Denial

Sam, Thursday, 15.01.2004, 21:16 (vor 8057 Tagen)

It has been my own impression that the most virulent denial arises from men, not women. Perhaps others have had different experiences. Still, I think that my impression does make logical sense. The person most likely to feel directly threatened by what the Men’s Movement is revealing is a man who is still married. No one wants to believe that the person he loves, and with whom he has shared his bed and raised his children for many years would be capable of such treachery. Few people have the courage to admit, "There but for fortune …"

What such men are likely to do is to find ways in their own minds to create differences between themselves and people in the men’s movement. "This may have happened to him, and him, and him," they tell themselves. "But it most certainly would never happen to me …. It won’t happen to me because I am different from him, and him, and him …

He, and he, and he have done [are, act like, etc.]:

1. (fill in the blank)
2. (fill in the blank)
3. (fill in the blank)
4. (fill in the blank)
5. (fill in the blank)
6. (fill in the blank)
7. (fill in the blank)
8. (fill in the blank)

In complete contrast, I have done [am, acted like, etc]:

1. (fill in the blank)
2. (fill in the blank)
3. (fill in the blank)
4. (fill in the blank)
5. (fill in the blank)
6. (fill in the blank)
7. (fill in the blank)
8. (fill in the blank)"

This is, in my view, eminently understandable. It is, if you will, only human. Nor do I believe that it is useful to vilify such people for their denial. Rather, I think it is up to those of us who have our eyes open to find better ways of reaching these men.

I will not tell you my ideas on this (at least not here), but I will tell you one guaranteed way to fail: Assail the man with poorly reasoned out, muddled, and angry gender bashing. That, I guarantee you, will turn such a man off for sure (and so far that is what has generally happened). Most men have been turned off to and alienated by the Men’s Movement.

I’ll take it further: I am equally opposed to illogical and polemic-laced diatribes against feminists. Feminism covers a lot of ground. Regardless, the responsible thing for those who speak for the Men’s Movement to do is to debunk certain noxious ideas, not to debunk the individuals who have them. This requires thought and reason. It requires, in fact, solid evidence. And frankly the individuals who do have such ideas are entitled to their opinions. This is a democracy — remember? We all believe in free speech — capice? If one group has better ideas, it can prove it.

All of what I am saying may only prove to you that I posses a firm grasp of the obvious. Nonetheless, I encourage you to read some recent back issues of Men’s News Daily. I think that you will be surprised at the number of articles that engage in sloppy thinking and resort to women-bashing. Such authors are a minority of the total, but there are still too many.

My advice to everyone is: DON’T DO THIS!

I don’t like the term, "Men’s Movement." I never have. But at this point I think we are probably stuck with it. It is too entrenched. Nevertheless, I grow increasingly uncomfortable with people who actually believe it. This is not a men’s movement. It’s a truth movement. It is not about men solely. It is about all human beings. If anyone is our constituency it is our children, but please! Stay away from those terms too! They’ve already been usurped by so many different and opposing factions that they are also meaningless.

Unfortunately, I fear that we’re stuck with the term. But we ourselves must think with greater clarity and learn to reason with more compelling cogency. Otherwise, we will never reach the very constituency that we need to reach must urgently — other men.

Just look at the masthead for MND. Some of the sharpest thinkers are women. Frankly some of the sloppiest are … well … not the women.

For the umpteenth time, I repeat: This is not about men versus women. It is about fairness versus unfairness; justice versus injustice; and affirmation of what is best in all of us (and in our democracy) versus indulgence in polemic and unjustified hate.

Probably everyone is sick of hearing me say this. So be it. It’s a free country. So far.

David E. Reiser, MD.
<hr>
David E. Reiser is a writer and physician. His books and articles in the 1980s addressed medicine's urgent need to make education and patient care more humane. Along with others, he quietly changed the way students are taught throughout the world. The New York Times described his book, "Medicine as a Human Experience", as a textbook that revived "a long-lost skill" in physicians - "compassion."

In 2000, David lost his only son to Parental Alienation Syndrome. "Before my divorce in 2000," he says, "I had never been charged with anything worse than a speeding ticket... They threw me in jail and dragged me into a courtroom handcuffed, weeping, and manacled to a chain. The proceeding required less than ten minutes. I never saw my son again... I'm no 'expert.' I'm just one more broken man. I hope to do something positive with what is left of me. My resume is one line long - I am a father who lost the most beloved person in his life - my son. I do what I can now, not because I'm noble, but because I have no choice. I try to do the right thing because I sense that this is my only hope. My ideals are all that, in the end, they couldn't take from me. I refuse to accept a world where hatred routinely prevails over love, and where the destruction of our children is viewed as simply the cost of doing business. I'm no saint. I'm dazed and terrified. I'm not sure what "God" even means, and I'm sure as hell no hero. But I will stand up to any legal system, hateful mob, or totalitarian regime whose code of ethics is built around cruelty, power, and lying; and whose only god is money."