Quantcast

«

»

Jul 03 2013

Dear Paul Elam…

Oh hi Paul, how nice of you to take an interest in my writing.

First, credit where due. This line was a zinger:

“Fogg said what MHRAs have been saying since before he could spell DV”.

That’s a great line. it’s spectacularly inaccurate, for what it’s worth, but why let the truth get in the way of a good joke, eh?

But talking about “jokes”, let’s glide over your ad homs, your spurious readings of my motives, and indeed some legitimate differences of opinion about the issues, and look at the bit that seems to have rattled your cage – my reference to your response to that obscene Jezebel piece and thread. You quote yourself saying:

Now, am I serious about this? No.

You carefully omit your next few words.

“Now, am I serious about this? No. Not because it’s wrong. It’s not wrong.”

Yes Paul, it is. It is very wrong in all sorts of ways. First of all, you were not discussing the right to reasonable and immediate self-defence, which nobody seriously challenges. You were revelling in a fantasy of retaliatory violence, peppered with shamelessly misogynistic language and imagery, which is not the same thing at all, as I think a reasonably functioning five year-old could explain.

I’d like to make it the objective for the remainder of this month, and all the Octobers that follow, for men who are being attacked and physically abused by women - to beat the living shit out of them. I don’t mean subdue them, or deliver an open handed pop on the face to get them to settle down. I mean literally to grab them by the hair and smack their face against the wall till the smugness of beating on someone because you know they won’t fight back drains from their nose with a few million red corpuscles.

And then make them clean up the mess.

More significantly, you seem to have this strange idea that it is morally acceptable and politically constructive to spout the most vile, hateful, arguably even criminal shit for paragraph after paragraph, whether it is instructions to beat shit out of women, or fabricated claims that women enjoy being raped, providing you conclude with some variation on “ha ha, only joking. SATIRE SEE?”

I’m not going to insult your intelligence by spelling out to you all the reasons why that type of behaviour is wrong and indeed dangerous. I’m sure you’ve heard it all before. But what astonishes me is that you appear to believe you can pull shit like this and then still expect be taken seriously as a commentator, even a force for social change? You gleefully and knowingly squirt misogyny and hate from every orifice and then get all affronted when people conclude you might in fact be a misogynist, or describe your site as a hate group. What the fuck do you expect?

You suggest your article was “a red herring”. it was more than that. It was a whole basket of rotting, stinking fish carcasses, and three years old or not, it remains a technicolor illustration of everything that is wrong with the men’s rights movement today. It is you. You are the problem. Not so much that you personally have attained a degree of prominence and influence, though that is worrying enough, it is more that the broader movement is prepared to indulge you, laugh along, defend you from criticism say things like “oh that’s just Paul being Paul, he doesn’t really mean it.” The fuck you don’t. The men’s rights movement is swimming in so much misogyny that it has become oblivious to it, like a fish is oblivious to water. You may recognise that metaphor from somewhere. You cannot judge a movement by the rantings of one individual. You can judge a movement by how it reacts to that individual.

The rest of the MRM needs to recognise and address the fact that you, and a fair few others of your ilk, regularly drop huge, steaming turds which pollute and poison the whole pool. I honestly hope they can recognise it, because until that happens those of us who genuinely care about the welfare and wellbeing of men and boys and try to do something about it will continue to work under the putrid pong wafting from the pool next door.

The ultimate, indeed the only victims of that are vulnerable men and boys.

541 comments

1 ping

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Sid

    Some incorrect claims, members of the broader movement, that would be the /r/mr area with 70,000 subscribers, routinely take issue with Elams rhetorical style.

    Morally, there isn’t anything wrong with physically defending yourself from an abuser, even if it is (gasp!) an allegedly ineffectual and morally pure woman (get out the fainting couch, bring me my fan!).

    Personally, I think if you “Jailbreak the Patriarchy” on his rhetoric, which is the whole point of it, what you will find is nothing more than what you can find many examples of in mainstream feminism and that the mens movement needs some to widen the overton window.

    Why should it be that all other social movements can do this, and the one coded male can’t?

    I suspect its to do with expectations of stoicism.

  2. 2
    Ali Scott

    Brilliantly put. It scares me that people like him seem to have a de facto monopoly on men’s issues. The thought that he thinks he speaks for me or any of the other decent, good men I know is kinda offensive. Glad there are some people like you dealing with these issues in a rational and non-hateful way.

