The author was responding to the issue of women's rights, calling it a
"new movement for social reform, and even for political revolution",
which the author proposed to counter with men's rights. Ernest Belfort Bax wrote The Legal Subjection of Men
in 1896, deriding the women's rights movement as a farcical effort by
women—the "privileged sex"—to prove they were "oppressed."
Three loosely connected men's rights organizations formed in Austria in the interwar period. The League for Men's Rights was founded in 1926 with the goal of "combating all excesses of women's emancipation". In 1927, the Justitia League for Family Law Reform and the Aequitas World's League for the Rights of Men split from the League of Men's Rights. The three men's rights groups opposed women's entry into the labor market
and what they saw as the corrosive influence of the women's movement on
social and legal institutions. They criticized marriage and family
laws, especially the requirement to pay spousal and child support to
former wives and illegitimate children, and supported the use of blood tests to determine paternity. Justitia and Aequitas issued their own short-lived journals Men's Rightists Newspaper and Self-Defense where they expressed their views that were heavily influenced by the works of Heinrich Schurtz, Otto Weininger, and Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels. The organizations ceased to exist before 1939.
Split from men's liberation movement
Warren Farrell, a proponent of the men's rights movement
The modern men's rights movement emerged from the men's liberation movement, which appeared in the first half of the 1970s when scholars began to study feminist ideas and politics. These scholars acknowledged men's institutionalized power while critically examining the consequences of hegemonic masculinity, believing that both men and women suffered in a patriarchal society.
The men's liberation movement was led by psychologists who argued that
femininity and masculinity were socially formed behaviors and not the
result of genes.
They tried to balance the two ideas that men were responsible for
oppressing women, but also being oppressed themselves by strict gender
roles.
In the mid-1970s, this movement began to focus on the oppression of men and less on the effects of sexism on women. In the late 1970s, the movement split into two separate strands with opposing views: the pro-feminist men's movement and the anti-feminist men's rights movement, which sees men as an oppressed group.
In
the 1980s, the men's rights movement focused only on the ways that sex
roles discriminated against males rather than the oppression it
inflicted on both genders. Author Herb Goldberg
claimed that the U.S. was a "matriarchal society" because women have
the power to transgress gender roles and assume masculine and feminine
roles, while males are still constrained to the purely masculine role.
Reneé Blank and Sandra Slipp in 1994 compiled the testimonies of men
who believed they were discriminated against based on their sex and
race. This occurred in a time where women were entering the work force
and obtaining managerial positions.
A major concern of the men's rights movement has been the issue of fathers' rights.
In the 1980s and 1990s, men's rights activists opposed societal changes
sought by feminists and defended the patriarchal gender order in the
family, schools and the workplace. Sociologist Michael Kimmel
states that their earlier critiques of gender roles "morphed into a
celebration of all things masculine and a near infatuation with the
traditional masculine role itself".
Men's rights groups have formed in some European countries during periods of shifts toward conservatism and policies supporting patriarchal family and gender relations. In the United States, the men's rights movement has ideological ties to neoconservatism. Men's rights activists have received lobbying support from conservative organizations and their arguments have been covered extensively in neoconservative media.
The men's rights movement has become more vocal and more organized since the development of the Internet, where activists tend to congregate. Men's rights websites and forums have proliferated within the online manosphere. Paul Elam's site A Voice for Men (AVFM) functions as a central point of discussion and organization for men's rights issues. Other sites dedicated to men's rights are the Fathers Rights Foundation, MGTOW.com (Men Going Their Own Way), and several Reddit forums such as /r/MensRights and /r/TheRedPill. Men's rights proponents often use the red pill and blue pill metaphor from the film The Matrix to identify each other online;those who accept the idea that men are the oppressed victims of a misandrist society are said to have "taken the red pill". While some of the groups have adversarial relationships with one another, they tend to be united in their misogyny, promotion of masculinity, and opposition to feminism.
Antifeminism
Many scholars consider the men's rights movement a backlash or countermovement to feminism.
The men's rights movement generally incorporates points of view that reject feminist and profeminist ideas. Men's rights activists say feminism has radicalized its objective and harmed men. Men's rights activists believe that men are victims of feminism and "feminizing" influences in society, and that entities such as public institutions now discriminate against men.
Men's rights activists dispute that men as a group have institutional power and privilege and believe that men are victimized and disadvantaged relative to women, including in regard to what had been considered feminist concerns, such as domestic violence, pornography, prostitution, and sexism in mass media. Men's rights groups generally reject the notion that feminism is interested in men's problems,
and some men's rights activists have viewed the women's movement as a
plot to deliberately conceal discrimination against men and promote gynocentrism. Warren Farrell and Herb Goldberg have argued that women hold the true power in society through their roles as the primary caregivers of children, and that male power is an illusion.
