Raw Story recently wrote an article attributing statements made by members of the Reddit community “The Red Pill” to men’s rights activists. Although these statements were not made by self-identified men’s rights activists, they were also not very controversial—amounting to tips to avoid being crime victims–unless viewed through the feminist lens that women can’t consent to sex while drunk.
In an amusing twist feminist Amy Schumer recently gave a speech in which she detailed having sex with a man so drunk or incapacitated he was going in and out of consciousness. Instead of stopping it and trying to ascertain if her partner actually was consenting or running on autopilot with no clue who he was engaging with sexually(even him calling her by another name didn’t give her pause)she apparently allowed her egotistical impulse to be seen as desirable by a high status male to dictate her actions.
Now if having sex with drunk people is automatically rape than Amy Schumer is a rapist. A much-lauded by other feminists feminist rapist.
In the comments I called out this feminist double standard. After five hours of commenting and having moved far from the original topic, I was banned permanently from commenting at Raw Story.
Not after calling out Raw Story and feminism’s double standard regarding rape or feminism’s misandry towards men and boys but after I engaged in the greatest anti-feminist sin of all.
Here’s a transcript of the exchange prior to my banning:
==
Bagelsan
It’s adorable how there’s always that one random female MRA running around, desperately bleating anti-feminist talking points. Does she think that will make the boys like her? Is she 10-years-old? Is she going to wake up hungover [sic] and regretting the whole sordid thing? Is she ever going to realize that bending over backwards to prove that she’s not an icky feminist will result in zero respect from anyone, male or female? Is she ever going to get over her hate-crush on Amy the comedienne?
Truly a mystery for the ages. Let’s watch. 😀
Alison Tieman
A feminist!
Did she take a rational look at the evidence–both for and against–before concluding that women are oppressed or does she simply assume it based on her unexamined and unconscious misogynist belief that women are “acted upon” and men “actors.”
Will she ever realize that her persecution complex is what’s oppressing her?
Let’s find out. XD
Bagelsan
Actually, it’s a funny story: a little handbook came along with my vagina, which laid out all the tenets of feminism to me at a young age. Did you not read yours?
Alison Tieman
I certainly did. And then I looked at the publication notice on the edition page.
It said “Church and State press.”
Bagelsan
Oh, you got the goofy one. No wonder you’re confused! Mine was pretty straightforward, and basically said that people shouldn’t rape each other and that men shouldn’t act like assholes to women and vice versa, and so on. But I did hear there was a publication error that got some women awfully mixed-up… I think your edition instructs you to obsessively repeatedly link to random YouTube videos? That’s a doozy of a typo.
Alison Tieman
Ah so you’re a representative of “Church and State Press.”
Sorry, I’m just not buying your product anymore. It’s not about equality, it’s about selling women a persecution complex that turns them into terrified sheep.
Bagelsan
You don’t agree that people shouldn’t rape each other? Because that’s all I’m “selling” here.
Alison Tieman
I don’t agree that most people need feminists to tell them not to rape each other. In fact it’s time for “most people” to tell feminists to knock their rape apologia off.
Feminist Amy Schumer gives widely acclaimed speech in which she confesses to sexually assaulting her male sexual partner:
Wait A Second, Did Amy Schumer Rape a Guy?
Feminist Mary Koss scrubs male victims of rape by women from government statistics:
Feminist Professor Adele Mercier engages in rape apologia directed at male victims:
Feminist Jaclyn Friedman fails to call out fellow feminist rape apologist:
Feminist groups block or remove men’s protections against rape by female sexual predators.
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Womens-groups-Cancel-law-charging-women-with-rape
A Sad Day For Male Rape Victims In India
In addition to all that feminists promote campaigns that demonize male by presenting them as more likely to be rapists than rape victims despite all the evidence to the contrary!
Bagelsan
Oh dear, the copy paste is back. You should sue whoever misprinted your vagina-book; that technique is not very persuasive.
Alison Tieman
Vagina book? Seriously, you’re reducing me down to my genitals?
Tell me, Bagelsan, have you given any thought to the counter argument against women being oppressed by men?
Bagelsan
Let me guess, is it that women are oppressing men? Or are you still stuck on that tired old myth that “patriarchy” means “all men”?
Alison Tieman
Answer the question or simply walk away.
Have you given any thought to the counter argument against women being oppressed by men?
Bagelsan
Look, ma’am, I’ve heard and considered lots of so-called “counter-arguments” to the straw-position of all-men-oppress-all-women or whatever you think feminists believe. Have you got a new one, or should I just say that yes, I probably have?
Alison Tieman
Do you believe that men oppress women more than women oppress men, on average.
I never said “all men oppress women” only “women are oppressed by men.” That means a belief that, on average, men oppress women _more_ than women oppress men.
Bagelsan
Well, if you’d read my comment just above you, that question is a bit meaningless, yeah? But sure: all else being equal women face more oppression on account of being women than men face on account of being men. You totally cornered me into saying something not particularly controversial. ;D
Alison Tieman
Have you given any thought to the counter argument to that?
Bagelsan
Are you implying that there’s only 1 theoretical counter-argument to that, which I must have either considered in its entirety or not? That’s a very limited point of view. I’m afraid I can think of several counter-arguments, but you haven’t specified which one I’m supposed to address.
Alison Tieman
Chose what you consider to be the strongest counter argument to the proposition that men oppress women more than women oppress men.
Bagelsan
Then yes, I do think that oppression runs along multiple axes, including race and nationality and socioeconomic status, and that gender interacts dynamically with all of these other factors to create a sort-of meshwork of oppression (you might be familiar with the term kyriarchy) along which people can be found to relate to each other down gradients of power. Saying that “men mostly oppress women” or whatever does little to address this more complex model of human interaction, which is actually something that feminism has been working on quite a bit (with varied success) and which I might posit remains our current greatest weakness as well as our greatest opportunity to really flesh-out and develop our strategies and effect some proper change.
Alison Tieman
That’s not an argument against women being more oppressed by men then men are by women, on average.
It’s simply stating that race and class based oppression exists.
Try again. Although I have to confess at this point it’s looking like you base your belief less on a rational analysis and more on internalized misogyny.
Bagelsan
So you think that “other factors also play into oppression, it is not merely gender or sex-based” is not the best counterargument to the idea that oppression is fundamentally male-on-female? Then what do you consider a more convincing model of human interactions that I should abandon feminism for? I’m fascinated.
Alison Tieman
It’s not the best argument against the idea that men oppress women more than women oppress men. That’s because we’re not talking about other forms of oppression aside from men oppressing women more than women oppress men so oppression based on other factors are not relevant.
Again, what is your best argument against the idea that men oppress women, on average, more than women oppress men. Without bringing in tangents about other forms of oppression that do not relate.
Bagelsan
Other forms of oppression really, really do relate. And I’m sad (albeit not surprised) that you don’t understand that.
Alison Tieman
Do these other forms of oppression change the fact that you believe men oppress women on average more than women oppress men?
==
Bagelsan went silent at this point
And lo, I was banned from Raw Story promptly after this exchange. Even though I’d been commenting, up to that point, for 5 straight hours calling out feminist double standards towards men and boys.
Apparently when you defend men and boys against feminists as a Men’s Rights Activist, that’s okay. But when you start defending women and girls against feminist attack?
It’s the misogyny that dare not speak its name.
Bonus Round: Feminists say the darndest things
—
Unfortunately due to being banned and not thinking to take screen shots, I can’t give the original responses in an easy to read format. Here are .pdfs of the exchanges as they appeared in my Gmail in box and on my disqus home page.
