Here’s an interesting study out of Baylor University In Texas.
http://www.baylor.edu/mediacommunications/news.php?action=story&story=127023
Researchers set up two groups of people with some “resources”. Let’s imagine those resources are M&Ms. The first group got together and had to decide how much of their resources to donate to other people, and a few “planted” participants led the giving round: they gave around 65% of their M&Ms away. What did the other people in the group do? They followed suit, and also gave around 65% of their M&Ms away.
A second group did the same thing, except that the planted participants only gave 25% of their M&Ms away. What did the other participants do? Yep, they followed suit and gave 25% of their M&Ms away.
Now here is where the study gets interesting: all the participants were given M&Ms and asked to make an anonymous donation that no one else would be able to scrutinize or know about. The participants in the group who gave away 65% of their M&Ms continued to do so, even though their contributions were anonymous. Same for the participants who gave away 25%. Even with no one looking, they held onto the group norms and were cheap-ass M&M donators.
Why did they do this? The researchers at Baylor asked all the participants, after the experiment was over, to fill out surveys exploring their attachment to the group and how they felt about the other group members and themselves. And it turns out that adhering to group norms, no matter what that norm is, makes people feel happy and contented and accepted and powerfully attached to their own group.
Even if an individual participant felt that giving away 25% of your M&Ms was a pretty stingy thing to do, they went ahead and violated their own internal sense of right and wrong for the pleasure of feeling that they belonged to a group and adhered to the norms of that group.
What does this have to do with men’s rights? It’s a pretty strong indicator that what the movement needs right now is to get people to feel part of a group, even if the ideas the group promotes are unpopular, unpleasant or unfamiliar. Feminism benefits hugely from this tendency to go along with the group, even when the norms of the group are demonstrably, objectively destructive and deeply hypocritical.
The feeling of “wanting to belong” is simply human, and humans will attach themselves to a group to achieve that, without considering the implications. It’s a rare man or woman who can stand up and challenge the herd.
The past 20 years have seen the challengers take up the gauntlet and bring the issue of human rights for men into the mainstream conversation. It’s now time for the rest of us to start expanding the group and welcoming members who might not even understand the conversation, but who want to belong.
We can do that by articulating, very clearly, what some basic human rights for men should be:
The right to bodily integrity
No person, male or female, should have a part of their body cut away without their full and informed consent. That’s an inalienable human right. No one’s imaginary friend gets any say in this. Mutilating infant genitals is part of the dark ages and we have no room in our society for that kind of medieval cruelty.
The idea that is it a criminal act to cut a girl’s genitals, an act of despicable immorality, but acceptable to cut a boy’s genitals plays into an incredibly damaging stereotype: that males, from birth, can be subjected to pain and torture and they must accept this as part of their existence. Male feelings can be ignored, overridden, denied and eradicated. Little boys are disposable. They can be hurt with impunity and their only choice is to suck it up and accept their fate.
Wrong. Circumcision of infants – ALL INFANTS – must be abolished immediately. This is ground zero in the human rights movement for men, and even people who can’t accept any other precept of a human right’s movement for men can get behind that sentiment.
They will join the group and quite likely begin to understand and identify with the entire movement, lending support, just to belong.
It’s a start, and one that should be exploited fully.
Planned Parenthood
Men deserve the right to absolve themselves morally, ethically, legally and financially of all responsibility towards children they did not intend and do not want, just as women can. A woman can abort a child, surrender it to authorities under safe haven laws or place it for adoption, absolving herself of any further obligations. Men should have the same right.
Assumed Custody
When a marriage or partnership breaks down, men should have the same rights as women to custody of the children. Automatic 50% and any other arrangement must be agreed to in advance or supported with evidence for why one or the other parent should not have 50% custody.
Children have a right to be cared for by BOTH their mothers and fathers.
There are many more basic rights (healthcare, social services, disproportionate sentencing in criminal courts) that are also on the table, for the very good reason that men are being punished or denied vital services BECAUSE they are men, and expected to just “man-up” and deal with their shit in a way that women aren’t.