Sociologist Michael Messner
states that the early men's rights movement "appropriates the
symmetrical language of sex roles" first used by feminists, which
implies a false balance of institutional power between men and women. Masculinities scholar Jonathan A. Allan
described the men's rights movement as a reactionary movement that is
defined by its opposition to women and feminism but has not yet
formulated its own theories and methodologies outside of antifeminism.
Topics
Men's rights proponents are concerned with a wide variety of matters,
some of which have spawned their own groups or movements, such as the fathers' rights movement, concerned specifically with divorce and child custody issues. Some, if not all, men's rights issues stem from gender roles and, according to sociologist Allan Johnson, patriarchy.
Adoption
Men's rights activists seek to expand the rights of unwed fathers in case of their child's adoption.
Warren Farrell argues that in failing to inform the father of a
pregnancy, an expectant mother deprives an adopted child of a
relationship with the biological father. He proposes that women be
legally required to make every reasonable effort to notify the father of
her pregnancy within four to five days.
In response, philosopher James P. Sterba agrees that, for moral
reasons, a woman should inform the father of the pregnancy and adoption,
but this should not be imposed as a legal requirement as it might
result in undue pressure, for example, to have an abortion.
Anti-dowry laws
Men's rights organizations such as Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF) say that women misuse legislation meant to protect them from dowry death and bride burnings. SIFF is a men's rights organization in India that focuses on abuse of anti-dowry laws against men. SIFF has campaigned to abolish Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which penalizes cruelty by husbands (and the husband's family) in pursuit of dowry or for driving a wife to suicide.SIFF states anti-dowry laws are regularly being abused to settle petty disputes in marriage and that they regularly receive calls from many men who allege their wives have used false dowry claims to imprison them.
Family law is an area of deep concern among men's rights groups. Men's rights adherents argue that the legal system and family courts discriminate against men, especially in regards to child custody after divorce.They believe that men do not have the same contact rights or equitable shared parenting rights as their ex-spouse and use statistics on custody awards as evidence of judicial bias against men.
Men's rights advocates seek to change the legal climate for men through
changes in family law, for example by lobbying for laws that make joint custody the default custody arrangement except in cases where one parent is unfit or unwilling to parent they have appropriated the feminist rhetoric of "rights" and "equality" in their discourse, framing child custody as a matter of basic civil rights.Men's rights activists argue that the lack of contact with their children makes fathers less willing to pay child support. Others cite the discredited parental alienation syndrome (PAS) or parental alienation
as a reason to grant custody to fathers; they claim that mothers
alienate children from their fathers and make false accusations of abuse
in order to seek revenge against fathers.
Scholars and critics assert that empirical research does not support the notion of a judicial bias against men
and that men's rights advocates distort statistics in a way that
ignores the fact that the majority of men do not seek custody, and the
overwhelming majority of custody cases are settled outside of court.
Academics critique the rhetorical framing
of custody decisions, stating that men's rights advocates appeal for
"equal rights" without ever specifying the legal rights they believe
have been violated.
Scholars and critics assert that the men's rights rhetoric of
children's "needs" that accompanies their plea for fathers' rights is
merely to deflect criticism that they are motivated by self-interest and
masks men's rights advocates' own claims.
Critics argue that abusive men use allegations of parental alienation
to counter mothers' legitimate concerns about their and their
chlldren's safety. Deborah Rhode argues that, contrary to the claims of some men's rights activists, research shows that joint legal custody does not increase the likelihood that fathers will pay child support or remain involved parents. Michael Flood
argues that the fathers' and men's rights movement seems to prioritize
re-establishing paternal authority over the children, rather than actual
involvement, and that they prioritize principles of equality over the
positive parenting and well-being of the children.
Observers have stated that the 'intactivist' movement, an anti-circumcision movement, has some overlap with the men's rights movement. Most men's rights activists object to routine neonatal circumcision and say that female genital mutilation has received more attention than male circumcision.
The controversy around non-consensual
circumcision of children for non-therapeutic reasons is not exclusive
to the men's rights movement, and involves concerns of feminists and medical ethics. Some doctors and academics have argued that circumcision is a violation of the right to health and bodily integrity, while others have disagreed.
Divorce
Men's rights groups in the United States began organizing in
opposition to divorce reform and custody issues around the 1960s. Up
until this time, husbands held legal power and control over wives and
children.