  3. 3
    Sid

    Ali Scott

    All he really did there was Jailbreak the Patriarchy on some feminist article and slaughter a few sacred cows.

  4. 4
    Sid

    Its really interesting how this stuff slips under the radar when its female on male, but as soon as a man changes the genders and says the same thing, the fainting couches are brought out.

    Whatever about his rhetoric, he succeeds in the objective of exposing the hypocrisy and the infantalisation of women, and the free pass that has been given to women to advocate violence against men in the mainstream.

  5. 5
    oolon

    You cannot judge a movement by the rantings of one individual. You can judge a movement by how it reacts to that individual.

    QFT, absolutely! They usually scream “guilt by association!” to distance themselves from the more extreme rantings of their members. Then of course go back to patting their egos and never calling them out for the dangerous rant. All fine as long as they are sticking it to the “feminists”.

  6. 6
    Sid

    oolon

    Why the double standards?

    Elam Jailbroke the Patriarchy on a feminist article that actually celebrated real violence, there is push back against the Elam article in the mens movement by those that don’t understand it.

    The feminist article it Jail broke received no push back from feminism, despite the fact was the actual glorification of violence.

    So by your value system, if it was to be applied in a non sexist way, feminism is “worse”.

  7. 7
    Raging Bee

    And once again, Sid chimes in to remind us all why we can’t take the “men’s rights movement” seriously…

    Some incorrect claims, members of the broader movement, that would be the /r/mr area with 70,000 subscribers, routinely take issue with Elams rhetorical style.

    Do they “routinely take issue” with the actual substance of what Elam said?

    Morally, there isn’t anything wrong with physically defending yourself from an abuser, even if it is (gasp!) an allegedly ineffectual and morally pure woman (get out the fainting couch, bring me my fan!).

    Yeah, Ally already agreed to that, and I’ve heard no controversy over that point. So what’s your point again?

    Personally, I think if you “Jailbreak the Patriarchy” on his rhetoric, which is the whole point of it, what you will find is nothing more than what you can find many examples of in mainstream feminism and that the mens movement needs some to widen the overton window.

    You THINK we’d find similar examples. So have you ACTUALLY FOUND such examples?

  8. 8
    Raging Bee

    All he really did there was Jailbreak the Patriarchy on some feminist article and slaughter a few sacred cows.

    That’s what morons like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh say every time they get called out and can’t own or defend their words: “I’m just kidding” and/or “I’m just attacking someone else’s sacred cows/trying to start a conversation.” Assholes like them (and Sid and apparently at least half of the MRM) can’t decide whether or not they want to be taken seriously, so they try to toggle back and forth between “serious” and “just kidding” according to their immediate need to avoid responsibility.

    You guys want to be taken seriously as a “men’s rights movement?” Then ACT LIKE MEN AND NOT LIKE LITTLE BOYS. It’s that simple.

  9. 9
    Sid

    @RagingBee.

    I’ll give you examples despite the fact I know you are not to going acknowledge them and find fault with them when I do because you have been nothing but glib, angry, dishonest and bigoted here in these comments sections.

    The feminist article that celebrating real violence that Elam Jailbroke the Patriarcy on is linked from here
    http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/mens-issues/if-you-see-jezebel-in-the-road-run-the-bitch-down/

    The latest of many calls to distance from Paul’s rhetoric

    http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRightsMeta/comments/1h26pt/at_which_point_if_any_would_the_mod_team_of/

  10. 10
    Sid

    Everyone listen to RagingBee the feminist

    >You guys want to be taken seriously as a “men’s rights movement?” Then ACT LIKE MEN AND NOT LIKE LITTLE BOYS. It’s that simple.>

    Be a real man according to her standards, if not she will shame your lack of real manhood, no such standards applied to female behavior though.

    @RagingBee

    If you want to be taken seriously, don’t be such a glib bigot that thinks shaming, double standards, mudslinging and taking talking down their noses at people constitutes rational conversation.

  11. 11
    Adiabat

    “You cannot judge a movement by the rantings of one individual. You can judge a movement by how it reacts to that individual.”

    Ally, how did the feminist movement react to the Jezebel piece that Elam’s article was parodying?