But the first three items are pretty much no-brainers. They open a dialogue with people who might not otherwise identify, or who even actively resist the idea that men need some basic human rights protections.
http://jezebel.com/5967923/fuck-you-mras
Group affiliation is a powerful motivator. Time to hand out some M&Ms. Just a few at a time.
That’s all it takes.
Lots of love,
JB
judgybitch 
You need to add, quite the possibly the most important detail
If a man has joint custody, he should get child support from the woman
As his expenses for raising of the children
Women circumcise boys, call for brutal measures against men, precisely because there are no consequences for women
FYI If you REALLY want to support the mens movement, you should support banning child support & welfare for women
Ban child support & welfare & you’ll see boys being circumcised & divorce courts imprisoning men, vanish overnight
Welfare is EVIL, because When you take consequences away from a woman, when you DEVALUE THE LIFE OF A CHILD TO A FOOD STAMP
When you devalue the sanctity of a marriage subject to a womans emotion & whim
When you devalue sex to an act of LEISURE
When you devalue the life of an unborn baby, by attaching a hoover to its foetal remains & destroying a life, because of economic inability & rape
When you devalue & demonise the sexuality of a man & his needs, necessary to form a stable society
You get the feral monstrosities, the freakshows so-called feminist women are today
Welfare IS THE NO.1 Destroyer of women bar none
LikeLike
JB, thanks for another great article, typically full of insights and nuances. Honestly, as a writer myself, your articles give me pen envy.
Mike Buchanan
JUSTICE FOR MEN AND BOYS (and the women who love them)
http://j4mb.wordpress.com
LikeLike
You’re too kind, Mr. Buchanan.
Shona Sibary doesn’t agree with you however. She commented on my article about her violence towards her children.
Do you think she googles herself every day?
LikeLike
Thank you so much. It’s a good start. Now you’re making me want to go back and finish that goals document, which I’ve been too tired to look at of late.
LikeLike
Ground zero. We need a few issues that are relatively uncontroversial in and of themselves. It took a long time for women to own the term feminism and most of them still won’t. Even though they act out all the principles.
The same will probably be true for the MHRM. People won’t own the label, but they will embrace the ideas. And at the end of the day, that’s what matters.
LikeLike
As always.. i fall in love with your writing.
Just a small correction for posterity.
” A woman can abort a child, surrender it to authorities under safe haven laws or place it for adoption, absolving herself of any further obligations. Men should have the same right.”
Men should have no right to force a woman to abort a child. But a man should be given the right to walk away completely from any legal, financial, obligation towards a child he had no intention of siring. The age old shame tactic of ‘shoulda kept it in your pants’ applies to both sexes here as well. A woman knows every time she takes a penis inside, that pregnancy may ensue, even if using BC. If a man is forced to man up/women must be forced to carry. If women have abortion on the table/men should be allowed to legally/financially abort.
That ability leaves all of the women’s original rights still intact and nothing is taken away from her.. except the possibility of creating an indentured slave to garnish or provide for her.
If women knew that men could walk away, they’d be a lot more careful about whom they sleep with too. Without relying on ‘best interests of the child’ nonsense.. because Abortion is never really in the interest of the child. As long as that is on the table to ultimately allow a woman to abdicate her responsibility for engaging in a consentual sexual act knowing full well that pregancy could happen, then the option for men to financially and paternally abort must be allowed as well.
Great post!
LikeLike
Gah! That is just what I meant! Under no circumstances would I ever support a man forcing a woman to have an abortion.
I will reword that to make it absolutely clear.
LikeLike
It is unbelievable to me how controversial it is to speak against male circumcision. People cannot seem to make the comparison in their minds, and aside from even religious beliefs, make the ridiculous claims that it’s important for a child to lose the same body part his father did, or that we should remove his body parts because other little boys will be missing it and we don’t want him to be different, or that it’s safer, despite the US being about the only civilized place to make that claim (and the claims now being made about lower disease transmission rates are only relevant in anal sex without a condom).
To me, it’s a simple argument that if a man wants to not have a foreskin, he can choose to cut it off himself when he’s 18 for better sexual attractiveness, lower disease transmission in high-risk activities, obedience to his god, or whatever else. But it’s his damn choice.
