What’s a good way to win more allies? Let’s see…to grab the name of someone else’s anti-violence campaign and pretend it’s always been yours, and use it to attack that campaign?
It will probably work. Shits are drawn to shit. Salon reports:
The White Ribbon campaign is a movement that started in Canada in 1991. It focuses on getting men and boys to step up in the movement against violence against women, and it has a number of global chapters. But this week, A Voice for Men started its own White Ribbon campaign and is now claiming to be the original White Ribbon campaign while warping the actual campaign’s message and intent.
It’s confusing, and also terrible.
A post from the men’s rights White Ribbon site claiming to be the “real” White Ribbon campaign:
It is … my sad duty to caution you that there are numerous attempts by other entities to corrupt the message of the White Ribbon Initiative by inserting dishonest and sexist messages into this movement. …
[W]e urge you in the strongest possible terms to consider what you are actually seeing when you encounter groups going by the name “White Ribbon” whose message is gendered, as in “Stop Domestic Violence Against Women.” …
These people are much more interested in raising money than in raising awareness. …
That’s Paul Elam for you. A class act.
The actual White Ribbon campaign issued a statement:
Today, White Ribbon (www.whiteribbon.ca ) became aware that a “so-called” men’s rights group has launched a copycat campaign articulating their archaic views and denials about the realities of gender-based violence.
Their vile sentiments – which include disparaging comments about women’s shelters and victim blaming survivors of rape – are completely incongruent with our values at White Ribbon.
Their misguided attempts to discredit others only make clear the extent to which they see the success of our equality-driven, evidence-based, ally-focussed work on gender justice as a real threat to their ill-informed, isolated views on this issue. This latest example is clear evidence of their insincerity and lack of commitment to developing compassionate solutions for the issues they claim to care about. It also showcases their real focus: attacking, harassing and directing anger towards others.
More like a very dark brown ribbon.
Meanwhile, today, Dean Esmay was on Twitter explaining that White Ribbon is the one who has been lying about domestic violence.
About what you would expect from him.
IIRC, White Ribbon more-or-less got started in response to the massacre at L’Ecole Polytechnique (at least, that’s the context I first recall it in). Which makes this hijack pretty vile.
Will the Real White Ribbon please stand up!
Could this be considered as some kind of fraud on the Elam’s part? Is there a trademark violation here? In other words, is there some legal action that could be taken by genuine article against the fakers and frauds?
I love that they do things like this. I’d never heard of the White Ribbon campaign, and now I have. I’d also never heard of Anita Sarkeesian or Zoe Quinn or Brianna Wu before they started targeting them. So, yes, true, they’re doing terrible things to these people, but they’re also drawing the attention of reasonable people toward their targets, giving them more exposure in positive ways, and exposing themselves into the bargain.
I was checking out the White Ribbon facebook page earlier, and there are a few MRAs scurrying around, making comments and trying to look as if they’re the true equalists here… until you go down a level in the comments and see them start projecting their nonsense for all to see. They don’t seem to realise that they’re out in the open there. People can see them, and most people are not as sympathetic to overt misogyny as they seem to believe.
We are Plethora @3:
Yes, probably, and yes. (Whether it’s worth pursuing legal action is a different matter that the White Ribbon folks will have to decide.)
Yes, it’s almost certainly fraud; it’s definitely trademark infringement, as the ‘White Ribbon Campaign’ is trademarked in several countries, and blocking this sort of deliberate attempt to sow confusion is the original point of trademarks. Not to mention that the actual non-profit status of A Voice For Men is rather in doubt; it may be illegal just on that front.
There have been a couple of articles on We Hunted The Mammoth about this as it goes on. Given that Paul Elam has used A Voice For Men as basically his own personal piggy bank for some time, and given that the new site was developed kind of on the cheap (it’s using the same WordPress theme as AVfM, and copies a good bit of the information from there, prettied up a bit), one of the general theories floating around is that Paul is TRYING to be sued, to use the martyrdom from that for a call for more monetary support.
I know lawsuits can result in agreements not to write books or profit from events; I wonder if an agreement could be made to, say, garnish further donations made after any lawsuit. The end result would probably be contempt of court proceedings, considering how Elam treats any rules that get in the way of what he thinks he deserves.
Ophelia, Every day seems to bring something more sickening than the one before. I posted a panel on this if you get the inclination.
screechymonkey @5 and Jenora Feuer @6,
Thanks for the info, this is truly a sickening thing to do, very insidious. At some point someone is going to come along and knock these AVM chumps down a few pegs and it will be entirely earned.
Eamon Knight @2:
Oh, hell yeah. The Montreal Massacre was the work of a man bent on destroying women.