The men involved in the early organization claimed that family and
divorce law discriminated against them and favored their wives. Men's rights leader Rich Doyle likened divorce courts to slaughterhouses, considering their judgements unsympathetic and unreasonable.
Men's rights activists have argued that divorce and custody laws
violate men's individual rights to equal protection. Law professor
Gwendolyn Leachman writes that this sort of framing "downplays the
systemic biases that women face that justify protective divorce and
custody laws".
Men's rights groups describe domestic violence committed by women against men as a problem that goes ignored, under-reported, and under-researched, in part because men are reluctant to label themselves as victims. They say that women are as aggressive or more aggressive than men in relationships and that domestic violence is gender-symmetrical. They cite controversial family conflict research by Murray Straus and Richard Gelles as evidence of gender symmetry.
Men's rights advocates argue that judicial systems too easily accept
false allegations of domestic violence by women against male partners. Men's rights advocates have been critics of legal, policy and practical protections for abused women, campaigning for domestic violence shelters for battered men and for the legal system to be educated about women's violence against men.
In the early 21st or late 20th century, the National Coalition for Free
Men sued the Minnesota state, calling for funding to women's domestic
violence programmes to be removed under the idea that they "discriminate
against men".
In response to such claims, family violence scholar Richard Gelles
published an article entitled "Domestic Violence: Not An Even Playing
Field" and accused the men's rights movement of distorting his research
findings on men's and women's violence to promote a misogynistic agenda. Many domestic violence scholars and advocates have rejected the research cited by men's rights activists as flawed, disputing their claims that such violence is gender symmetrical,
saying that their focus on women's violence stems from a political
agenda to minimize the severity of the problem of men's violence against
women and children and to undermine services to abused women.
Men's rights adherents describe the education of boys as being in
crisis, with boys having reduced educational achievement and motivation
compared to girls.
Advocates blame the influence of feminism on education for what they
believe is discrimination against and systematic oppression of boys in
the education system.
They critique what they describe as the "feminization" of education,
stating that the predominance of female teachers, a focus on girls'
needs, as well as a curricula and assessment methods that supposedly
favour girls, have proved repressive and restrictive to men and boys.
Men's rights groups call for increased recognition of
masculinity, greater numbers of male role models, more competitive
sports, and the increased responsibilities for boys in the school
setting. They have also advocated clearer school routines, more
traditional school structures, including gender-segregated classrooms, and stricter discipline.
One primary characteristic of men's rights groups is the view of
boys as a homogeneous group that shares common educational experiences;
this means that it fails to account for how responses to educational
approaches may differ by age, disability, culture, ethnicity, sexuality,
religion, and class.
In Australia, men's rights discourse has influenced government
policy documents. Compared to Australia, less impact has been noted in
the United Kingdom, where feminists have historically had less influence
on educational policy. However, Mary Curnock Cook, the British Universities and Colleges Admissions Service
(UCAS) chief executive, argued that in Britain "despite the clear
evidence and despite the press coverage, there is a deafening policy
silence on the issue. Has the women's movement now become so normalised
that we cannot conceive of needing to take positive action to secure
equal education outcomes for boys?"
Female privilege
The men's rights movement rejects the concept that men are privileged
relative to women. The movement is divided into two groups: those who
consider men and women to be harmed equally by sexism, and those who
view society as endorsing the degradation of men and upholding what they
term "female privilege".
Governmental structures
Men's rights groups have called for governmental structures to
address issues specific to men and boys including education, health,
work and marriage. Men's rights groups in India have called for the creation of a Men's Welfare Ministry and a National Commission for Men, or for the abolition of the National Commission for Women. In the United Kingdom, the creation of a Minister for Men analogous to the existing Minister for Women, has been proposed by David Amess, MP and Lord Northbourne, but was rejected by the government headed by Prime Minister Tony Blair. In the United States, Warren Farrell
heads a commission focused on the creation of a White House Council on
Boys and Men as a counterpart to the White House Council on Women and
Girls, which was formed in March 2009.
Health
Men's rights groups view the health issues faced by men, and their
shorter life spans compared to women globally, as evidence of
discrimination and oppression. They claim that feminism has led to women's health issues being privileged at the expense of men's.
They highlight certain disparities in funding of men's health issues as
compared to women's, stating that, for example, prostate cancer
research receives less funding than breast-cancer research. However, women and minorities had typically been excluded from medical research until the 1990s. Viviana Simon
states, "Most biomedical and clinical research has been based on the
assumption that the male can serve as representative of the species."