Somehow women, and an astonishing number of men (rationalizing their own?) cannot make these connections and continue to prop up the ‘need’ for infant circumcision by whatever excuse they can. since they take it as a foregone conclusion.
LikeLike
JB,
you might like to read my free eBook on this topic.
http://www.mensbusinessassociation.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=hNKVd0Hr7bU%3d&tabid=753&mid=1703
LikeLike
Anyone who wants to help ending infant male circumcision in the US should consider supporting http://mgmbill.org/ They do great work! Proactively (and persistently) attempting to have a Bill passed into law to make circumcision illegal, lobbying government, etc. Eg. have a look at http://mgmbill.org/govresponses.htm
LikeLike
Re: Assumed Custody.
In Australia 2006, John Howard’s government brought into law the presumption of shared parenting. Basically, in Family Court the judge was obligated to start from a position of shared parenting instead of simply favoring the mother.
Feminists didn’t like that and began lobbying with alarmist propaganda and grotesque processions.
http://mensrights.com.au/family-law/anti-shared-parenting-lobbyists/
Since Julia Gillard’s government came to power in 2010, that progress has effectively been unwound.
LikeLike
That’s such a shame. My gut feeling is that very young children benefit from being with their mothers primarly, while older children benefit from being with their fathers primarily.
I would have no problem with assumed custody, providing that it is the FATHER who is assumed as the primary custodian for any child over the age of 7.
LikeLike
I mostly agree with everything on this blog… from the men’s rights to the anti-feminism. But it is absolutely insane to describe banning circumcision as a “no-brainer”.
You would claim a so-called expansion of men’s rights, while squatting all over religious rights? I am as strong an advocate of men’s rights as you will find, but any attempt to ban circumcision would flip me from your ally to a ferocious adversary.
Do not presume to impose your opinion on our religious freedom, or to tell us how to raise our children.
To compare circumcision to female genital mutilation is asinine. Speaking as a male that was circumcised as a baby, I am grateful for it. It improves function, hygiene, and appearance. You will not find circumcised men (or their wives) advocating for any such ban… only nosy, uncircumcised busybodies that want to impose their views on others.
Here’s some real talk… if you want to advance the men’s rights movement… drop the anti-circumcision, anti-religious rights nonsense. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Focus on what is broken like the family courts, quotas, the feminization of schools, etc.
LikeLike
I have no problem with your religious rights. You can have any imaginary friend you like and mutilate any part of your body you like for any reason you like.
YOUR BODY, YOUR CHOICE.
Your son may or may not share your beliefs and may or may not think mulitlating his genitals is an appropriate expression of faith.
HIS BODY, HIS CHOICE.
It’s very simple.
LikeLike
Banning circumcision very much would be a problem with religious rights, whether you see it that way or not. Your description of an “imaginary friend” proves that you have no respect for such rights.
As a parent, I make choices for my child, not you. Nobody that is actually circumcised would describe it as “mutilation”… you don’t speak for us. I suppose piercing your daughter’s ears is “mutilation”, too? smh
My child, my choice. Your child, your choice. It’s very simple.
LikeLike
I would NEVER pierce my daughter’s ears without her consent.
My husband was mutilated and that is exactly the word he uses to describe what was done to him, without his consent, based on his parent’s relationship with someone who does not exist.
It’s straight-up horseshit.
We’ll have to agree to disagree.
LikeLike
I would love to agree to disagree… but pushing for a ban is NOT “agreeing to disagree”, it is imposing your will on others in exactly the same way you criticize feminists and your husband’s parents for doing.
I could get into why I roll my eyes at your husband’s so-called claim, but I’ll digress to just say that turning a men’s rights argument into one about religious rights is only going to set the movement back. Drop the anti-circumcision stuff and we can focus on the REAL problems without splitting us up in half.
LikeLike
@Ambassador: I believe in God, probably not the way most mainstream religions portray God, and I disagree with JB and others who refer to God as an “imaginary friend” – the absence of direct proof does not prove something doesn’t exist, but I digress.