- What will Dior’s decision regarding Johnny Depp mean for male survivors? - August 10, 2022
- Chauvin Released, Teen bullied for supporting trump, False accuser forced to apologize| HBR News 277.5 - October 13, 2020
- What Jordan Peterson checking into Rehab can teach us all - October 26, 2019
by 
I love the effort to shame women for allegedly being that one taking the anti-feminst position just to be liked by men. Messengers always make easier targets than messages. I was recently informed by a white member of our cultural elite that Condoleezza Rice was not an “authentic” black person so she wasn’t qualified to speak about issues which affect blacks. I guess not being a feminist makes one an unauthentic female. If a “real” man mates with an “unauthentic” woman would their kids be “surreal”?
Wow…what a weird ad hominem argument style by Bagelsan…
Does Bagelsan realise that what she said to you in the first comment (that you do this for approval) is exactly how she and male feminists treat each other ie. she pats him on the head, he treats her like she’s ten. I’m starting to see why so many people see projection in arguments like this.
Also, why does the fact that oppression can exist mean that Bagelsan is right? Her lack of actual answer indicates she is used to merely bullying her opponent into silence with personal slurs and catechisms. Is her comment containing the word ‘kyriarchy’ an example of ‘catechosis’?
Bagelsan is a Feministe cave fish. Trying to have a real discussion with her is like taunting the a lame dog at the end of the street.
The point is that she is far from unusual. She is typical of internet and apparently academic feminists, and probably the same is true of any institutional feminists – in public education and so on. The point is that this is far from unusual.
Fortunately this is the strongest opposition the MRM faces. That is very good news.
The worst thing is that ‘the institution’ she thinks oppresses her right down to her thoughts is exactly what gives Gollum-feed like her the time and energy to attack it like an incurably violent psychopathic child. Their ‘deconstruction’ is dependent on remaining just short of collapse of the things they rail against.
@ Robert Crayle
What makes you think they are, in any way, deconstructing corporations or big business?
It’s the perpetual revolution; by fighting they are creating the very thing they so called “fight”.
I am referring to their own goals as they state them to me, and what they present to the world. In no way do deconstructionists undermine anything they set out to; rather they undermine people and groups that cannot afford to lose what they have taken from them. They create the viciously tiered society they claim to oppose with the time their forebears created by slowly eliminating the pseudo-elite that previously delivered heavy-handed ‘fairness’ to the loudest voiced (who incidentally are rarely in need; their ability to complain is proportional to the free leisure time they have).
Typhon, I came across this in your old post manufacturing victimhood, marginalizing vulnerable men:
“It should be noted the NIPSVS presents no statistics on male victims of rape through penetration for the last 12 months. This is interesting because the 2000 National Violence Against Women Survey found that 0.3 percent of women and 0.1 percent of men surveyed said they were raped via penetration in the previous 12 months.”
Has the National Violence Against Women Survery been conducted again (with the same questions) after 2000 or before 2000? I`m curious if similar numbers where found at later or earlier points in time.
In Stemples recent paper I came across a reference to this study:
http://jmm.sagepub.com/content/12/3/275.full.pdf+html
In that study I found some very interesting numbers that come from an analysis of how men and women have answered questions about being raped by men vs women in previous NCVS`.
“Approximately 89 percent of both male and female victims use some form of resistance strategy in their efforts to thwart an attack.”
” In addition, men are more than three times as likely as women to reveal in their narratives that they were drinking or using drugs prior to an incident”
“While few men use the term rape in their descriptions of what happened to them, NCVS narratives certainly reveal that men experience incidents that fit today’s legal definitions of rape and attempted rape.”
“An examination of men’s narratives shows that physical retaliation to sexual threats and attacks are almost exclusively directed against male offenders”
“> Type of crime
> Rape 19 21.6 18.6
> Attempted rape 8 3.9 14.0
> Sexual assault 67 74.5 67.4”
Put together these findings provide some empirical basis for explaining how female on male rape is possible in such high numbers. Firstly, 3 times as many men report drinking or drug use prior to the rape. That can mean that a much higher percentage of female on male rape than male on female rape are cases where the victim was too drunk to consent or resist. It can also mean that a lot of the men, while not fully unable to resist, still had significantly reduced physical strength to resist. Really drunk or high people become weak. So, a lot of men that normally would be able to resist a rape attempt by a women that has say 30-40% less strength than him, might loose all or most of this advantage and so become much easier to rape for a woman. Does anyone know about studies showing what percentage of female on male and male on female rapes are cases where the victim is severely incapacitated by alcohol or drugs or are sleeping? I seem to recall David Lisak found in his study about male rapists that a huge percentage of the rapes they described committing where cases where the woman was so drunk she had little capacity to resist or was sleeping.
SInce 89% of men (and women) used some degree of physical resistance strategy we are obviously not talking about cases where the man just lets her have her way with him without any resistance. The men do physically resist. However, the study also finds that men often describe using highly serious violence to thwart of a man trying to rape him but almost never describing doing this to women. We are talking about punching a man in the face as hard as you can etc. What these numbers tell us is that men normally try to physically resist female rapists but are psychologically incapable of doing so at full capacity for fear of injuring the woman. Hence female on male rape becomes much more easily understandable.
The study also found that when men try to rape men they mostly succeed but when women try to rape men they are almost as likely to fail as succeed. I feel like this also helps make female on male rape seem more realistic to people. That a high degree of attempts fail due to strength differences but still often succeed because of the factors I have mention above.
What do you think about this?
In mens rights vs feminism explained using puzzles you write: “So when you ask “did someone physically force you to have sex with them in the last year” equal numbers of men and women respond yes.
When you ask “did someone physically force you to have sex with them in the last five years”, the percentage of male victims drops from 50% to 30%.
And when you ask “did someone physically force you to have sex with them in your lifetime”, the percentage of male victims drops again to 20%.”
I haven`t been able to find any such 5 year numbers. Is this just you guessing roughly how the numbers would be reduced in order to illustrate the mechanism of forgetting/repressing or is it based on an actual study about 5 year prevalence?
I am researching male rape victims and female rapists in order to write an article about it for a newspaper so any tips you have about this can help make that article have more impact.
@ Katana
“I haven`t been able to find any such 5 year numbers. ”
Canada does a five year survey on crime victimization. I’m mixing Canadian and American numbers, but the populations are pretty similar.
“The study also found that when men try to rape men they mostly succeed but when women try to rape men they are almost as likely to fail as succeed.”
I’d be careful with this. I also noticed that more men are gang raped as well. But is this an accurate reflection of reality or the fact that men are more likely to report a completed rape when they’re targeted by a man or a gang?
Regarding perpetration of gang rape/group sexual assault:
http://tamenwrote.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/new-study-prevalence-rates-of-male-and-female-sexual-violence-perpetrators/
Thanks Typhon. Do you have a link to the Canadian 5 year study, or its name so I can find it?
Do Canadian lifetime studies show fairly similar rates as the US lifetime studies? If Canada had 12 month, 5 year and lifetime numbers that would make for excellent material for comparison.
I see your point about reporting. I`ll have to think about it.
I`m sturggling to find the NCVS numbers. THey are supposed to be on this page:
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245
However, I can`t find them. The PDF I thought they where in only looked at combined crime rates and did not have a break down for rape.
Rosin writes:
” In asking 40,000 households about rape and sexual violence, the survey uncovered that 38 percent of incidents were against men.”
“in years past men had accounted for somewhere between 5 and 14 percent of rape and sexual violence victims.”
Do you know what years the 5 and 14 percent numbers are from and how to find them? Have the numbers oscillated between 5 and 14 or was it a linear progression from 5 to 14 to 38? If the latter then it shows such a clear and unambiguous trend I find it most interesting if that is what has happened.
Thanks Tamen. I`ll be on the lookout for more stuff about wether female on male more often happens in groups. If I find enough indicators of that it can help further explain female on male rape so that people find it plausible.
@ Katana
To be honest I’ve found it more useful to simply reverse genders and point out that penetrating a struggling woman who isn’t wet with a penis is almost impossible. And once she’s wet she obviously wants it.
Therefore women can’t be raped.
“Bagelsan
It’s adorable how there’s always that one random female MRA running around, desperately bleating anti-feminist talking points. Does she think that will make the boys like her? Is she 10-years-old? Is she going to wake up hungover [sic] and regretting the whole sordid thing? Is she ever going to realize that bending over backwards to prove that she’s not an icky feminist will result in zero respect from anyone, male or female? Is she ever going to get over her hate-crush on Amy the comedienne?
Truly a mystery for the ages. Let’s watch. :D”
—-
interesting how common this tactic amongst women’s libbers as Robert Crayle and Ginkgo both point out.
if these thoughts, if these behaviours came from a man, people would have no doubt what is before them – a malevolent, abusive being
Hoping for a thoughtful post about Eliot Rodger and the MRAs who idolize him and think he was well within his rights to commit mass murder?
Hundreds of links available upon request.
Just curious: Are you going to defend this man too?
The misogyny may not “speak its name” — but it sure knows how to load and fire.
When is the last time a woman fired into a crowd of men for being rejected by them? (Go ahead, find it, I’ll wait.)
In our culture, misogyny manifests very differently than misandry. Until you acknowledge this, the Marc Lepines, Eliot Rodgers, serial killers and gang rapists all make your words ring hollow.
I am sure not going to defend him. He has nothing to do with the MRM. You hear those accusations but they are from people who are too clueless to tell the difference between the MRM and the manosphere. And I do think that’s what it is, not bad faith. He seems to have ben quoting form some PUA sites or something. Apparently even there people kept telling him off.
It isn’t the MRM or the MGTOWs that told and taught this guy he had to get laid t be a real man, that I he wasn’t a “real man” he was worthless. It wasn’t the MRM or the MGTOWs that told him he should even be looking for love and companionship there.
No, this one is on the tradcon cultural conditioning of the patriarchy.
Good question. This one didn’t fire into a crowd of men, she fired several times at one in particular but there may be have been bystanders at risks, don’t know:
http://www.cbs12.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_16172.shtml#.U4HI6Z8eQCI.reddit
If my disgust at this loser, this murderer doesn’t come through, that’s because I am pulling my punches. It’s too easy to say the right thing, even when it’s what you really feel.
Daisy Deadhead:
Since no-one else is here, I’ll try to answer you.
Which MRA’s are trying to excuse his murders? The only thing I’ve seen from MRA’s is condemnation of the journalism that tries to make us personally responsible for the murders.
In addition, I’ve seen them condemn his murder of four men, two women, and himself, an attack that killed 5/7ths men as “a misogynist attack on women”.
So yes, I’m aware of the difference, because it’s in your comment: misogyny in this case manifests as a blind burst of violence that misses almost every woman it could have hit and hits a bunch of men as a majority. Misandry manifests as trying to hold us responsible for him, as well as Marc Lepine, serial killers and gang rapists (most of whom neither are misogynists nor kill or hurt any women) while erasing the men killed and that they ever existed, stealing the only thing they had left – the memory of them.
Also thank you Daisy – you have demonstrated that there is no feminist who will not steal, distort, and deceive in the case of a human tragedy to push a political agenda. You really are all like that. You really are all Pankhurst’s eternal White Feather Ghouls and that’s all you’ll ever be.
You.Execrable.Worm.
Women can always get sex With someone no matter how unattractive they are and virtually all can also get a relationship. There is, and always will a small Group of men that will be romantically dead to the world in a way women are not. That means men (a small group) have life expereinces that can lead up to such shooting sprees that women do not.
I would add that I think men have a higher bioogical potential for extreme violence outside of close relationships. Theat means even with similar life experiences for men and women you will still get more men reacting with Extreme violence. That does not mean the male gender is bad in any way, just that they have a higher potential for using violence for good or bad.
Daisy:
Just curious: Are you going to defend this man too?
I don’t recall defending any other attackers who did things similar to what Elliot did
(However there was plenty of defending as to why American mainstream media was silent on the actions Boko Haram when they targeted and killed 59 boys until they kidnapped those school girls. The going excuse is “well those girls were kidnapped so there is still hope for them to be returned and since those boys were killed there isn’t much that can be done for them.”)
But as for Elliot I’m going to do something that I’m pretty sure I haven’t seen yet. I’m going to reach out to the Elliots of the world and try to get through to them in hopes of preventing this from happening again.
http://dannyscorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/2014/05/im-sorry-elliot.html
(I also published it at GMP – http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/reaching-elliot/)
And speaking of waiting I’m going to wait for feminists to realize that they are doing exactly what they would and have outraged over every single time they’ve seen MRAs do it. Politicizing a horrible event and used it as a chance to attack other people.
Imagine someone coming here and insinuating that combatting racism against and poverty among blacks is the same as defending a black man who just murdered someone. Not only would that person be wrong in terms of subject matter being discussed, but also wrong from the standpoint of trying to prevent those type of crimes.
Robert, you really want a list? I have been seeing spirited defenses all day long! Do you ever go to Reddit or Tumblr? Just do a search of his name, should pop up automatically. (The Tumblr war got particularly nasty and bloody, so beware. Also, Tumblrites can edit and delete comments and try to pretend they didn’t make them; but I don’t know if Reddit users can?)
Women can always get sex With someone no matter how unattractive they are and virtually all can also get a relationship
If that is true, why do most widows in their late 70s not remarry? Where are all these men (of any age) who will find them attractive and start a relationship with them?
In short, bullshit.
If you mean women in their 20s, then say so… but do not say *WOMEN* when that includes ALL the women in the world: all religions, races, weights, ages, abilities, appearances and nationalities. And when you view WOMEN that way, what you say is simply hilarious and patently false.
You don’t mean ALL of them, you mean the ones YOU are interested in.
Danny, I read your piece at GMP and I liked it. 🙂
Dungone, Rodger was a MRA, you know that right? One of YOURS. He *imbibed* what people like YOU SAY on Reddit … and the blame for his actions should be shared by those who unabashedly encouraged him, just as any other extremist group is held accountable for their fired-up rhetoric when their members decide to commit murder.
Daily Kos:
We know for a fact that Rodgers was influenced by this movement, as he is subscribed to multiple “pick up artist” or “mens rights” channels on YouTube. (For those here that don’t use YouTube, when a user subscribes to a channel, they receive notifications when that channel posts a new video.)
They include:
“The Player Supreme Show” which rails against the feminization of men and talks about how to pick up women.
“RSDfreetour” which is a series of self-help seminars run by RSD Nation, a “pick up artist” site.
There’s also a user called McHenry Cruiser who in addition to being a pickup artist is a comedian who has some kind of beef with Louis CK, and another called “Squatting Cassanova,” who seems to be your average PUA.
I’m still digging through some of the folks he’s subscribed to.
He is what the Men’s Rights movement calls an “Incel” which is short for involuntary celibacy. It’s a hot topic in various parts of the manosphere.
Rather than seeking mental help for some obvious issues, he sought out the Men’s Rights Movement. He watched their propaganda. He internalized their hatred of women. (There’s no shortage of anti-woman rhetoric and nonsense. For some of the worst of it, check out The Red Pill’s “Pussy Pass” forum, where they take isolated incidents, remove them from any rational context, and blow them way out of proportion.)
He listened to these guys talk about being hard, and tough, and true alpha men. He did what they told them, and began lifting weights. We know he had an account on body building forum which was recently deleted by their moderation team.
So this kid who needed some serious mental help sought out the destructive, BS views coming from the men’s rights movement. He felt entitled to sex with women. He blamed women for not providing him with sex. He exposed himself to hateful rhetoric about women.
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/24/1301671/-Elliot-Roger-Gunman-in-California-Mass-Shooting-was-influenced-by-the-Men-s-Rights-Movement
Are you saying none of that is true? It IS true.
The Men’s Rights Movement now has blood on its hands. If you do not want this to be a worse public relations disaster than it is already, start backpedaling and jettison the proudly-misogynist rhetoric. You will now have a bunch of SERIOUSLY mentally-deranged guys showing up and trying to derail your movement, since this constant media coverage (which is BAD in and of itself!) will bring an influx of men who identify with him into your ranks. Please be aware. If this is a real movement (and some of you don’t seem to really believe it is, or behave as if it is), understand that you are accountable for what that movement does, and who and what you tolerate within it.
Daisy. Would you believe that I’ve already gotten a complaint or two on reddit that I am supporting Rodger’s sense of entitlement? People are going for the throat on this and it seems like in the eyes of a lot of people if you don’t focus exclusively on how this is all about hating women, that he needed to have his sense of entitlement challenged, or how this represents all MRAs then you must be supporting his behavior.
The Men’s Rights Movement now has blood on its hands. If you do not want this to be a worse public relations disaster than it is already, start backpedaling and jettison the proudly-misogynist rhetoric. You will now have a bunch of SERIOUSLY mentally-deranged guys showing up and trying to derail your movement, since this constant media coverage (which is BAD in and of itself!) will bring an influx of men who identify with him into your ranks. Please be aware. If this is a real movement (and some of you don’t seem to really believe it is, or behave as if it is), understand that you are accountable for what that movement does, and who and what you tolerate within it.
I think this is an opportunity for MRAs to do something that a lot of feminists won’t do. Get rid of intolerable and offensive behavior.
Oh good. A deranged man has gone on a spree shooting, and all the feminists on the internet have popped up saying “it’s all about me, and it’s all your fault”.
Tell you what. Go to the families of the four men he murdered and tell them that the murder was a typical man just like their dead loved ones, acting out the violence and misogyny and entitlement that all men, including their dead loved ones, are brought up to feel. Go to the families of the two women he murdered and tell them your plight is exactly the same as their dead loved ones because you got some nasty comments on Twitter.
Reflect on this: no-one in the MRM, on their personal, low-traffic websites, has condoned what he did, or advocates it in the abstract, but feminists consistently advocate for women who murder their husbands in their sleep, in the abstract and the specific, in the courts and in the mainstream media. Your projection is showing again.
Elliott Rodger was not an MRA. He wanted to be a PUA, which is an entirely diferent thing, but the PUAs wouldn’t have anything to do with him because of his attitudes, and he ended up on anti-PUA sites. But what does the truth matter when compared to spreading the gospel of ALL MEN ARE BASTARDS, TO ME SPECIFICALLY?
@Patrick, it looks like this will turn out to be a massive case of foot-in-mouth syndrome.
It basically takes a real bigot to take these incredibly unusual actions of a severely isolated, mentally ill man and try to implicate anyone who seeks to help these men. That’s why everyone’s blaming the men’s rights community even though this guy had absolutely no associations with it.
Ironically, it is the mainstream establishment that had failed this young man, the victims, and their community. The therapists that this kid went to, the cops who his parents called begging to intervene, they did nothing, they found nothing wrong. But feminists are now trying to blame the men’s rights community for doing what, exactly? Actually identifying the problem and trying to get this guy some help?
Basically in their minds, this lynch mob would have us round up every guy who has trouble finding a date and tattoo “don’t be that guy” on his eyeballs. Blocking men’s centers in college campuses, or pulling fire alarms on speakers discussing issues such as men’s suicide, that’s supposed to prevent mass killing sprees? Sure, if they say so.
Eliot Rodger => The MRM is a hate movement
Valerie Solanas => NAFALT! How dare you, you fucking misogynist!
Daisy, women your age don’t remarry because more than half of the men your age are dead. You might say that’s just biology, but there are greater life expectancy differences between classes of women than between women and men in general.
JP, I am 56… half the men my age are DEAD? Seriously? When did THAT happen? Have you contacted the media?
The founder of the #YesAllWomen hashtag has had to shut down her account due to harassment. Hope you guys are happy; I know Dungone is ecstatic. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/us/campus-killings-set-off-anguished-conversation-about-the-treatment-of-women.html
Patrick, check out some of the men’s comments on that hashtag. Go ahead.
Danny, I agree.
Daisy, Rodgers did not subscribe to a SINGLE MRA channel. NOT ONE:
http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
Yet you LIE and say he did. PUAs are something very different from the MRA. So, what is happening her is YOU LYING to slander a legitimate political movement. Classy.
“If that is true, why do most widows in their late 70s not remarry? Where are all these men (of any age) who will find them attractive and start a relationship with them?”
I mistakenly assumed that you were refering to yourself. My comment still stands for widows in their late 70s. More than half of the men their age are dead.
The founder of the #YesAllWomen hashtag has had to shut down her account due to harassment. Hope you guys are happy; I know Dungone is ecstatic. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/us/campus-killings-set-off-anguished-conversation-about-the-treatment-of-women.html
No I feel the same way I did about a year ago when MRAs started a hashtag called #menspeakingup (or something like that) and feminists were openly and proudly trolling it and insulting and name calling people who used it.
Yea its pretty bad that it was misused but frankly I’m getting a bit bored of feminists (and MRAs too) who will praise or frown on behavior based solely on the who of a situation rather than the what/why/how of it.
How does anyone know the commenters trolling yesallwomen are MRAs or even men?
Same sexist assumption as always – it backfired when Caroline Criado Perez did it and one of her abusers was found to be female.
Beyond this I find the whole furore laughable. If we treated feminism by the standards many of its adherents are demanding be applied to the MRM, feminism would have been dust years ago.
And if some of the trolls are men, so what? Men =/= MRA
JP, what does age have to do with what I replied to?
Tom said “women can get a relationship anytime”–which means ALL women. Every single one… he didn’t specify only young women (even if that is what he meant, by default). So why aren’t the 40-year-old men jumping on the 70-year-old women? That is my point, and it sailed right by you, not surprisingly.
Would you like a list of well-known 70+-year-old men, like Rupert Murdoch, with wives 30 and 40 years younger?
Yes, yes, sociobiology blahblahblah…I’ve heard every excuse for this behavior in the world, usually emphasizing that old women are MUCH ICKIER than old men, so its totally different!… but whatever the reason, women do not come out better (relationship-wise) than men LATER IN LIFE. It all BALANCES OUT.
Oirish, are you suggesting men lie about being men on Twitter? Why would they do that? I assume a guy with thousands of tweets and a name like Fred, with his average-looking self, is who he says he is. Why wouldn’t he be?
Danny, point blank: When is the last time a woman took a gun and opened fire on a group? Laurie Dann is the last one I can think of, and as we all know, she didn’t like Mondays. (haha, I mean, it wasn’t about men, it was about school)
Valerie Solanas has given you guys big mileage, but lots of women have been stalked and killed in just that fashion. We remember Valerie primarily because 1) its so rare and 2) she was a radical feminist who wrote a famous manifesto.