You might have heard of the shooter’s name: Marc Lépine. He’s a sort of hero to the MRA movement, either by people trying to emulate him or thinking he was misunderstood or looking up to him, or even complaining he’s become a club to hit MRAs with, but didn’t really hate women.
So this is a little bit like taking Remembrance Day and, under the guise of respecting the troops, bragging about how we nuked Japan twice. And, as an added touch, using the opportunity to siphon off charitable funds and (possibly) incite a lawsuit, all for personal gain.
Once this blows up in their faces, Bloomfield will pop up to explain it was satire all along.
The White Ribbon campaign did begin as a response to the L’Ecole Polytechnique massacre. I was a first year student in Ottawa that year* and my memory surrounding that event is pretty clear. Men who were horrified at the attack and who wanted to show their solidarity for the women calling for an end to violence against women (note: not just domestic violence) and who wanted to take up the task of changing the culture of men and boys to further that aim began it. The white ribbon is not just a consciousness raising symbol but a memorial to the victims, a statement to say they didn’t die in vain. What Elam is doing is like perverting the AIDS red ribbon by a homophobic group or the poppies of Remembrance Day by anti-democratic terrorists. It’s vile.
*The official org may have been founded in 1991, but the movement began pretty soon after the massacre itself which was in December 1989.
Jenora Feuer/#6:
I had that same odd thought, looking at this, among others.
I also kinda figure there’s other ways he may be hoping this will serve him…
It’s conjecture, okay. But there really does seem to me to be something very cultlike about his organization, especially, and maybe it’s some of the the same entangled psychology. So maybe he figures creating a certain us-against-the-world siege mentality works out pretty well in his favour… The narrative will be: see how persecuted we are, see what we struggle against… Now please give generously, since those evil feminists have overrun the courts, too, obviously.
This will be distinctly two-edged, sure. At any distance from his organization, they’ve made themselves that much more pariahs, and there maybe well be those who might have been wavering, thinking maybe they had some kind of point¸ seeing them more clearly now for the human horrorshows they so clearly are.
But closer in, that very isolation tightens his grip on his followers, ramps up their fanaticism. And I wonder if he’s really thinking this now, figuring, hell, I’m a grotty, nasty piece of work; I really haven’t much of a hope of making this a popular movement under any kind of spotlight, anyway… so I’ll just take those already invested, milk them a little harder.
I hope they don’t get away with this, but if I had to bet I would say they probably will get away with it.
Men who were horrified at the attack and who wanted to show their solidarity for the women calling for an end to violence against women (note: not just domestic violence) and who wanted to take up the task of changing the culture of men and boys to further that aim began it.
You’re quite correct about the origins of the campaign.
However, about that attack is the fact all the males present ran away. Not a single male did anything in the way of even challenging, let alone stopping, Marc Lepine.
Just contrast the behavior of those late 60s/early 70s born ‘decommissioned’ males with that of the Sergeant-at-
Arms in the Center Block last week when he took out the Parliament Hill Shooter.
Had a few of the male students at The Polytechnique, some of whom were big strapping lads, shown some balls by ganging up on Lepine, they could have taken out the little runt quite easily.
Ambush him from behind…grab a desk and throw it at his god-damned head.
Instead, though, they ran away, abandoning those women to their fate.
Decker I think your comment is appalling. The Sgt-at-Arms is trained in security and the use of weapons. It’s his job. The ‘few males’ at Ecole Polytechnique, on the other hand, were not. Go away.
@14:
Not fair, I thinkOn second thought: that’s fucking stupid.First, the general “wisdom” had been (and to some extent, still is) that when confronted with a gun that’s not actually being fired, you are very polite and do as the holder says. Hopefully, they’ll just take some hostages, the police will come in, negotiations will take place, and at some point the hostage-taker will either stand down or get taken out by a sniper. Whether or not that’s an optimum strategy, that’s what civilians were, and are, used to doing. (Recall also that on 9/11, it was only on one plane that the passengers decided to oppose the hi-jackers, and that’s because some of them had learned by cell phone about the WTC attacks, ie. this was not the usual land-and-negotiate scenario where most people survive; it was a suicide mission and they had nothing to lose).
And why couldn’t the women have done that, if it was reasonably possible? Numbers make up for whatever the individuals may lack in size or strength. “The men should have taken him out” is itself sexist bullshit.
It’s very easy to sit behind a keyboard and pontificate on what someone else shoulda-coulda done, and invent moves that sound like a scene out of a Hollywood thriller. Which, BTW, is very much what it sounded like when the details were reported on how the Sergeant-at-Arms took out Bibeau — but then Vickers is a trained police officer; the rest of us are, um, “de-commissioned” (which I take to be a euphemism for something else).