My issue with you is your comment:
“My child, my choice. Your child, your choice. It’s very simple.”.
Where do you draw the line at abuse? It’s never a parent’s right to abuse a child – would you agree? It’s not OK to beat children. It’s not OK to make kiddie porn, even if they’re your children, and it’s not OK to cut off healthy body parts from children.
In any case, if you believe in God, then you likely believe God created the universe and is capable of infinitely more compassion and tolerance than any human. Yet, many of these mainstream religions portray God as a temperamental, jealous child, given to tantrums, who demands harming our young and defenseless. Sounds like ‘a very naughty boy’. Are you kidding me??? If you believe in Satan, et al, have you considered that this may have been his deception and mischief ..sure is having a good laugh at the fools cutting-up their children.
Straight-up, if you circumcise children (boys or girls) then you are a child abuser. No excuses.
LikeLike
@Ambassador: “I could get into why I roll my eyes at your husband’s so-called claim”
What’s “so-called” about it? Do you wish to trivialize how people feel about what was done to them without their consent? So who’s pushing their views on whom now?
Search “foreskin restoration” to get a sample of the countless men suffering psychological problems as a result of this form of kiddie rape.
Frankly, I don’t want child abusers in the MRA. Go freakin’ elsewhere.
LikeLike
Unless your husband is Jewish or Muslim, then the connection fails. The only religious traditions today that include circumcision as a practice are Islam and Judaism. America, incidentally, is the only historically Christian country in which it is commonly practiced, partly due to the idiosyncrasies of the early settlers, whose religious sect (Puritanism) is, as it were, long since defunct.
I know little about Judaism, but I know in the case of Islamic societies (you can read this on the Wikipedia article on ‘Khitan” it was merely the continuation of what was already practiced among the Arabian tribes predating Islam. I suspect the same is probably true of Judaism. The basis of such practices is largely sociocultural (a la ear-piercing, or, in a more extreme case, footbinding in China) than theological, as well as utilitarian, especially before the appearance of modern ‘genital medicine’ and cleanliness standards; if the practice had a chance of reducing the the transmission of STDs, then societies would adopted. Choices and rights had little bearing in societies driven by necessity and utility in ages when life was much crueler than today and any leg up, no matter what the cost, would be selected for. Human rights we today hold so dear were, after all, the invention of the first Western leisure class that had the time to fritter away not much more than a few generations ago.
An any case, anyone who’s spend more than a minute on the internet is well aware that no atheist can pass up a chance to blame something on ‘religion.’ And that some people *ahem, I won’t specify* simply derive pleasure from casually and irrelevantly shitting on the beliefs of others (even most of the human population) in their asides; makes one feel all warm and fuzzy (not to mention smart and superior) inside.
As for personal experience, I was circumcised, and though I’ve no doubt it hurt at the time, it frankly doesn’t matter to me now. I’m not crippled, perfectly functional. Not trying to make any rationalizations, but I do get a tad annoyed when guys (including a friend of mine) who possess their foreskins with much pride take to calling me ‘limpdick’ or whatever. It’s always nice to here people talk about how fucked up I am; gee, I didn’t even know I was so wrecked. Thanks for telling me!
That point aside, that’s an interesting enough study at Baylor I guess. Kind of reminds me of the Milgram experiment. In any case, males generally lack a gender-based own-group preference, which females however have; I think Girl Writes What did a video on this and cited the link. That would be a significant impediment to the construction of any male ‘sense of belonging.’
LikeLike
Mark, if you were from another country I’d forgive your ignorance about circumcision in the United States. However, I suspect you aren’t, and you are practicing that time honored tradition of all good religious people, that of intellectual dishonesty. Circumcision is very common here in the US, to the point that they are trying to pass laws to prevent it. Based on the rather rational claim that you can’t enforce a religiously originated (who’s medical claims are at best dated and at worst dishonest) medical procedure on somebody who lacks the ability to consent to it.
As for us nonbelievers passing judgement on your insisting that your imaginary friend is real, remind me again, what was the christian church’s preferred method of dealing with non-believers, was it beheading or just burning at the stake?
LikeLike