  12. 12
    Adiabat

    Right after Elam says ““Now, am I serious about this? No. Not because it’s wrong. It’s not wrong.” is “one should have the right to defend themselves.” And he says further down:

    “The better option is to kick her to the curb, figuratively speaking, and hopefully move on to some better choices. Besides, violence in self defense should be in some way commensurate with the violence of the attack.”

    Ally, I find your post deceiptful and dishonest. I’ve come to expect better tbh.

  13. 13
    Ali Scott

    I don’t really know any feminists who take Jezebel seriously. I mean I’m sure there are a fair few but there is a general feeling that jezebel is full of shit for several reasons. Obviously that article is disgusting and straight up advocates DV against men. It’s misandrist bullshit that shouldn’t be taken seriously other than to condemn it. Likewise Elam’s vile so called “satire”. Also it’s not like this is the one time Elam has said something problematic that belies the seething misogyny beneath his apparent concern for men and boys.

  14. 14
    Schala

    The rest of the MRM needs to recognise and address the fact that you, and a fair few others of your ilk, regularly drop huge, steaming turds which pollute and poison the whole pool.

    In my experience, a ton of people who used to be feminist until being told men’s issues were unimportant did a trip to the MRA camp and found it a bit too much – and like me, settled in the middle, outside any camp, like permutationofninjas.

  15. 15
    A Hermit

    That goes way beyond “parody.” Elam is a vile hatemonger. he does no service to those who actually are victimized and his bullshit encourages men to be abusive themselves.

    And it;’s not the only time he’s expressed such sentiments…See this post

    The only reason men don’t randomly pound the shit out of women who can’t keep their mouths shut, is because they don’t mean anything to us and they have no power over or in our lives. They are not worth the trouble! That’s the only reason there isn’t bodies strewn all over the streets.

    If anyone anywhere wants to really stop the violence all they have to do is understand that women are not worth it. They’re overvalued. They are not worth fighting with and they are not worth fighting for.

    It’s not complex; once you put their value into perspective it’s obvious what causes violence. They do, they over sell themselves and we buy it. The less power a woman has in your life the less likely that violence will occur. That’s why you don’t pound the shit out of Jane Doe at work; she doesn’t mean anything to you. Not because she doesn’t deserve it, it’s because she isn’t worth it!

    Now that was written by some Brave Hero named “Kieth”, but in the comments below Elam writes:

    I support every last word Keith had to say.

    An angry, hateful little man who does great harm to men by reinforcing the stereotype of the angry little man.

  16. 16
    B-Lar

    Paul Elam is lost. He believes that he is “pointing out that the sky is blue” and is a brave hero for doing so.

    It really will be guys like him who inhibit the MRM from doing anything useful, and its a shame that men would rather follow a knee jerk, reality-divorced asshat off a cliff than look at the big picture.

    Sid,

    I’ll give you examples despite the fact I know you are not to going acknowledge them and find fault with them when I do because you have been nothing but glib, angry, dishonest and bigoted here in these comments sections.

    Is a perfect, so very perfect example of a failure of intellectual integrity. You know that people have problems with what you are about to write, but instead of considering other peoples comments, you double down on them before you have even made them! Do you want to get to the truth of the matter at all?

    Looking at that link though, did you notice that a single individual made the call, and the rest of the replies are all telling the OP off for even considering “censorship” (as if all ideas are equally good and valid… pah) and studiously dodging the engagement of the point.

    MRM summarised: Complaining about misogyny is more of a concern than misogyny itself. Fuck off and choke on your empathy.

    Consider egalitarianism instead. All the guys who are actually serious about having an MRM without the Elam-style-pucky start educating themselves about what actual equality looks like and shortly afterwards condemn those who propagate said pucky.

    What are you doing to help the movement? Having such low standards that you can be convinced that what you already believe is true, and wailing that not everyone else has your abysmally low standards? Nice.

  17. 17
    Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened

    *applause*

    Well said. Elam is a disgusting individual.

  18. 18
    Sasha

    Sorry Ally, but your ‘defence’ doesn’t stand up. I couldn’t give a flying fuck about misogyny, or what feminists think – misogyny barely fucking exists anywhere in the world – the only thing women can complain about these days is ‘Loaded’ being at the newsagents – meanwhile they’re frivolously divorcing men, stripping their kids away and leaving them to commit suicide in fucking droves. We’re still dying younger, we’ve got no services or help if we’re experiencing domestic abuse because feminists portray us as perpetrators – fuck ‘em – fuck ‘em six ways and sideways.

