Men’s rights, man’s wrongs

February 25, 2008 at 10:12 pm | Posted in British Politics, Feminisms | 1 Comment

In the crucible of political interest groups, you’d probably find ‘Men’s Rights‘ organisations on the same small and pig-ugly fringe as those campaigning for ‘White Civil Rights’. Sure, they might not be as militant, violent or as wired with hate as the rebranded racists who rely on code and innuendo to advance their Jim Crow agendas, and I’m sure some get drawn to these groups for noble reasons: concerns that the divorce courts unfairly favour women; concern about male suicide and mental illness; raising awareness of male cancers etc. But it’s hard to deny that they share some pretty unnerving similarities:

  1. The belief that one privileged & well-fed group of people (white Anglo Saxons/men) are now being systematically discriminated against by another group that at one point or another has been beaten, enslaved, oppressed or denied equality (ethnic minorities/women)
  2. A paranoid distrust of government and media institutions who ‘feed us lies’ that only they, in their state of clear-eyed rationality, are able to detect.
  3. A maniacal invocation of ‘politically correct fascists’ who weep and wail each time you mutter a thought which doesn’t appear on their pre-approved list of ‘safe thoughts’
  4. The unbalanced promotion of stories about the ‘oppressed group’ (white Anglo Saxons/men) having violence committed against them by their ‘oppressors’ (ethnic minorities/women).

In the case of Steve Moxon – right-wing motormouth, immigration fear-monger and specialist on the scourge of ‘gender facism’, these worlds overlap with alarming regularity. Moxon is the self-proclaimed ‘whistle blower’ whose allegations about failures in the Immigration Service he worked for sparked a national controversy and led to the resignation of Beverley Hughes. Having first been praised for his courage by a petrified right-wing press, he then sought to toss all the goodwill to one side by penning a book that claimed the gollywog, the black & white minstrel show and the word ‘Paki’ aren’t racist. Somewhat predictably, he now turns his attention towards explaining how men are being discriminated against in a country unfairly weighted towards women.

In a blog post titled “The Ipswich killings are anything but indicative of how women treat men“, (hat tip: The F Word) he reheats some basic evolutionary biology to suggest that since ‘normal men’ are genetically predisposed to going around thrusting their dicks into any available orifice, and since their wives are sometimes too frigid/busy/dowdy to submit to sex on demand, sometimes a man’s only resort is to receive a handjob in some litter-strewn back alley:

The most straightforward and honest way to satiate the desire for extra-pair sex is to pay for it. But if men pay for extra-pair sex, then we intuitively see them as having ‘broken the rules’, in how we naturally ‘police’ the male hierarchy. This is why there is such a general downer on prostitution. Yet the exploitation here clearly is not of the women, but of the normal desires of men: men are exploited by women for money.

Damn you debased harlots who quench our thirst for illicit on-demand sex in the back of the family car! Just stop exploiting us so! Sadly, there’s more:

Looking at crime overall in prostitution, it’s suffered mainly by the male clients, and predominantly in the street scene, which is nowadays a very small proportion of prostitution (most being internet related or through ‘massage parlours’). The ruse of taking the money and not providing the ‘service’ is so ubiquitous that it merits a slang word for it: ‘clipping’. In the situation of street prostitution, the male client is very much not the one in control. Clients are at risk from girls singly or together, or from their male accomplices. Given this, it is amazing why there is not so very much more violence towards street prostitutes (emphasis mine).

Yes, truly amazing that one can summon the resolve to refrain from clubbing someone to death whilst in search of a blowjob. The point of all these miserly and misogynistic characterisations is to paint prostitutes not as victims who are driven into providing paid sex by either the ravages of poverty or drug abuse, but as devious schemers who exploit man’s natural desire for open-air fellatio by scamming, attacking or killing them. Yes, that’s right. Men are the ones most at risk from prostitution.

However much people like Moxon may seek to downplay it to advance their own self-interested agendas, the recent guilty verdicts against Steve Wright, Levi Bellfield and Mark Dixie remind us that women – whether prostitutes, models or students – remain the primary victims of the most horrific forms of violence and that whilst it might give ‘Men’s Rights’ advocates a self-righteous glow to wail about their oppression, such talk does a huge disservice to men and a grave injustice to women.

1 Comment »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. Not that I’m totally impressed, but this is a lot more than I expected when I found a link on Furl telling that the info here is quite decent. Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at
Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: