Wendy McElroy: Audio Interview

Well, this is the most insightful article I’ve ever read about Wendy McElroy, maybe because it’s a speech she presented. (Link to transcript at -
http://www.wendymcelroy.com/talks/scrapnow.html )

I came away from reading it with new respect for her politics and her expressed sympathy for men’s rights, but now I’m even more baffled by her illogic and lack of observational skills.

RE:

"The majority of women will stand up as well to defend the rights and the dignity of their fathers, brothers, husbands, sons, and friends." ... "And, as men speak out, I think they will be amazed by how many women get up and stand beside them."

So, half-a-decade after this speech, where are all the marching millions of women in solidarity with the men’s and father’s movement? Why did this womanist support not materialize? Speaking only for myself, I am not yet "amazed."
---
"So why do I call myself a "feminist?" Why don't I just call myself an individualist or a humanist?

Because the law does not treat men and women equally, either in its content or in its application. The law is not gender-blind. In many areas, it treats men like second-class citizens. In others, it discriminates against women. And until this is changed, until there is true equality -- neither privilege nor oppression based on gender -- I'll call myself a feminist."

+ (illogically) –

"Feminism became a politics of rage. It lost sight of being fair, of being equal under the law with men and aimed instead at privilege. I said this was a cautionary tale. The caution is this: I hope that men are not so angry and do not become so angry that they -- that you ever view me as the enemy."
---

Maybe it’s just me, but Wendy McElroy has never been able to clarify her allegiance to the term "feminism" and all of the political misandrist baggage that comes with it – and her obvious need to be the mistress of MRA theory pointing the way forward.

The very word "feminism" has come to be synonymous with sexism, discrimination, anti-male oppression, fuggly lesbian whack-jobs, intolerance, P.C. speech codes, etc.

How does putting a little alphabetic character like "i" in front of the tyrannical word "FEMINISM" solve anything?

So, I don't view Wendy as an enemy.... merely as a confused faux-feminist on the borderline of becoming irrelevant.

It’s maybe worth mentioning that since Wendy made this address years ago, she shut down all free speech on her website’s blog --- she did not appreciate the interrogations she was receiving from men’s rights activists.

What was the nature of the interrogations of the men's rights activists? Were they being rude or demanding of her? I wouldn't put up with it either.
I think we are lucky to have someone like McElroy. So she is not the perfect answer for all men's rights issues..so what? I don't know of any men that is true of either. The fact is she is not a mens rights activist as such. Getting angry at her may eventually alienate one of the few friends we have.
I am wondering, is it a coincidence that this board no longer has the link to iFeminists?? I asked that question a while back and nobody answered. Also I think some of the guys on the board have frightened away women who tried to post here. And what happened to the Biscuit Queen?
Also, someone responded to a friendly woman's post a while back, by saying "get ready to rumble!", then she never posted again. If I were her, I wouldn't either.

-Axolotl

"Getting angry at [Wendy McElroy] may eventually alienate one of the few friends we have."--axolotl

I agree. We shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We need all the female allies we can get, especially the smart, committed ones who have some degree of intellectual influence. I like and respect Wendy -- in her critique of radical feminism and in her awareness of the injustices against men and fathers. She's knowledgeable, articulate, and compassionate.

I also wondered why mensactivism no longer has a link to ifeminists.com. And I wish there were more women (both friendly and not so friendly) posting on this site.

There are literally dozens of 'Net dating sites where you can contact men-friendly women!

Most of the women advertising their services are iFeminists, as near as I can tell.

If you write your bio-pitch correctly, they won't even suspect that you are into men's rights.

Try AmericanSingles, Match.com, and (for only the bravest souls) eHarmony.com.

I find it interesting that men believe they "need" women to promote a men's movement.

Why?

Is it because men suspect that they are powerless without the vagina lobby?

I am not looking for women to date on this site. I am just also interested in hearing from women on this board, concerning mens rights. Not trying to be sarcastic.

If it is true that we do not need women's help or support for our rights movement, then I guess not that many guys should be that concerned with what McElroy has to say in the first place!

-Axolotl

She likens the developing men’s movement of today to the second wave women’s movement in the sixties. From my viewpoint, a better parallel, perhaps, to draw would be to the first women’s movement starting in the mid 19th century. But even so, I don’t think the men’s movement will blow up onto the national/international consciousness until one or two more generational shifts occur; but I do believe it will occur--but that's obvious to me, and probably to anyone on this site, that all the social, political, economic, (you name it), factors are there to make it inevitable. I could be wrong if, for instance, the Omega Point theory is correct, so that the approach to that time could accelerate; here’s hoping.
She is absolutely correct when she warns that men should not get bogged down in their outrage, because she is alluding to the advantage that the second half of the gender movements, the men’s, can take from the first gender movement: the unmistakable wisdom in learning from the mistakes of the past.
Most of us here probably know that the men’s movement can’t reach that level of consciousness if female allies don’t help. I think most of us would agree with Fred Hayward when he said in a 1996 interview, “[women] are really important allies because given the power that women have in society and given the power that women have emotionally over men, I don't think there is any way a men's rights movement could be successful without women allies.” Think about it: there’s probably a very good reason why those “female allies” are around in the first place, isn’t there.
Thanks Wendy McElroy; I appreciate your flashes of wisdom and the beauty of your overall intelligence and perception.
I came across one spur in her speech when she says,“a legal system that did not understand or care.”
She says this in reference to victims of rape before the emergence of second wave feminism. I have a problem with this becuase it seems a tad too sweeping. I think I should solicit some opinion here: who here is old enough to remember how exactly women who were raped were treated back then?