    Did they stand up against the Jezebel piece laughing about punching men? No? Well fuck them again then. Bitches.

    Not ‘politically constructive’ my fucking arse. You’re a fucking toad Ally you really are, sucking up to Julie Bindel on Twitter, Christ. What the fuck is this ‘mens movement’ you’re talking about? I’ll tell you what, it’s fuck all thanks to you that there IS a movement – and we’re not fucking negotiating and worrying about being ‘morally acceptable’ – God, do you think for one minute that Bindel worries about being ‘morally acceptable’?

    Does she fuck.

    Crawl back to the fucking Guardian or the NS where you can be their pet ‘mens issues’ lapdog. Quislings like you are the last thing we need.

  19. 19
    Sid

    @A Hermit

    Having read the whole article Kieth seems to really be saying don’t rise to a woman’s aggression, don’t pedestalize women, don’t fight with other men over women, don’t buy into the bullshit of men that white knight for women, treat women as equals.

  20. 20
    Ace of Sevens

    A reddit post that got no support in the responses is a good examples of hoe the MRM is rejecting Paul Elam? My problem with his ilk has always that they seem more interested in complaining that women get special treatment than in doing anything to improve mens’ situation.

  21. 21
    Raging Bee

    Ally, I find your post deceiptful and dishonest. I’ve come to expect better tbh.

    You call that “being honest?” Please. Ally has given us articles describing actual injustices, using facts, stats and logic from credible sources — and all you MRAs can do is carp and whine and question his intergity, and pretend that you’re being more helpful and relevant than the guy who actually makes a credible case to an adult audience, while offering absolutely NOTHING more useful than Ally’s information. You want to do something good for men? STFU and let the grown men do the talking.

    Oh, and BTW, I’m not female, I’m male, and I know enough about DV to know that you MRAs have absolutely bugger-all to offer on that issue. Your automatic, unquestioned assumption that I’m female — based on zero evidence — says a lot about your capacity for sensible thought.

  22. 22
    redpesto

    Ali Scott: “I don’t really know any feminists who take Jezebel seriously” – after reading that article, I’d be surprised if anybody took Jezebel seriously. As for Paul Elam: not helping; not helping at all.

    PS: You might enjoy this: ‘If Jezebel were a person’.

  23. 23
    carnation

    @ Sasha

    Damn you! I was about to write a parody response to Ally Fogg in the style of an MRA and you beat me to it!

  24. 24
    Raging Bee

    …misogyny barely fucking exists anywhere in the world…

    Well, so much for Sasha’s credibility. Are these MRAs TRYING to destroy their own image?

  25. 25
    Sid

    Ace of Sevens.

    The link was provided to debunk the dishonest claims and sexist double standards of the OP and others here.

    Paul Elams rhetoric gets more push back from MRAs than equivalent or worse rhetoric from feminists gets from feminists.

    The mens movement isn’t under any obligation to disown Elam, especially at the behest of sexist hypocrites that turn a blind eye to those in their own ranks that Elam is parodying.

  26. 26
    Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened

    @Sasha

    I couldn’t give a flying fuck about misogyny

    “I couldn’t give a flying fuck about homophobia”
    “I couldn’t give a flying fuck about transphobia”
    “I couldn’t give a flying fuck about Islamophobia”
    “I couldn’t give a flying fuck about racism”

    Seeing the issue?

    You essentially just declared yourself to be a shit person. ‘Grats and that.

  27. 27
    Sid

    Its hilarious watching the feminists here parading around in the Emperors New Clothes, totally oblivious to how the are infantalizing women and reinforcing the patriarchy they think they are against.

  28. 28
    Ally Fogg

    Adiabat

    Ally, how did the feminist movement react to the Jezebel piece that Elam’s article was parodying?

    Well for starters there were a significant proportion of comments from regular readers underneath

    Gleefully admitting to partner violence is not okay just because you’re a woman. It’s still something to be ashamed of.