Medical scholars warn that such false assumptions are still prevalent. Contrary to antifeminist assertions, empirical findings suggest that gender bias against females remains the norm in medicine. Farrell argues that industrialization
raised the stress level of men while lowering the stress-level of women
by pulling men away from the home and the family, and pushing women
closer to home and family. He cites this an explanation why men are more
likely to die from all 15 leading causes of death than women at all
ages. He argues that the U.S. government having an Office of Research on
Women's Health but no Office of Research on Men's Health, along with
the U.S. federal government spending twice as much money on Women's
health, shows that society considers men more disposable than women.
Scholars have critiqued these claims, stating, as Michael Messner
puts it, that the poorer health outcomes are the heavy costs paid by
men "for conformity with the narrow definitions of masculinity that
promise to bring them status and privilege" and that these costs fall disproportionately on men who are marginalized socially and economically. According to Michael Flood,
men's health would best be improved by "tackling destructive notions of
manhood, an economic system which values profit and productivity over
workers' health, and the ignorance of service providers", instead of
blaming a feminist health movement.
Genevieve Creighton & John L Oliffe have stated that men engage in
positive health practices, such as reducing fat intake and alcohol, to
conform to positive masculine ideals.
Some have argued that biology contributes to the life-expectancy gap.
For example, it has been found that females consistently outlive males
among primates. Eunuchs, castrated before puberty, have shown to live
with varying differences, more than other males, pointing to testosterone levels playing a role in the life-expectancy gap.
Luy and Gast found that the female–male life expectancy gap is
primarily due to higher mortality rates among specific sub-populations
of men. They therefore state that social programs should be narrowly
targeted to those sub-populations, rather than to men as a whole.
Homelessness
Glen Poole, author of the book Equality For Men, argues that homelessness is a gendered issue, saying that in Britain, most homeless people are male.
A 2018 study focused on three Pennsylvania emergency departments found
little difference in the number of men and women who self-reported as
homeless; however, the study did not claim to reflect the homeless
population in the United States as a whole. In 2022, most homeless individuals were male. Men are also more likely to be unsheltered than women, this may be
partly due to the administrators of the homelessness system prioritizing
vulnerability, age, or risk of violence over serving men and women
equally. But, many reasons are found outside the homelessness system,
like men being over-represented in the criminal justice system and more
likely to drop out of school than women. For information on the homeless population of the United States as a whole, see Homelessness in the United States.
Incarceration
Men's rights campaigners believe that men receive harsher treatment
than women in criminal justice systems around the world. They cite the
disproportionate number of men in prison as evidence of this. In the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, India and across the European Union,
90–95% of prison inmates are male. Studies have shown that, compared
with women who commit similar crimes, men are more likely to be
incarcerated, receive longer prison sentences, and have to serve a
greater portion of their sentences.
According to Warren Farrell, a man convicted of murder in the United
States is twenty times more likely to receive a death sentence than a
woman convicted of murder. There is also evidence that female sex offenders are treated with more leniency than their male counterparts. Farrell believes society considers women to be naturally more innocent and credible, and criticizes battered woman and infanticide defenses. He criticizes conditions in men's prisons and the lack of attention to prison male-to-male rape by authorities.
Men's rights activists argue that the sole military conscription of men is an example of discrimination against men. Historically, most societies have only required men to be conscripted. According to David Benatar,
"perhaps the most obvious example of male disadvantage is the long
history of social and legal pressures on men, but not on women, to enter
the military and to fight in war, thereby risking their lives and
bodily and psychological health. Where the pressure to join the military
has taken the form of conscription, the costs of avoidance have been
self-imposed exile, imprisonment, physical assault or, in the most
extreme circumstances, execution." Around 80 countries worldwide still use conscription in various forms, and most of these have a male-only draft. As of 2018, only two countries – Norway and Sweden – required women to be conscripted under the same formal conditions as men.
In the United States, all males ages 18–25 are required to register for Selective Service.
Failure to do so can result in fines, imprisonment, and ineligibility
for student loans and federal employment. Women are not required to
register. In 1971, draft resisters in the United States initiated a
class-action suit alleging that male-only conscription violated men's
rights to equal protection under the US constitution. When the case, Rostker v. Goldberg, reached the Supreme Court in 1981, they were supported by a men's rights group and multiple feminist groups, including the National Organization for Women. However, the Supreme Court upheld the Military Selective Service Act,
stating that 'the argument for registering women was based on
considerations of equity, but Congress was entitled, in the exercise of
its constitutional powers, to focus on the question of military need,
rather than 'equity''. The 2016 decision by Defense Secretary Ash Carter to make all combat positions open to women relaunched debate over whether or not women should be required to register for the Selective Service System. In the case National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System, the Southern District Court of Texas ruled the male-only draft unconstitutional.