Oh, and I forgot to mention: there were also 14 wounded, of whom four were male. Lepine was not *entirely* specific about whom he would shoot.
Oh, ew, Decker. For christ’s sake – you’ve been around here quite awhile, do you really think this is a receptive audience for rants about men having the balls to take on guys with guns? That’s wrong on so many levels. Sigurd and Eamon said what they are, but I just want to underline. Don’t barf out that kind of crude chest-thumping here.
Had a few of the male students at The Polytechnique, some of whom were big strapping lads, shown some balls by ganging up on Lepine, they could have taken out the little runt quite easily
Sounds like someone’s angling for a job as spokesperson for the NRA. Or close enough.
AJMilne@12 is onto something, methinks. This fake “White Ribbon” crap is guaranteed to repulse anyone who has (a) a functioning moral compass, (b) even a tiny bit of comprehension of what’s going on, and (c) the standard baseline level of simple empathy for others… and by a starkly incredible coincidence, Elam’s natural constituency (for want of a better word) is made up of people who are seriously lacking in at least one of those qualities. It’s a match made in heaven, for excessively over-inclusive values of ‘heaven’.
AJ Milne @12
I can see that. In the past, I’ve compared systematic sexism to a proto-religion, as both rely on many of the same cognitive biases to prop up false belief.
More recently, though, I’ve rediscovered Umberto Eco’s “Ur-Fascism.” It fits GamerGate extremely well, and does a pretty good job here too. While a religious person believes in angels and demons, an Ur-Fascist thinks they walk among us with recognizable name and faces. People and personalities are centres of worship but also of scorn, and unlike traditional fascism there is no central leader. Like traditional fascism, but unlike most religions, anyone can “ascend” to an archetype through action, earning the title “Noble Martyr” or “Brave Hero” by battling the “Hated Vilian” or “Vile Traitor.”
Action is another key difference between religion and any form of fascism. You can’t simply talk the talk, your social status is determined by how you engage with the enemy. If direct action isn’t possible or wise, being targeted by your enemy will work just as well and has the bonus of painting your foes as a vast, powerful conspiracy out to get the little person.
There’s also the emphasis on encoded language or “Newspeak.” The White Ribbon campaign is a perfect example of this. Most people don’t know the history, and will take the calls to end violence at face value; insiders who do, however, will quietly celebrate the death of women or feminists. It thus manages to condemn and condone violence simultaneously, meaning precisely what you want it to.
Contradictions like those are a feature, not a defect. They provide plausible deniability (“Not all MRAs!”), an avenue for self-justification (“I’m just for basic human rights, I don’t hate women”), and make it easier to generate myth and dogma. Progressives are trying to remove contradictions within our society, after all, so an ability to live with them is necessary if you want to preserve the status quo. Emotion and heated rhetoric take the place of logic and reason, though having a few pseudo-arguments to repeat helps promote the illusion that you’re the rational one.
Tying it all together, Elam might be trying to become more heroic by challenging a large charity (it’s in 51 countries, after all). If he gets sued, then the David vs. Vast Conspiracy narrative is further justified; either way, he’s created a great avenue for Newspeak and emotionally-charged arguments. The MRA community will (and have) worship him further for it.
So, does anyone else think Decker’s ultimate point was “If it weren’t for those horrible feminists emasculating men, they would have attacked Lepine,” or am I just being uncharitable?
timgueguen
I didn’t see that.
I saw that Decker was having a Hero fantasy.
Sometimes when people “thump their chests”, lives are saved.
Marc Lepine allowed the men in those classrooms to leave unharmed. If they’d had a mind, they could have rushed him, overpowered him and grabbed the gun. If ganging up on and disarming the psychopath-that-was-Marc Lepine in order to save the lives of 14 young women amounts to little more than macho posturing and chest-thumping, then we’re really screwed.
I find it appalling that those same guys then turned around and stuck a white ribbon on their lapels so as to say the deaths weren’t in vain.
It’s as though some here denouncing me think it more appropriate to run away in cowardice from a misogynist rather than to commit the sin of displaying behaviors some could construe as oh-so-odiously chivalrous.
So if a man saving a women’s life involves something even remotely macho, it is more appropriate to let the women die !?
What is this?
I saw that Decker was having a Hero fantasy.
Actually I have a commendation from the Westmount Fire Department for bravery.
Years ago I was writing my poli-sci term paper on my old Smith Corona when a heard a women downstairs cry out for help. At first I ignored it, but when her cries became very distressed I went out into the hallway and noticed smoke wafting up. I bounded down the stairs, grabbed a fire extinguisher and dashed down the hallway to the single mother’s apartment. What had started as a small grease fire was growing by leaps and bounds. The flames had spread from her fry-pan onto the curtains,up the wall and were now licking the ceiling. The building was old and made built entirely of wood. I emptied the fire extinguisher and put the flames out. There was smoke everywhere. No one else had come to help.
I then walked back out into the hallway and much to my surprise found people carting out their most cherished belongings in a frenzied fit of ‘every-man-for-himself” One fellow was carrying a milk crate full of 12 inch LPs. He seemed to think nothing of abandoning the single mom and indeed the entire building. The real priority was his collection of Led Zeppelin records…
timgueguen
Turns out you were correct.
@25…umm…those women are still dead, whereas the guys who abandoned them all have good jobs.
“If it weren’t for those horrible feminists emasculating men, they would have attacked Lepine,” or am I just being uncharitable?
Actually, you’re you’re in an ideological straightjacket. I wouldn’t want as a neighbour NOR a classmate…
@Decker
When Lepine separated men from women, how were they to know in advance what would happen? We know now, but in the moment, they might have thought *the men* would be the targets and that he was planning to let the women go (for example–he could have just walked out after the men and shot them all in the back, leaving the women in the room behind him). More likely, they probably thought he was taking hostages and didn’t plan to shoot anyone unless provoked to do so.
When an armed person is in a place with a bunch of unarmed people and orders them at gunpoint to do something, the reasonable thing to do is to do what they’re told. So far, no one is being harmed, yet rushing the person with the gun will likely lead to people being shot. Also, how would you communicate with the others to form a cohesive group so each person isn’t blown away as they run up one at a time? Even more people might have ended up dead.
You really are living in a fantasy world if you’re blaming the men (why just the men? oh right. sexism) for not correctly predicting what Lepine’s motives and actions would be and acting in just the right way to prevent what happened. Do you also blame the passengers on the first two 9/11 flights? I mean, come on. A couple of guys with boxcutters? Boxcutters? They could have been subdued in a matter of moments if a few passengers had jumped them. Even if someone had been killed, think of all the lives that would’ve been saved.
I’m not impressed by your story by the way. You saw smoke, you knew where there was a fire extinguisher and you used it. Good job, but not exceptionally courageous. Even if there was a distressed single mother crying for help involved.
@Eamon Knight
“Lepine was not *entirely* specific about whom he would shoot.”
Please don’t muddy the waters here. Lepine was entirely specific about feminists and women being his enemies. The men he shot were collateral damage as far as he was concerned.
There’s one bit in an otherwise unmemorable movie that’s appropriate. A crime boss and two of his minions are facing one man with a pistol. The man says something to the effect of: “I can shoot your boss and one of you before the other one gets his gun out and shoots me. So which one of you volunteers to die so the other one can kill me?”
@24: So if a man saving a women’s life involves something even remotely macho, it is more appropriate to let the women die !?
If that’s what you think is being said here, then you’re too goddamn stupid to talk to.
Eamon Knight #29
Amen.
Oddly enough, Decker is proving exactly why we need feminism: if gender essentialism is a causal factor in violent behaviour, you can’t fix it by adding more gender essentialism.
In other words toxic masculinity is not saved by “chivalry” and definitely not by “macho”. What about getting rid of male entitlement instead?
Decker, I’ve saved the lives of two people. Genders of said people are, and should be, irrelevant.
However, I never asked for, nor expected any kind of medal. It’s what compassionate people do when they have the power to do so.
Decker, please don’t derail the topic of Elam’s toxic masculinity with another flavour of it. You weren’t there in ’89. You can pass armchair judgement on how victims of violence (which includes the male students at the scene) behaved in a specific survival crisis but you sound ridiculous. You have no idea what the survivors were/are dealing with and yet you’re more than willing to passionately blame them for not being action heros.
Do them and the rest of society a service and call out toxic masculinity where you find it. That would really be putting out fires while others turn away.
The expectation that a bunch of very young people, intellectuals and engineers, should be able to disarm an armed hostage-taker, simply because they ID as male/men, is another example of how sexism and patriarchal gender roles hurt men. Well done, Decker.
My best friend lost her life to a male predator after the state failed to carry out its duty. To hide its complicity it whitewashed a murder, the murderer not only walked her got my friends home, and I was banned from the funeral. I was jailed for making the information public. White ribbon washed their hands from the beginning, No had my back, and they are not warning of a predator they know in the loose and have displayed nothing but contempt for the loss of life that occurred. Their programs in schools are fraudulent. 95% of instances of control and domestic violence are due to narcissistic personality disorder, it is not a gender issue, I have extensive experience and knowledge regarding these conditions and associated behaviour. White Ribbon don’t mention NPD at all and deliberately distorts what is happening as they run political cover for a decrepit government whose policies are responsible for the social conditions that cause NPD and family violence, something that many professionals who work with family violence agree with wholeheartedly.