    Hitting is hitting. It doesn’t matter who is the hittee and who is the hitter. Saying that women can’t inflict as much damage on men because of their relative sizes is total bullshit and doesn’t excuse the lack of control people exhibit if they hit their significant others. If this was a comment thread with a bunch of men writing about the “funny times” they hit their exes, or threw something at them, we’d be up in arms about it.

    Seriously? If these comments were from men celebrating their finest acts of physical violence against their partners, people would be going batshit insane with outrage, and rightfully so. Just because women aren’t as strong as men doesn’t men they can’t do some serious harm. Especially if the dudes aren’t fighting back, which in the majority of cases it sounds like they’re not. Why is it then acceptable to physically assault men when they make women angry? Because they “deserve” it? Way to go, equal rights! (end rant.)

    That’s just from the first few conversations. There are dozens more like that throughout the thread.

    Where’s the equivalent condemnation on the AVFM piece?

    I also distinctly remember a whole bunch of feminist blogs at the time that were furious about it. It would be a bit of a trawl to find them now, but if you won’t take it on trust I’m sure I could have a go.

    It’s also worth pointing out that loads of feminists despise Jezebel, not specifically for that thread but for just being generally stupid and superficial. Jezebel is much more tangential to feminism than AVfM is to the men’s movement.

  29. 29
    Raging Bee

    Sid: first you defend Elam (lamely), then you insist that MRAs like you are distancing themselves from Elam. Do you really expect us to take you seriously when you’re talking out of both ends of your ass?

    Also, just because someone else is acting as stupid, hateful and/or dishonest as Elam, does not make his behavior more helpful to anyone or any cause. Just like FGM does not make MGM more appropriate or useful than it normally is.

  30. 30
    Sid

    @Ally

    >Where’s the equivalent condemnation on the AVFM piece?

    Well for a start, the pieces aren’t equivalent, the feminists were celebrating actual violence, the Elam piece was a parody of how women are free to speak in the mainstream to draw attention to the double standards.

    Fairly frequently there are calls to distance from Elam on the largest area.

    And hie rhetoric works, here you and a bunch of people are, having the sexist double standards you have yet to examine pointed out to.

    And as I said, the mrm is under no obligation to disown Elam, especially at the behest of the sexist hypocrites whose sacred cows he pokes.

  31. 31
    Ally Fogg

    OP

    The men’s rights movement is swimming in so much misogyny that it has become oblivious to it, like a fish is oblivious to water.

    Sasha

    I couldn’t give a flying fuck about misogyny, or what feminists think – misogyny barely fucking exists anywhere in the world

    LOL

  32. 32
    carnation

    @ Sid

    A challenge for you. Write a post with the use of metaphors. No more chat about gaslighting, poking sacred cows,jailbreaking or, indeed, mudslinging.

    Write about actual real things with actual real examples.

  33. 33
    Sid

    Fact is, the men’s movement (or any social movement) cannot get off the ground without controversial rhetoric and by playing nice.

    That’s the reality, the only reason Ally is being given a larger platform to speak about mens, is the fact that people like Elam are widening the overton widow, the main reason the feminists lies about domestic violence are coming asunder and non discriminatory abuse services are on the horizon, is the fact the men’s movement started to get loud.

    This area of free thought blogs would not exist where it not for deliberately controversial and rhetoric and noise from the mens movement, thats how social movements work.

  34. 34
    carnation

    @ Sid, that challenge should have read WITHOUT the use of metaphors.

    My feminist indoctrination has made me make a typo.

  35. 35
    Timid Atheist

    It’s also worth pointing out that loads of feminists despise Jezebel, not specifically for that thread but for just being generally stupid and superficial. Jezebel is much more tangential to feminism than AVfM is to the men’s movement.

    I stopped reading Jezebel after the first horrible article that made fun of a man being raped by a woman. I actively avoid the place because of its stupidity. Perhaps I should be monitoring it so that I can call all the horribleness when it happens. And I’m sure it’ll happen again, they never learn.

  36. 36
    B-Lar

    Its hilarious watching the feminists here parading around in the Emperors New Clothes, totally oblivious to how the are infantalizing women and reinforcing the patriarchy they think they are against.

    Actually, we are parading around naked. Its interesting that you can see the “clothes…”

  37. 37
    Raging Bee

    Its hilarious watching the feminists here parading around in the Emperors New Clothes, totally oblivious to how the are infantalizing women and reinforcing the patriarchy they think they are against.