Men's and fathers' rights groups interest in "paternity fraud" or
mistaken paternity falls into two main categories: men who are compelled
to provide financial support for a child that has been proven by DNA
testing not to be their biological offspring, and men who have been led
to believe that the children they are raising are their own, and have
subsequently discovered otherwise.
They hold biological views of fatherhood, emphasizing the imperative of
the genetic foundation of paternity rather than social aspects of
fatherhood. They state that men should not be forced to support children fathered by another man,
and that men are harmed because a relationship is created between a man
and non-biological children while denying the children and their
biological father of that experience and knowledge of their genetic
history. In addition, they say non-biological fathers are denied the
resources to have their own biological children in another relationship.
Men's rights activists support the use of one-parent consent paternity testing to reassure presumed fathers about the child's paternity; men's and fathers' rights groups have also called for compulsory paternity testing of all children. They have campaigned vigorously in support of men who have been shown by genetic testing not to be the biological father, but who are nevertheless required to be financially responsible for them.
Prompted by these concerns, legislators in certain jurisdictions have
supported this biological view and have passed laws providing relief
from child support payments when a man is proved not to be the father. Australian men's rights groups have opposed the recommendations of a report by the Australian Law Reform Commission and the National Health and Medical Research Council that would require the informed consent of both parents for paternity testing of young children, and laws that would make it illegal to obtain a sample for DNA testing without the individual's informed consent.
Estimates of the extent of misattributed paternity vary
considerably. Some campaigners claim that between 10% and 30% of
children are being parented by men who are unaware that they are not the
biological father, but Professor Leslie Cannold
writes that these numbers have been inflated by an order of magnitude,
with about 1% seen in Australia and the UK, and 3% observed in the US.
Sociologist Michael Gilding asserts that men's rights activists have
exaggerated the rate and extent of misattributed paternity, which he
estimates at about 1–3%. Gilding opposed as unnecessary calls for mandatory paternity testing of all children. Even the lowest estimates of the prevalence of paternity fraud suggest it affects tens of thousands of men in the US alone.
Men's rights activists believe there are a significant number of false accusations of rape, and have proposed legal changes to protect men in those situations.
Men's rights proponents believe that the naming of the accused
while providing the accuser (victim) with anonymity encourages abuse of
this kind. Men's rights advocates have also claimed that rape "has been used as a scam." Studies from the United States, Australia, and the Britain have found the percentage of estimated false or unsubstantiated rape allegations to be around 2% to 8%.
Whilst false accusations of rape often receive much online and
media attention, the vast majority do not lead to conviction or wrongful
jail time despite the claims of some organisations. A study from the British Home Office
for example, shows that in the early 2000s, of 216 sexual assault cases
that were classified as false allegations, only six led to an arrest
and just two led to charges against the accused before ultimately being
ruled as false.
To argue the issue of false accusations of rape, the categories
of 'false' and 'unsubstantiated' are often conflated, such as the National Coalition for Men
citing reports such as the 1996 FBI summary that finds a rate of 8% for
unsubstantiated forcible rape, which is four times higher than the
average for all index crimes as a whole. Experts emphasize that verified false allegations are a distinct category from unsubstantiated allegations, and conflating the two is fallacious. These figures are widely debated due to the questionable methodology and small sample sizes.
Men's rights activists have also raised contention on the issue of
sexual violence against men, especially in the context of the stigma
surrounding male victims of rape and the legal troubles they face,
including being counter-sued for rape, child support (see Hermesmann v. Seyer), and lack of action. Men's rights activists have also criticized the lack of attention towards prison male-to-male rape by authorities.
Legislation and judicial decisions criminalizing marital rape are opposed by some men's rights groups in the United Kingdom, the United States and India. The reasons for opposition include concerns about false allegations related to divorce proceedings, and the belief that sex within marriage is an irrevocable part of the institution of marriage. In India, there has been anxiety about relationships and the future of marriage that such laws have given women "grossly disproportional rights". Virag Dhulia of the Save Indian Family Foundation, a men's rights organization, has opposed recent efforts to criminalize marital rape in India, arguing that "no relationship will work if these rules are enforced".