The point is the violence. Nobody feels safe when people are spraying bullets… going after Andy Warhol was going after someone Valerie had a personal grudge with, he was not a stranger to her (you know that, right?). It is the TYPE of violence men engage in, not just the fact of the deaths. Women don’t do that shit, they are rarely serial killers and very very rarely kill total strangers. The question is why men do this TYPE of thing (unbalanced or not… and Valerie was as unbalanced as hell; there are plenty of unbalanced women and they STILL are rarely violent serial killers.)
It is the gender difference in behavior that becomes the focus when something like this occurs. And the fact that none of you seem to UNDERSTAND that point, scares people even more.
Violence by men and violence by women is different in type. Women usually poison men, if you watch “Snapped”–and usually for the insurance. That isn’t a mass killing of strangers. People do not feel afraid by that, its not about them. See the difference?
PS: For those who have never seen the excellent movie “I shot Andy Warhol”–you must see it. Great movie. Lili Taylor is amazing playing Valerie, its like you are watching her brought to life. BEST THING: Yo La Tengo plays the Velvet Underground in the club scenes!!!! ((fangirl screams)) That is SO perfect. Lou Reed RIP.
In moderation.. did I say something dirty?
Let me go look. It is not something oyu said.
“Tom said “women can get a relationship anytime”–which means ALL women. Every single one…”
That’s bullshit. Women can’t get relationships any time they want – that’s why there is all this moaning about “where are all the good men.” Women can’t get relationships at the drop of a hat, what they get is sex. All a woman has to do is lie back across the pool table. It’s just that that’s not very many women’s idea of what they want.
“Would you like a list of well-known 70+-year-old men, like Rupert Murdoch, with wives 30 and 40 years younger?
Yes, yes, sociobiology blahblahblah…I’ve heard every excuse for this behavior in the world, usually emphasizing that old women are MUCH ICKIER than old men, so its totally different!…”
That’s one I haven’t heard, but I don’t doubt it a minute. It’s not a question of old men and women, it’s a question of young men and women. Young men are not whorish enough to marry old and rich, that’s all. And before anyone gets reactive, think – have you ever even entertained the idea of marrying for money?
Ooops, I stand corrected. (still in moderation, so this doesn’t make sense but..) I was wrong, it was Brenda Spencer (only 16!) who said she didn’t like Mondays.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Don't_Like_Mondays
That’s only the second woman (girl really) I’ve ever heard of, opening fire. Again, it was a gender-inclusive mass murder, not singling out men.
And if you never heard the song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yteMugRAc0&feature=kp 🙂
Welcome, Tom.
“Yet you LIE and say he did. PUAs are something very different from the MRA. So, what is happening her is YOU LYING to slander a legitimate political movement. Classy.”
This very nearly crosses the line into the kind of abuse I will delete a comment for. Lying has a very specific meaning – it requires intent – and it is one of the few things that will reduce a person in my eyes to nothingness and worthlessness. It is not an accusation I make lightly or tolerate unless it can be proven. So, so unless you can prove intent, please retract it.
That claim is however absolutely FALSE and lie-mongers like Hadley Freeman at the Guardian, who as a paid professional journalist is at best lying by negligence for repeating that falsehood without checking, are lying.
Daisy, Robert St. Estephe runs a blog where he catalogs female poisoners. Some were quite efficient serial killers. To me mass murder and serial murder is a distinction without a difference.
And the White Feather ladies were complicit in some pretty horrific mass killing. An entire generation of European men died in that mass killing.
@Gingko, it hasn’t been more than a few months since a woman in the UK went on an all-male killing spree, murdering 3 men and attempting to kill 2 others. Do you think Elliot Rodgers was bad? You’ll hear crickets from feminists on this one: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-26389479
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-25669206
Daisy:
Danny, point blank: When is the last time a woman took a gun and opened fire on a group? Laurie Dann is the last one I can think of, and as we all know, she didn’t like Mondays. (haha, I mean, it wasn’t about men, it was about school)
So you’re saying because #yesallwomen is more important than #menspakingup (because of course helping men will in no way help women right?) feminists should be free to use it without being harassed while at the same time they should be free to troll and harass other hashtags?
There’s a classic XKCD cartoon, where in one panel a male stick figure watches another male stick figure doing something mathematical on a whiteboard and says “Wow, you suck at math”, and in the next panel the same male stick figure watches a female stick figure doing the same thing and says “Wow, girls suck at math”. Like most sexist double standards, this one has a misandric counterpart. Deranged woman does something horrible: “wow, she’s crazy”. Deranged man does something horrible: “wow, men are entitled, misogynist bastards”.
@Daisy:
I’m saying it’s possible that he might not be a he, given how easy it is to fake an identity online for the purposes of a twitter slanging match.
In addition, sometimes you just can’t tell from what a person presents. That people’s minds go straight to the poster being a he if they criticise a feminist is sexism.
The rarity is irrelevant. There is no link between the MRM and Rodgers (the Daily Kos link you posted conflates PUA with MRA – and given that IME all you have to do to be labelled an MRA is criticise a feminist, I’m not convinced there’s much care for the facts going on here).
Even then, major MRM sites have made it clear they’re not associated with him and that they don’t condone what he did. Now, I’m sure not every single MRA feels this way, but so what? Plenty of feminists still include Solanas among their number, and try to pass off the SCUM manifesto as Swiftian-level satire. (Firstly, they wish; secondly, calling it “satire” when she actually did go on a killing spree is like calling A Modest Proposal “satire” after it was discovered that Swift’s kitchen actually was full of dead peasant baby).
As I said – if we applied this standard to feminism, it would already be gone. I’m not an MRA, but I don’t think anyone has any right to disestablish feminism purely on the basis that they have some gobshites (including some violent ones) among their members. The same is true for the MRM (especially when there’s nothing linking them to the crime), which is why I’m defending them during this ordeal.
No, I understand the point entirely, I just reject it.
It’s the same faulty logic that seeks to treat all Muslims with suspicion, profiling and even surveillance because the percentage of them that engage in terrorism is a smidge higher than the number of white westerners perceived to be engaged in terrorism.
When your criteria for justifying such a level of fear cuts clean between two groups of people and results in treating an entire group of people on the wrong side of the line with prejudiced levels of suspicion, I can only conclude bias.
People don’t feel afraid of which one?
“Valerie Solanas has given you guys big mileage.”
Well, y’know, if in forty years people are studying Rodger’s manifesto in college courses and making a goddamned play about it…
Cathy Young has a good article up on the response Elliott Rodgers and points out the glaring misandry in Rodgers’ manifesto and actions.
http://reason.com/archives/2014/05/29/elliot-rodgers-war-on-women-and-toxic-ge
This is the best article I have seen yet on the Rodgers’ affair, the most insightful in a field of shallow and even self-serving crap:
http://www.salon.com/2014/05/28/elliot_rodger_and_americas_ongoing_masculinity_crisis_partner/
Good for Lisa Hickey. I think she is really getting at something.