    It’s boring as shit watching yet another MRA lazily repeating the same old PRATTs because that’s all he has to offer.

  38. 38
    Sid

    @carnation

    I challenge you to examine your sexism, misandry and misogny and hold the mens movement and feminism to the same standards.

    Also, I challenge you to be authentic and genuine instead of parading around in the Emperors New Clothes faking confidence and superiority.

  39. 39
    Adiabat

    Raging Bee: “You call that “being honest?” Please. Ally has given us articles describing actual injustices, using facts, stats and logic from credible sources”

    Hence why I expect more. Is that difficult to understand? Do you need help?

    “Oh, and BTW, I’m not female, I’m male, and I know enough about DV to know that you MRAs have absolutely bugger-all to offer on that issue. Your automatic, unquestioned assumption that I’m female — based on zero evidence — says a lot about your capacity for sensible thought.”

    Ahem:

    Adiabat: “For what it’s worth I’ve been working off the assumption that you and Raging Bee are male feminists, must be something to do with your writing styles, and it hasn’t affected my responses to you.”
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013/06/06/malestrom-ten-reasons-why-some-men-are-so-angry/#comment-2782

  40. 40
    carnation

    @ Sid

    I literally don’t know what you’re talking about. Please explain, with examples.

  41. 41
    Raging Bee

    Fact is, the men’s movement (or any social movement) cannot get off the ground without controversial rhetoric and by playing nice.

    “Controversial” rhetoric isn’t your problem. STUPID and BLATANTLY DISHONEST rhetoric is your problem.

    And please stop pretending you’re doing more good than Ally’s OPs. The OPs here give us facts and even some links to places that offer real help to men in abusive situations. That alone is more than you’ve ever contributed.

  42. 42
    carnation

    @ RagingBee

    Correction, that is more than the entire MRM has done.

  43. 43
    Schala

    Well, so much for Sasha’s credibility. Are these MRAs TRYING to destroy their own image?

    You impute MRA identity to people who may not have self-identified as MRA, and then cry because some people think you’re female? Hypocrisy?

  44. 44
    Sid

    @carnation

    The sort of self examination and honesty I challenged you to can really only be done from within. Try reading over your own posts and imagine how an older version of yourself or someone else might see your glib tones and dishonest maneuvering.

    You could also examine what is motivating you to patronize women and cut down other men.

  45. 45
    carnation

    @ Sid

    Examples please? Otherwise what you’re writing is devoid of meaning.

  46. 46
    Raging Bee

    And hie rhetoric works, here you and a bunch of people are, having the sexist double standards you have yet to examine pointed out to.

    In addition to being incoherent, the above sentence seems to be saying the MRAs’ rhetoric “works” merely because someone heard it. And that’s just bullshit — attention is not the same thing as influence, and pretending otherwise is a sure sign of immaturity.

  47. 47
    Sasha

    @Carnation @RagingBee @AllyFogg

    Absolutely un-fucking-believable. Christ you’re such a bunch of cunts you really are. Equating ‘misogyny’ – which today basically in most of the world means some privileged upper-class white woman complaining about the depiction of princesses in SuperMarioWorld – with ‘racism’.

    Fuck, seriously? You know racism actually gets people fucking killed don’t you? You know men in the UK are 4x more likely to be the victim of violent crime than a woman? You know that for evey nine women killed in the UK by their partners, 2 men are killed? You know that the suicide rate for divorced and separated men in the UK means their chance of death is 1/3 that of a combat soldier in Afghanistan? You know that many of those men have been driven to sucide by being denied access to their children, thrown out of their homes and family?

    Worrying about ‘misogyny’ is like worrying about paying the mortgage when your house is burning down. So no Ally, it’s not that I don’t see it I JUST DON’T FUCKING CARE ABOUT IT – why the fuck should I? Feminists don’t give a fuck about me, or men, so why should I give a fuck about them?

  48. 48
    Adiabat

    Ally (28): I read the thread on that Jezebel piece before I asked. It seemed to me that it was getting “trolled” by MRA’s who were the ones objecting. That’s why I asked.

    “Where’s the equivalent condemnation on the AVFM piece? “

    Do you mean the parody that you appear to have misrepresented?