She gives an interesting talk. Particularly the history of the Sexual Harrassment laws and industry.

I have a couple of problems with what she says. One is her prediction that women will be joining men in droves to condemn the evil that feminism has become. I just don't see that as happening any time soon. She fails to understand the importance of chivalry and how it greased the wheel of women seeking change in the 60's and beyond and how the same chivalry acts as a brake when applied to men's issues and needs. Basically, when women complain men try to do something to help her out, when men complain women basically don't see it as their problem, they accuse him of whining, or they attack. Men are genetically built to provide and protect women. Women are not made to do the same for men.

I also have trouble with the idea of putting a letter in front of feminism and thinking that is going to be seen as something unique. Can you imagine a German in the 1930's trying to talk other Germans into joining INazism? Sorry, it ain't gonna help. A pile of pig crap won't taste any better with whip cream.

The rape issue and how it "used to be" caught my attention. I was born in the 50's and remember rape trials as being much lower profile than what we see in today's media. They were also focused exclusively on whether a crime was committed and not on the **feelings** of the participants. Due to this primary interest in justice lots of questions would be asked that were embarrassing and awkward but I don't think they were meant to be harrassing. I think they were meant to find out the innocence or guilt of the accused. Frankly, we need MORE of that today. The courts need to do what they need to do to determine guilt and innocence.

Thanks Tom for rethinking my initial comments and making them much more clear through your own excellent writing!

Women are NOT flocking to support the men's movement. They are too busy shopping. (For high-earning husbands? Or shoes?)

iFEMINISM = iNAZISM, indeed! (And, Wendy simply does not get it...)

Your remarks about the "rape issue" illustrate just how much feminism has deformed and distorted the legal/justice system.

My basic opinion about Wendy McElroy is that she is seeking a parade-to-be-the-leader-of......

And she naively believed that "iFeminism" would be the right flag to launch her fame.

I appreciate her most when she does does good research and reports on it.

She earns my disregard when she instructs men about what we should think, feel, and do.

Sheldon --- "Most of us here probably know that the men’s movement can’t reach that level of consciousness if female allies don’t help. I think most of us would agree with Fred Hayward when he said in a 1996 interview, “[women] are really important allies because given the power that women have in society and given the power that women have emotionally over men, I don't think there is any way a men's rights movement could be successful without women allies."

Yes massa. Weez a be a goin' back to pickin' yer cotton right 'bout now sir!

Ah'm not all that clear-headed, massa... don know much about herstory an' all....

Please massa ...

can I sleep in the Big House this evenin'?

Please? I'll be good and pick more cotton if I can only jus'...

Your Missus said she's like to see me ....

(Sheldon --- you are one funny MRA. Not.)

I think Sheldon is right about the necessity of female allies if the men's movement is to grow and succeed in bringing about meaningful change.

I also agree with the person who said that men are programmed to come to women's rescue, while women are not conditioned to do the same for men. Women are, however, concerned about what happens to the men and boys in their lives -- their sons, brothers, fathers, husbands and male friends. I also think women are capable of realizing that what happens to men impacts women and girls.

It is important to have women as allies of the men's movement as I do not believe the men's movement is about exclusively male issues but rather about many human issues and about achieving real equality between the genders.

In that guise it is important not only to have women who support our goal but allow debate and encourage understanding and communication with those who do not. Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer kind of deal. If we take a strictly confrontational stance against those in power we run the risk of forever being marginalized.

Thanks Roy. I read your post just before listening to the talk. I probably should have credited you. ooops. We are on the same wavelength with this one.

Our movement is not attracting men in droves and surely isn't attracting any record number of women. It is interesting to note from where our present members seem to be coming. From my observation our ranks seem to be mostly men who have been crushed by the misandrous system. For them they simply can't miss the hate that has battered them. But there is another less publicised subset that I think is worth noting. Spiritual people. I am seeing more and more that an increasing number of people who are concerned about men's issues are people who are on a Spiritual path. They might be Christians or some other religion but most of those I have run into come from a Buddhist background. These people have no ax to grind in this fight but have gone through enough personal developement/meditation to be able to not be ruled by the usual ego identifications that most people have such as patriotism, chivalry, etc. They have detached from a good portion of this crap and see things from a non-hypnotised viewpoint. A good example of this group might be the authors of the hugely important books "Spreading Misandry" and "Legalizing Misandry." Yes they are professors but look at what department they are in, the religious studies department. I think we will see more and more of this and I hope we can welcome them as allies.

"Our movement is not attracting men in droves and surely isn't attracting any record number of women."--Tom

That's true, but I see reasons to be hopeful -- even if there isn't a great surge of public support for the men's and fathers' rights movement at this time. It's incremental change and "points of light" that make me optimistic: the influence of sympathetic women journalists and academicians who write and speak on this topic; the male-friendly language added to VAWA last year that at least indicates the effects of pro-male lobbying; articles in the NY Times that argue for greater attention and resources devoted to men's physical and mental health; web sites like this one and of course the efforts of Glenn Sacks and others that positively affect the climate of political debate related to gender topics. I could go on, but you get the idea. There seems to be an increasing number of books sympathetic to our cause wriiten by males and females alike. It's a slow, labor-intensive slog, but there are signs of progress. Keep up the good fight, friends.

And the reason I feel that way is this:

Would the feminist movment of succeeded without men who supported it?

--Demonspawn