Critique of men's rights rape discourse
Feminist scholars Lise Gotell and Emily Dutton argue that content on the manosphere
reveals anti-feminist pro-rape arguments, including that sexual
violence is a gender-neutral problem, feminists are responsible for
erasing men's experiences of victimization, false allegations are
widespread, and that rape culture
is a feminist-produced moral panic. They contend it is important to
engage [this topic] as there is a real danger that MRA (Men's Rights
Activism) claims could come to define the popular conversation about
sexual violence.
Men's rights campaigners assert that while a woman has several legal
avenues to opt out of being a mother after conception (abortion,
adoption, safe haven laws), a man has no choice in whether he becomes a father and is at the mercy of the mother's decision. Moreover, a man who fathers a child as a result of reproductive coercion or a sexual assault by a woman can still be compelled to support the child financially. Cases in Kansas, California and Arizona
have established that a male raped as a minor by a woman can be held
legally responsible for a child that results from the assault, a
situation the director of the National Center for Men described as
"off-the-charts ridiculous" that "wouldn't be tolerated" if the genders
were reversed. According to Warren Farrell, "Roe v. Wade gave women the vote over their bodies. Men still don't have the vote over theirs—whether in love or war."
In consequence, some advocate for "paper abortion", which would allow the biological father, before the birth of the child, to opt out of any rights, privileges, and responsibilities toward the child, including financial support.
In 2006, the American National Center for Men backed Dubay v. Wells,
a lawsuit which concerned whether men should have the opportunity to
decline all paternity rights and responsibilities in the event of an
unplanned pregnancy. Supporters argued that this would allow the woman
time to make an informed decision and give men the same reproductive
rights as women.
The case and the appeal were dismissed, with the U.S. Court of Appeals
(Sixth Circuit) stating that neither parent has the right to sever their
financial responsibilities for a child and that "Dubay's claim that a
man's right to disclaim fatherhood would be analogous to a woman's right
to abortion rests upon a false analogy".
Social security and insurance
Men's rights groups argue that women are given superior social security and tax benefits than men.
Warren Farrell states that men in the United States pay more into
social security, but in total, women receive more in benefits, and that
discrimination against men in insurance and pensions have gone
unrecognized.
Men's rights activists point to higher suicide rates in men compared to women. In the United States for example, the male-to-female suicide death ratio varies, approximately, between 3:1 and 10:1, and some studies have shown a higher suicidal intent in men.
In Australia, 75% of suicides are male, with, on average, 6 men killing themselves each day.
Studies have also found an over-representation of women in attempted or incomplete suicides and men in complete suicides. This phenomenon, described as the "gender paradox in suicide," is argued to derive from a tendency for females to use less lethal methods and greater male access and use of lethal methods.
Karen DeCrow was an American attorney, author, and activist and feminist, who served as president of the National Organization for Women from 1974 to 1977, she was also a strong supporter of equal rights for men in child custody decisions, arguing for a "rebuttable presumption" of shared custody after divorce. She also asserted that men as well as women should be allowed the decision not to become a parent, and was an avid supporter of father's rights movements, and argued that domestic violence is a "two-way street."
As a result, DeCrow found she was "increasingly at odds with the
organization she had once led, though she never broke with it."
Marc Angelucci was an American attorney, men's rights activist, and the vice-president of the National Coalition for Men (NCFM). As a lawyer, he represented several cases related to men's rights issues, most prominently National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System, in which the federal judge declared the male-only selective-service system unconstitutional, and Woods v. Horton, which ruled that the California State Legislature had unconstitutionally excluded men from domestic violence victim protection programs.
Warren Farrell is an American educator, activist and author of seven books on men's and women's issues.
Farrell initially came to prominence in the 1970s as a supporter of second wave feminism; he served on the New York City Board of the National Organization for Women
(NOW). Generally considered the 'Father of Men's Rights Movement,'"
Farrell advocates for "a gender liberation movement, with "both sexes
walking a mile in each other's moccasins."
Herb Goldberg was the author of the book What Men Still Don't Know About Women, Relationships, and Love,The Hazards of Being Male: Surviving the Myth of Masculine Privilege (1975), and What Men Really Want and Men's Secrets related to the formative men's movement. He was a professor emeritus of psychology at California State University, Los Angeles and a practicing psychologist in Los Angeles.
Erin Pizzey is an English men's rights advocate, domestic abuse
advocate and ex-feminist. She holds a controversial theory that most
domestic violence between men and women is mutual and reciprocated. Pizzey has released two notable works, Scream Quietly or the Neighbours Will Hear and Prone to Violence. In the 2024 New Year Honours she was named Commander of the Order of the British Empire.