And of course, right on time, there is this hate-filled by Jaclyn Freedman posing as informed comment:
http://prospect.org/article/look-inside-mens-rights-movement-helped-fuel-california-alleged-killer-elliot-rodger
Jezebel: Lessons from a day spent with the UCSB shooter’s awful friends
http://jezebel.com/lessons-from-a-day-spent-with-the-ucsb-shooters-awful-f-1582884301
There is a huge crossover with PUA and MRM, and if yall want to win this one, start delineating the difference, if there is one. I never believed there was any difference, so I am surprised to hear this–I thought it was a matter of what guys were into. IF MGTOW is part of the MRM, so is PUA. I considered them branches of the same movement. My favorite men’s rights blogger, Martel, is also one who does “game”…
Why do so many guys on MRA sites say they are into “game” and there are so many references to it? Come on, this distinction is totally lost on everyone in the media, since there is such a crossover.
Why are you trying to distance yourselves from PUA all of a sudden?
@Daisy:
Again, PUAhate isn’t a PUA site. It’s a PUA-critical site and has a completely different ethos. It’s a site that is reactionary to PUA.
If we’re attributing fault here based on which movements caused a split/reaction, and given that feminists seem to think the MRM is one homogenous mass, then isn’t it really feminism’s “fault”? After all, the MRM was a reaction to feminism.
Has anyone denied there is overlap? No, only that they are two separate movements. Why would two completely opposing views, PUA and MGTOW be part of the same movement? MGTOW is about eschewing relationships altogether, so it’s a nonsequitur that if MGTOW is part of the MRM then PUA is.
This isn’t “all of a sudden” either – there’s always been this claimed distinction even long before Rodger went off on one. Some MRAs will be PUAs, but I’ve never seen somewhere like AVfM’s membership complain all the time about how girls don’t like them. Goodness, even a cursory check of AVfM’s headlines and bulletins over the last few days has demonstrated what utter bullshit that generalisation about MRAs that’s been repeated ad nauseam in the press is.
And are people supposed to be distancing themselves from these people or aren’t they? Why ask that people distance themselves then query them when you think that they are?
@OirishM, when a typical feminist hears about a site called “PUAhate,” they immediately think “PUAs who are MRA’s who hate women.” It shouldn’t surprise any of us, but it is what it is when preconceived notions drive the narrative.
There is a great deal of overlap between PUA and anti-PUA sites, but not all anti-PUA sites are the same, either. Some are legitimate criticism of the entire PUA community, others are composed of disgruntled customers and competing “gurus” trying to discredit one another while steering people to their own theories. PUAhate is one such site. It’s a cesspool, from all I’ve ever heard of it.
There is “some” overlap with MRA’s and PUA’s, but there’s actually far more overlap between feminists and MRA’s. Either way it’s nothing to bother with. Just as MRA’s and feminists repudiate one another, PUA’s and MRA’s repudiate one another. If Daisy wants to call PUA an MRA movement, then she might as well call MRM a feminist movement. She can’t have it both ways.
To wit, the Reddit men’s rights forum has seen an unusually large number of posts from people claiming to be feminists in the past few days, saying that they came to check out the forum, couldn’t find anything wrong with it, and are fed up with the way in which feminists lie about the MRM. Anytime feminists and the mainstream media tries to attack the men’s rights movement, we’ve had actual feminists convert over to MRA’s. I don’t think feminists have managed to steal a single MRA yet, though.
@dungone – I realise my earlier comment wasn’t too clear (that’ll teach me to comment prior to having coffee). Obviously there will be some rank-and-filers who identify as both MRA and PUA, which is what I meant by “overlap”; but as movements they strike me as diametrically opposed ideologically. Saying that a movement contains both men rejecting relationships with women because of a biased system and men trying to maximise their casual sexual relationships with women (probably one of the riskier forms of relationship at that) within that system is contradictory.
Should we go the feminist route and just claim everyone who takes the label as MRA no matter how contradictory the opinions under the banner of “MRA” end up being – a bit like how there exist feminists who think it’s for women’s issues only, and feminists who are under the impression it’s an equality movement for all?
Either way, I’m fed up trying to deal with people who are never satisfied – first it’s stop criticising feminists and make your own movement. Then a movement happens and it’s wrong in some way. Something like this happens and the MRM is told to distance themselves from it – they do that while acknowledging there’s minimal to no connection between them the same way they’ve always done, and it just merits more suspicion. You can’t win with these people.
There do seem to be a fair few people out there who aren’t buying this though, which is good. I agree with your comment about /r/mensrights, was enjoying reading the experience of the questioning feminist who didn’t realise that the reason why no-one appeared to challenge feminist claims on feminist subreddits was because they were all moderated out of existence. I haven’t seen nearly as much censorship among the MRM as I have among feminists, which in itself speaks volumes about who is really the more influential here.
@OirishM, the censorship among the feminist set is indeed astounding. And they’re playing it for everything it’s worth here. On Reddit, all you have to do is post a couple comments to a men’s rights forum to be blacklisted on some of the feminist forums. Even people who claim to be feminists or feminist sympathizers get banned immediately after posting something ostensibly critical which makes feminism look bad. The men’s rights community is made up of thousands of former feminists, and thousands of them would still happily engage with feminists if they hadn’t been excommunicated from those groups. It’s amazing how this entire attack on the “overlap” is based purely on the fact that feminists are so ban-happy whereas everyone else favors freedom of expression and open exchange of ideas.
And it’s amazing how despite that censorship there’s still some really problematic overlap within feminism – which doesn’t get even remotely commented on in the same way.
Make a song that enough people mistakenly think is rapey but isn’t, like Robin Thicke did- people will call for your head.
Meanwhile, feminist Eve Ensler publishes a play that explicitly describes an underage rape as “a good rape” – crickets. And she now heads up an organisation that purports to speak for a billion women. And she was one of the people gunning about Todd Akin merely for talking about “legitimate” rape.
“There is a huge crossover with PUA and MRM,”
Actually there isn’t, there is hissy-fit hostility – Elam calls PUAs “pussysists” – but that absolutely is the perception out there.
…” and if yall want to win this one, start delineating the difference, if there is one. ”
Absolutely correct. That is the task at hand. Misperceptions can become reality.
“I never believed there was any difference, so I am surprised to hear this–I thought it was a matter of what guys were into.”
This is the main points of difference: MRAS rail against traditional gender roles, and that includes areas that favor women; thus the opposition from a certain kind of feminist, the tradcon types that focus on female victimhood and analyze gender relations on the same old patriarchal basis of hyperagency/hypoagency. PUAs on the other hand want to manipulate (and thereby re-inforce) traditional gender rules, and in some chillingly objectifying and manipulative ways. It’s the male version of the Rules, which as you recall are just as tradcon and retrograde, all the same old feminine wiles and hard-to-get games.
” IF MGTOW is part of the MRM, so is PUA.”
This isn’t the case because MGTOW and the MRM both reject traditional gender roeels – in the case of MGTOWS the part of the male gender role that says a man must marry and support a wife with no corresponding female obligation. In fact what MGTOW resembles most is political lesbianism, which I regard as a very valid form of feminism. Female separatism is risible because every form I have ever encountered presupposes dependence on men, but political lesbianism concentrates on a specific, doable thing.
“The men’s rights community is made up of thousands of former feminists, and thousands of them would still happily engage with feminists if they hadn’t been excommunicated from those groups. ”
The women’s movement degenerated into a bunch of feuding sororities over 25 years ago, as evidenced by all the protestations of solidarity amidst all the heretications. The high-school cliquishness you see on-line is comical – Feministe and Jezebel have been at daggers drawn for five years now, Marcotte is banned at Feministe, and you never see Sady Doyle or Melissa McEwan anywhere outside their hothouses – and quite telling of the emotional age level of those involved.
BTW Valenti and Filipovic have won out over McEwan and Doyle in visibility; they write for the Guardian and you see their stuff in other high-vis venues, while Doyle and McEwan are completely shaded out,.