    “I also distinctly remember a whole bunch of feminist blogs at the time that were furious about it. It would be a bit of a trawl to find them now, but if you won’t take it on trust I’m sure I could have a go. “

    Nah, I’ll take your word for it.

    I’ve seen enough shit done by feminists that doesn’t receive condemnation that it really makes little difference. For example, I’m still waiting for one feminist to say on the other thead “The Fawcett Society is wrong for opposing shared parenting, and/or the reason they give is sexist” and there are many worse than that.

  49. 49
    Raging Bee

    You impute MRA identity to people who may not have self-identified as MRA, and then cry because some people think you’re female? Hypocrisy?

    Lamest false-equivalency argument EVER.

    Oh, and if you want to pretend that ignorant extremist MRAs like Sid are doing the men’s movement more good than people like Ally, I’d just offer one observation: when the MRAs mouth off, they get ridiculed, debunked and kicked to the curb; but when Ally posts something, the feminists and their sympathizers at least take him seriously, even if we don’t agree with everything he says. (And the MRAs then take that as proof that he’s a “quisling.”) So that’s at least one sizable data-point indicating that the self-important screaming hatemongers are nowhere near as helpful as they desperately want to pretend they are.

  50. 50
    Sid

    @Sasha

    You have it all wrong, offending middle class white women by parodying a violent article by middle class white women is actually worse that a mans death by racism.

    Middle class white women are so delicate see? There is a correct way to treat them and speak in front of them, and its not observed well they might just faint, and there might not be a fainting couch near by.

  51. 51
    Copyleft

    By all means, Ally, keep shooting the messenger. When someone points out that female-on-male violence is excused (or even endorsed) by creating a parody article–attack the parody, offer out-of-context quotes, and use it as a sledgehammer to condemn all critics of feminist hypocrisy.

    This is why feminism will always be incompatible with rational, skeptical thining–it’s an anti-rational ideology that creates zealots who refuse to acknowledge or address any criticism, instantly retreating to labels, insults, and ineffective silencing tactics. Skeptics will never sign on to something like that.

  52. 52
    Raging Bee

    This is why feminism will always be incompatible with rational, skeptical thining…

    Feminism is wrong because of Ally’s OP? Copyleft, you’re giving incoherence and non-sequiturs a bad name.

  53. 53
    Copyleft

    “This is why feminism will always be incompatible with rational, skeptical thining…”

    …as posters like Carnation and Raging Bee amply illustrate on a regular basis. “Skeptical” will never be compatible with “blindly accepting radical-feminist dogma,” no matter how much they whine about it.

    You’ve disappointed me by embracing their dishonest and anti-rational tactics, Ally. I expected better.

  54. 54
    Ali Scott

    @Sasha There seems to be this trend of “feminists did x, therefore we can do x” that runs through Elam’s piece and it’s defenses here, especially your last post. Even if your claims of misogyny being negligible (which seems pretty detached from reality to me, but then I am not you) were true, and even if feminists didn’t give a shit about men (some don’t, won’t deny that, but most that I am aware of do) you should still care about injustices being done to women. Because they are humans. That is kind of the basis of human decency. It isn’t zero sum.

  55. 55
    Jacob Schmidt

    Sasha

    Did they stand up against the Jezebel piece laughing about punching men? No? Well fuck them again then.

    Jezebel stood against it, for fucks sakes. They had an article a while back on the double standard for men and women perpatrators, and specifically repudiated female violence. The author asked others to be honest about it and to stop pretending it doesn’t happen.

  56. 56
    Sid

    but …. but … what about the women that be might offended by the article by the dirty man that parodied the violent article that the women wrote?

    Oh Ally, thank good yourself and RagingBee and Carnation are here on your white horses, lifeboats in tow.

    Its very important to protect women from parodies of violent articles that were were written by women, we must observe standards of decorum. Holding men and women to the same standards is simply not on.

  57. 57
    gftngidsndg

    Since this debate in no way affects my real life I don’t care too much but I do have to say that there are few things more pathetic in this universe than a blogger catfight, either ignore them or engage in a proper debate, writing snippy ‘articles’ back and forth about who the stinky poo-poo head is is just infantile.

  58. 58
    Adiabat

    Jacob Schmidt: “Jezebel stood against it, for fucks sakes. They had an article a while back on the double standard for men and women perpatrators, and specifically repudiated female violence. The author asked others to be honest about it and to stop pretending it doesn’t happen.”