Bettina Arndt is an Australian men's right activist who was awarded the Order of Australia for gender equity in 2020. Despite heavy criticism, the Council of the Award of Australia decided not to strip her of the award.
Reception
Many authors have characterized the men's rights movement as misogynistic. The Southern Poverty Law Center
has stated that while some of the websites, blogs and forums related to
the movement "voice legitimate and sometimes disturbing complaints
about the treatment of men, what is most remarkable is the misogynistic
tone that pervades so many."
After further research into the movement, the SPLC elaborated: "A
thinly veiled desire for the domination of women and a conviction that
the current system oppresses men in favor of women are the unifying
tenets of the male supremacist worldview." Other studies have pointed towards men's rights groups in India
trying to change or completely abolish important legal protections for
women as a form of "patriarchal anxiety" as well as being hostile
towards women.
The venue for the first Men's Rights Conference in the US received death threats, calls, and demonstrations forcing the organizers to raise funds for extra security and eventually change the venue.
Professor Ruth M. Mann of the University of Windsor
in Canada suggests that men's rights groups fuel an international
rhetoric of hatred and victimization by disseminating misinformation via
online forums and websites containing constantly-updated "diatribes
against feminism, ex-wives, child support, shelters, and the family law
and criminal justice systems."
According to Mann, these stories reignite their hatred and reinforce
their beliefs that the system is biased against men and that feminism is
responsible for a large scale and ongoing "cover-up" of men's
victimization. Mann says that although existing legislation in Canada
acknowledges that men are also victims of domestic violence, men's rights advocates demand government recognition that men are equally or more victimized by domestic violence, claims not supported by the data.
Mann also states that in contrast to feminist groups, who have
advocated for domestic violence services on behalf of other historically
oppressed groups in addition to women, such as individuals impacted by
poverty, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation,
etc., men's rights groups have attempted to achieve their goals by
actively opposing and attempting to dismantle services and supports put
in place to protect abused women and children.
Other researchers such as Michael Flood have accused the men's rights movement, particularly the father's rights groups in Australia, of endangering women, children, and even men who are at greater risk of abuse and violence.
Flood states that the men's rights/father's rights groups in Australia
pursue "equality with a vengeance" or equal policies with negative
outcomes and motives in order to re-establish paternal authority over
the well-being of children and women as well as positive parenting.
Fear of commitment, also known as gamophobia, is the irrational fear or avoidance of long-term partnership or marriage.The term is sometimes used interchangeably with commitment phobia, which describes a generalized fear or avoidance of commitments more broadly.
In essence, despite deriving satisfaction from companionship in a
relationship, people may choose to distance themselves and withdraw if
the relationship progresses to a serious level of commitment.
Psychological Explanations
Fear
of commitment represents a multifaceted psychological phenomenon,
susceptible to influence by numerous factors, with psychological
elements playing a significant role as primary contributors. Below are a
few potential causes of the fear of commitment in long term
relationships:
1. Attachment Insecurity
Attachment
insecurity is defined by inadequate and ambivalent caregiving during
infancy. Such experiences are highly likely to result in the development
of insecure attachment styles, which encompass the ways individuals
engage with others in intimate relationships.
The concept of attachment styles originates from Bowlby's Attachment
Theory, positing that individuals have an evolutionary need to establish
close emotional bonds with significant others.
The internal working model, shaped by early attachment experiences,
establishes a stable blueprint where the relationships formed with
caregivers in infancy serve as a basis for predicting future adult
relationships. This asserts an ongoing influence on an individual's
subsequent emotional stability and development, illustrated by the
continuity hypothesis.
In the upbringing of individuals with an anxious-avoidant
attachment style during childhood, parents often fail to express
approval of intimate emotions from the child, leading to a gradual
development of increased emotional distance and dismissiveness. This is
evidenced by the maternal sensitivity hypothesis,
where children’s avoidance is primarily resulted by treatments of
caregivers, usually the mothers. In many instances, children
experiencing this pattern are likely to acclimate to such dynamics,
ultimately fostering an avoidant-dismissive attachment style in
adulthood. Consequently, these individuals tend to retain bonds and
close relationships on the surface while erecting emotional barriers
when others attempt to delve into their deeper emotional realms.
Stemming directly from a dismissive upbringing, where children learned
that intimate relationships and significant others are unreliable,
closeness and reassurance in interpersonal interactions is generally
avoided by them. The fear of commitment in long-term relationships or
marriage manifests as individuals harbour concerns that their potential
partners may resemble the unreliable caregivers from their childhood,
exemplifying the lasting impact of their early attachment experiences.