Ginkgo:
I think you mean “pussyist”. A “pussysist” is a college sorority sister who is “totally not gay” but goes down on her sisters any time she can – and neither I nor Paul Elam have any problem with those women, although we’d both tell them they don’t have to justify themselves either to me or to their sorority sisters or anyone else.
Robert, that’s genius!
And you are quite right about what I meant to say.
@Daisy:
“Why are you trying to distance yourselves from PUA all of a sudden?”
It hasn’t been all of a sudden. There’s been a huge war on for years. You can check john the other’s videos to see one where he attacks “manhood academy” and all of their faithful followers come onto the channel to basically call him a pussy and faggot.
When feminists talk about the men who strictly enforce gender roles upon other men through bullying and shame–those are pua’s and the Academy asshats.
As gingko said since the mrm is battling gender roles (mostly for men yes) this naturally pits them against pua’s and academy clowns. Go to any pua webpage & search for mra and you will find several articles basically calling mra’s everything but nice guys.
Also, I suggest picking up a book called poison ivy. It’s about a female serial killer who (if she’s killed all they suspected) is one of the most prolific serial killers alive. And her victims were all male.
She was a nurse at a vet hospital who would inject her victims with epinephrine to induce cardiac arrest. Then put on a big show of attempting to save the man by injecting him with more epinephrine (the standard practice for normal heart attacks, but a killing move in this instance).
She was regularly seen to “mount” the guys in a sexually suggestive position as she worked.
Don’t you get tired of presupposing male beastliness and female stainliness? Are you really that blind to female aggression? Of do you just patrol for stories that confirm your notions?
Actually, those definitions were very helpful, so thanks you guys for the distillation… it is very confusing from the outside. I don’t expect media people who have absolutely NO familiarity with ANY men’s rights stuff to have any understanding of the differences in these groups whatsoever. In fact, right now, what you have is this collective horror over “game”–lots of women (feminists and not) are learning about this for the first time. They never heard of it and they are instantly freaked out. PUAs might need some neutral (say, gay or MGTOW) guys to make the case for it… unfortunately, the guys who are deep into it are all trying to do it 24/7 and therefore sound like annoying, pseudo-hip wise-asses. A detached sociological viewpoint is needed, and nobody is around to offer that.
I agree w/Dungone (historic moment on this blog) that feminism is big on censorship… since GUESS WHO gets censored? No argument here. I am very curious about why though. Possibly since “mom” was historically the one who settled fights amongst the kids, taught the children not to cuss, told men to “keep it clean?” I dunno. The censorious impulse does seem to come from a desire to control discourse overall.
I am sorry we have not dealt adequately with this in our movement… but (haha) to deal with it, an honest and UNcensored discussion is necessary, and that is nearly impossible to have now. Catch 22.
On Tumblr, the same thing is now happening in the trans discussions, which have reached a fever pitch. The idea that EVERYTHING is a slur, EVERYTHING is violence, is just tiresome and ridiculous… but if you argue, you are a murderous evil transmisogynist! (By the way, you may find it interesting that the radical “Baeddel” faction on Tumblr has declared there is NO SUCH THING as transmisandry and all transphobia is really transmisogyny. Trans men do not suffer from transphobia. Really, they do say that.) Laverne Cox, now on the cover of TIME magazine, recently gave a much-quoted speech proclaiming that calling a trans woman a man, IS violence. The word. The word.
Now they are all bleating “violence! violence!” every time some radfem says someone is a man. It is really fast-bordering on the absurd.
But yes, I see that this came from the general atmosphere of feminist censoriousness. I don’t see the trans men demanding this and that. Trans women on Tumblr have been steeped in online feminism, and unfortunately, this censoriousness is the behavior they saw modeled there.
Also, might interest you that I got a few hundred reblogs on this post, where I steal unabashedly from Freddie (I gave full credit AND a link) and explain the derivation of women’s oppression:
http://daisydeadhead.tumblr.com/post/86956305322/things-to-understand
I was very pleased that it was well-received, but of course, not by everybody. The person I quoted, Toni Dorsay, took issue with my sentence that men aren’t just being “mean”–she seems to believe “bigotry” is the reason men are sexist, not just the habits of millenia and roles ingrained in the nuclear family/monogamy.
Also, one comment reminded me that Engels was misogynist in his personal life. Wow, he was born in 1820, no shit? But seriously, that means his theory is wrong? He was trying to discern the origin of the state, and accidentally discovered it was on the backs on women. The fact he was not a feminist (which hadn’t been invented yet) is more proof he was correct, not less.
Anyway, apologize for digression.
But I see the fallout of the lack of open discussion. Some things we are not allowed to say. That can simply NEVER be a good thing. Repressed speech always returns in a more fanatical form. I see a lot of that dynamic throughout this whole discussion… the more certain sentiments are deemed beyond the pale, the more people feel suppressed and angry that they are not allowed to express themselves.
Sorry for meandering comment. Hope it made sense.
don’t you get tired of presupposing male beastliness and female stainliness? Are you really that blind to female aggression? Of do you just patrol for stories that confirm your notions?
You talkin to me? Well, I’m the only one here. (name that violent movie character)
Do you mean “saintliness”? Or did you mean “Stainlessness”?
I don’t presuppose anything… Um, upthread I admitted that I am addicted to the TV show “Snapped”… haven’t you ever seen it? Its ALL women-killers of men! Of course I am not blind to it, I watch entire marathons of it.
My point was how different it is in STYLE, obviously due to socialization and the difference in body-strength between men and women. Women poison men for money, as I said. Men just shoot and stab outright, because they are pissed, usually because she has cheated. Those are the facts.
A man who wants money, robs a liquor store instead. A woman tries to kill her husband for it, LOL.
(yes, I know there are exceptions, talking about the majority; general patterns)
No, I don’t think ANY REASON is acceptable or moral.. is this necessary to say? I am interested in socialization and how the same impulses are acted out re: men and women.
(And this is what started the fight w/the trans women. They say there is no such thing as socialization, and I believe it is almost the entire reason for specific gender roles.)
PS: All the murderous examples you gave, were also on SNAPPED. You really should watch it.
Daisy,
“Actually, those definitions were very helpful, so thanks you guys for the distillation… it is very confusing from the outside. I don’t expect media people who have absolutely NO familiarity with ANY men’s rights stuff to have any understanding of the differences in these groups whatsoever.”
It’s not confusing if a person takes the time and – this is not flattery – has the moral gyroscope you do. But people don’t have time; they are busy living their lives, and they go with whatever narrative fits best with the narratives they already understand. behold the power of cultural inertia.
“I agree w/Dungone (historic moment on this blog) that feminism is big on censorship… since GUESS WHO gets censored? ”
No shit, and in very nasty ways. You fought the good fight, but guess what, you are not alone. Just in the last few days there has been a spate of feminists checking out the mensrights sub-reddit with similar stories:
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/26trxw/all_the_articles_proclaiming_this_subreddit_to_be/
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/26sq38/as_a_feminist_i_am_so_disappointed_in_feminism/
http://thoughtcatalog.com/janet-bloomfield/2014/04/im-an-anti-sexist-liberal-doctoral-student-wife-and-mother-who-supports-the-mens-rights-movement-over-feminism-heres-why/
“I am sorry we have not dealt adequately with this in our movement… but (haha) to deal with it, an honest and UNcensored discussion is necessary, and that is nearly impossible to have now. Catch 22”
You tried, you and many others. Personally I think it was traditional gender norms that defeated you. The sororities and cliques closed ranks. Well, times are finally changing.