Research has demonstrated a significant correlation between avoidance
and commitment aversion,
meaning that the higher the avoidance, the lower the commitment level
in relationships. The low level of commitment is due to the fear caused
by discomfort with dependence.
Social Psychology Research
Hazan and Shaver (1987)
conducted a social experiment extending attachment theory to explaining
how the different attachment styles influence adult romantic
relationships. They designed a love quiz to ask about participants’
childhood attachment styles and their beliefs on love. 620 replied and
they concluded that the majority of individuals who are securely
attached as infants are having joyful and enduring relationships.
Another notable application revealed that individuals with avoidant
attachment styles often exhibit discomfort with emotional intimacy and a
preference for independence. This aversion to closeness and commitment
can contribute to a heightened fear of long-term commitment, as these
individuals may struggle with the vulnerability and emotional investment
inherent in enduring relationships. In addition, anxious-resistant
attachment style is characterised by concerns about abandonment and a
constant need for reassurance. Individuals with this attachment style
may also be afraid to commit since the perceived risk of rejection or
unmet emotional needs can create hesitancy in committing to a long-term
partnership. This therefore supported the claim that attachment styles,
especially insecure attachment, can explain fear of commitment to a
certain extent.
2. Past experiences
Past
relationships, particularly those involving trauma or having a
sorrowful ending, can increase the likelihood of individuals developing a
fear of commitment. They might become hesitant to invest emotionally in
new relationships, fearing that their partner won't reciprocate the
same level of commitment or may betray their trust. Research has
consistently concluded that people's decisions to repeat behaviors are
significantly influenced by their perceptions of past experiences.
When faced with the prospect of commitment, individuals may find
themselves contending with past fears - a phenomenon intricately
connected to their earlier encounters. In other words, because of a
history of others failing them, individuals tend to associate commitment
with negative perceptions. This inclination leads them to adopt a
pattern of commitment aversion, characterised by a reluctance to engage
in behaviors that foster commitment and instead resort to actions that
obstruct its development.
3. Low Self-Esteem and Self-Confidence
Self-esteem constitutes an affective evaluation of one’s own worth, values or importance.
It is positively correlated to self-worth, signifying that individuals
who perceive themselves as lacking in existential value and affection
from others are less likely to possess high self-esteem. Since formation
and commitment of relationships are profoundly influenced by self-worth
and interpersonal trust, a fear of commitment may consequently ensue.
This is rooted in the belief that they are inadequately equipped to
fulfill the needs of their partner, leading to a lack of confidence in
sustaining a positive, healthy, and long-lasting relationship.
The resultant diminished commitment fosters an unfavorable conclusion
to the relationship, thus establishing a cyclical pattern wherein this
experience becomes a distressing component of their past, negatively
reinforcing their fear and intensifying the phobia.
4. Unpleasant family divorce
Divorce
within families serves as a concrete illustration frequently employed
by divorced parents to underscore the "reality of marriage." This stems
from the fact that divorced parents often hold more pessimistic
attitudes toward marriage, expressing low optimism regarding the
feasibility of enduring relationships and healthy marital state.
Children of such parents inevitably absorb these irrational
perspectives, forming a biased foundational belief during childhood that
couples lack the capacity to surmount conflicts. This developmental
stage serves as a crucial period for the establishment of a general
schema. Studies indicate that, especially among women, there exists a
tendency toward reduced confidence and heightened ambivalence when
contemplating commitment to a specific partner.
History
The term "commitmentphobia" was coined in the popular self-help book Men Who Can't Love in 1987. Following criticism that the idea was sexist,
implying only men were commitmentphobic, the authors provided a more
gender balanced model of commitmentphobia in a later work, He's Scared, She's Scared (1995). When aversion to marriage involves fear, it's called "scottophobia". Hatred of marriage is "misogamy".
Criticism
Besides the common criticisms of self-help, psychologist Bella M. DePaulo has written books on singlism such as Singlism: What it is, why it matters and how to stop it and Singled Out on the stigmatization of single people.
The use of the term "fear" or "phobia" imparts an inherent linguistic bias. It recasts specific lifestyle decisions (such as bachelorhood vs. marriage, or a conscious decision to remain childfree) implicitly as generalised, irrational phobias while failing to identify, describe or address an individual's specific motives. For instance, the men's rights movement, citing high divorce rates and expensive alimony
and legal costs, speaks not in terms of a "fear of commitment" but of a
"marriage strike" to reflect their position that non-marriage is an
entirely valid, logical position based on rational consideration of the
economic factors involved.
.jpg)