“Sorry for meandering comment. Hope it made sense.”
I wish you would do that more often.
Isn’t…isn’t this the exact same sort of accusation that gets flung at male feminists? What’s the the distaff counterpart to white-knighting? Note how she doesn’t even pretend to address what you’re actually saying, ad hominems, trying to stuff you into the mental box where she keeps MRAs so she doesn’t have to think about them. Heck, she even dehumanizes you by referring to you as a member of a group, not an individual.
Of course, responding to them with snark,as you did, tends to get folks like her really riled up. Almost as if they could dish it out but couldn’t take it.
I actually recently saw this rhetorical tactic myself. When asked if you’ve seen X, you just go I’ve seen a lot of things like X, and yours is just another one. If phrased carefully, like Bagelsan and the moron I was talking to, you can avoid actually saying whether you’ve seen X or not.
If I was a swearing sort, I’d be using a certain 8-letter word here having to do with cows at that portion I just bolded. Feminism talks about “the Patriarchy” nearly exclusively. Kyriarchy is barely used. I am seriously starting to wonder how many feminists have ever looked up the former term in a dictionary, and realized they’re blaming what is, by definition, a system run by men.
A while back a woman took the kid and ran away from her apparently abusive husband. He told a friend that she was lying about the abuse, then tracked her down and killed her. According to Marcotte’s Maw Story post, she was killed by “Men’s Rights Narratives”.
You mean like, say, blaming rape on men in general? It’s not like Feminists don’t blame MRAs for everything from Anita Sarkeesian to the Kennedy shootings anyway.
That may have been #INeedMasculismBecause. Which, ironically, was set up by 4chan just so feminists would troll it.
So, if you’re a man speaking up, you get yelled at by feminists. If you’re a woman talking about men’s issues, you get yelled at by feminists, assuming they acknowledge your existence. I’m noticing a theme here.
Why do my comments always have errors? why?
Sorry for my cynicism Daisy, that was a decent response you made.
I’m not saying everyone has to like each other in this – I’m not exactly expecting MRAs and feminists to kiss and play nice. But I’ve never once, despite the shitty behaviour that has happened under its banner, thought that feminism should be forcibly disbanded or classed as a hate movement. No-one has to like what the other says, or even identify with them (heck, I don’t identify as either), but there should at least be respect for the free flow of ideas and the rights of these groups to exist.
I honestly don’t think feminism is arguably any better in its behaviour over its history.
The one thing I’ll disagree with is that I think it is easy to challenge the notion that there’s a difference between MRA and PUA. I think that’s just sloppy reporting.
Re. your tumblr post – I’ve never actually understood what it means when one says that women are hated “because they are women”. It seems rather….tautologous.
@Daisy:
Yes that was meant to be saintliness.
And, I don’t know that you’re watching “Snapped” proves anything especially when you seem to be engaging in gender essentialism and saying that all serial killers and multiple murder killers are men and poo-poo issues of female aggression.
@OirishM
It’s taken as axiomatic by many that since domestic violence and rape ostensibly happens mostly to women, it’s because they are women (and, implicitly, because the assailants are men). Oddly enough, when I point out that most violence overall happens to men, it apparently doesn’t matter because it’s not targeted at them for being men. And apparently there’s no such thing as a bisexual rapist or abuser.
I wonder how they reconcile the high amount of mutual abu – oh, right, blame men.
Basically, anything that’s seen is a gendered issue (for women) is because of hatred of women, even when the people in question are doing it to protect and help women, or they’re doing it for some other reason (most pro-life folks). Lots of people even try to reframe men’s issues as being about women, because “femmephobia”.
@John D:
The show itself makes it clear that many of its women are just horrible people.
The other fact that I’ve had hammered home is that trying to be an “ally” is a mug’s game. I’ve seen feminists act like stereotyping is wrong, and then feminists insist that objecting to NotAllMen is perfectly fine (even when it’s rightly combatting stereotyping of men) and if people could only just try and see why they’re stereotyped and police themselves?
Assuming these are two different subsets of feminists and not colossal raging hypocrites (because I find it more a little suspicious that stereotyping is suddenly apparently totally ok when it’s men who are the target), it just shows that there is no point trying to be an ally, as you will only end up pissing off the subset you didn’t go along with.
Whatever happens, there will always be a bloc of feminists there to treat you like a failure and badmouth you as an unreconstructed, typical privileged male.
In the end, do what you think is right, and damn the lot of them.
The other fact that I’ve had hammered home is that trying to be an “ally” is a mug’s game.
That’s because feminism is the one alliance where one side sets all the terms and conditions.
Seriously name another alliance from any point in history where one side sets all the terms and conditions and the other side must follow unconditionally or risk being cast out.
There’s no point in being a male ally of feminism. All that gets you is a bunch of women waiting for you to slip up even once so they can, rather gleefully, rip you a new one.
Exhibit A is the twitter hashtag StopClymer. Clymer was, apparently, a male feminist who wrote a bunch of articles. He recently found himself on the bad side of a woman. Now they are using his past abuse and suicidal tenancies against him.
This is what feminism does to its “allies”
No thanks.
Paul:
The flipside of this is the giant pity pulls on the lines of “we should aaaaaaaaallllll be feminists!” when the movement is running short of Charles Clymers and Hugo Schwyzers as if the world is chock full of men desperate for some flagellation and an excuse to attack anyone that he feels he has now got “permission” to. Th attitude is a simultaneous solipsistic self-belief in one’s own born right to command, and a self entitlement to receive aid simply by dint of existence. Clymer has to learn the futility of trying to appease this kind of mob, and in doing so lets everyone else know what they can expect from this rolling whorehouse of murderous pseudo-humanism.
The Roman Empire had a similar attitude to the people it called its “allies”, because they were barbarians – but at least if you assimilated to Roman culture you became a Roman and not a barbarian any more, and you could end up in the Senate or even become Emperor. With feminists it’s “I understand you can’t help being a barbarian. If you do what we tell you, accept our authority and don’t talk back, you can at least be a useful barbarian – but I’ll still regard you and treat you as a barbarian.”
Who then whine that the barbarians are tearing up their beautiful stagnance with usefulness – they didn’t understand that “useful’ means ‘maintain no action’ not ‘actually carry through with stated goals’.
@OirishM:
I find it interesting that “Not All Men” is apparently mockworthy, but Not All Feminists is a perfectly valid argument. As Permutation of Ninjas (great blog) has pointed out, people choose to be feminists. It’s a lot more difficult to stop being a dude.
Plus, you know, the fact that not all people concerned with men’s issues are men, as convenient as that stereotype would be for gynocentrists. But if they acknowledge that (and acknowledge that malefems get criticized too, even when they’re talking about “Toxic Masculinity”) they wouldn’t be able to bank on the gendered threat narrative to demonize critics. I mean, whaddya expect them to do? Actually address the complaints?
@Danny:
Seriously name another alliance from any point in history where one side sets all the terms and conditions and the other side must follow unconditionally or risk being cast out.
Funny. I made a similar remark about those feminist posts where they try to look conciliatory towards MRAs, and essentially end up going “do what we want, and we will change nothing at all, and that’s better for everyone”. My quip was “that’s not an alliance, that’s unconditional surrender”. Or, in the case of Brown’s “barbarians” who can never become “citizens”, slavery.
Hey Daisy, I’m not sure you’re still watching this thread- or anybody is- but here’s a pretty comprehensive list of female killers, and attempted murderers, some of who killed for being rejected.
http://dontneedfeminism.tumblr.com/post/87858557265/thatladysif-a-fucker-named-dont-need