    Interesting. I know absolutely nothing about what’s occured except for the links to the articles in question as I don’t ‘follow’ either websites. Have Jezebel apologised for their earlier article or acknowledged that in the past they were part of the problem?

  59. 59
    John C. Welch

    There’s exactly one site that will tell you, in a real way, that neither Elam or JTO and AvFM as a whole want to fix any problem. I’d wager they don’t, because if the problems were fixed, or even mostly fixed, they’d have nothing to do but go live in the woods with the rest of the MGTOWs, and good riddance.

    It’s the “register her” site, which in theory, is a site that shows up the inequality of how the law applies to women as opposed to men for a range of crimes. However, it provides no useful data, but rather a list of eeeeeeeevil bitches, to prove how women can get away with anything. They include, in the “actively dangerous” section, women who are in fact, dead, such as Susan Atkins, and have been dead for some years. I was unaware zombies were real. Another entry is on Jasmine Richardson, who, according to Elam’s pet project:

    In April of 2006 12 year old Jasmine Richardson lured her boyfriend into helping her murder her parents and her younger brother so that she could go live with him. Richardson was the mastermind of the crime. Police investigators uncovered internet communications between the couple that clearly identify her as the one who instigated the crimes. And it was Richardson, who, after hearing her eight year old brother plead, “I’m scared. I`m too young to die,” plunged a knife into his chest. The boyfriend followed that by cutting the boys throat. The couple murdered her parents in another room of the house. In a follow up to this story, Richardson, who was sentenced to 10 years, is now out of prison after four years and in her freshman year at Mount Royal University in Calgary, Alberta.

    Now, that sounds pretty bad right? My goodness, what a horrible woman.

    But first…the rest of the story:

    At the time of the crime, Jasmine Richardson was 12. not even in her teens. Her boyfriend? twenty-three.

    The name of this angel manipulated into a life of crime by this tween siren? Jeremy Steinke, who among other things:

    1) Proclamed he was a werewolf
    2) he liked to drink blood

    Steinke had ISSUES. But yeah, he was an angel until a twelve year old girl twisted him. Behold, the power of vagina I suppose.

    But the original case isn’t enough for Elam et al. No, they have to keep tabs on her, because…what? She might use her magical vagina to make someone twice her age kill again? Really?

    there are, as Ally has shown, legitimate issues affecting men that are real, and serious, and simply don’t fit under feminism. There are in fact men’s issues and they are real. But Elam, JTO, and the rest of the AvFM lot are just whining, petty weasels who scream “IT’S NOT FAIR” and expect the rest of the world to fix itself around their demands.

    Good luck on that.

  60. 60
    Ally Fogg

    Sid (56)

    You keep bringing this up, but I keep failing to understand it, so I’m going to ask you to explain it again.

    Holding men and women to the same standards is simply not on.

    Here’s what I don’t understand:

    When feminists write things that display contempt for the welfare and wellbeing of men, I condemn them unreservedly. When feminists advocate policies that actively harm men, I condemn them.

    When MRAs write things that display contempt for the welfare and wellbeing of women, I condemn them undreservedly. When MRAs advocated policies that actively harm women, I condemn them.

    I could link you to countless examples of me doing so, but at least one of each is right there at the top of the page.

    You, on the other hand, have gone to inordinate lengths to avoid condemning anything by Paul Elam or Johntheother which have been put in front of you, instead excusing and justifying them.

    Now, please explain why I am the one with the double standards? Because it sure as hell don’t look that way from over here.

  61. 61
    Ally Fogg

    gftngidsndg [57]

    Yeah, I kind of agree with you. But this one was a bit too juicy to let slide. I won’t be making a habit of it, promise.

  62. 62
    carnation

    @ John C Welch

    I suspect that the real purpose behind register-her was to allow them the idiotic “bigot” category.

    I challenged an MRA on this blog to give five examples of real life activism from the MRM, tangible examples of men helped. They had nothing.

  63. 63
    Sasha

    @AllyFogg “When MRAs advocated policies that actively harm women, I condemn them.”

    Where? What MRA has ever advocated a policy that would harm women? I’ve been an active MRA for years and I can’t think of a single example of an MRA doing such a thing. Provide an example.

    @AliRoss “you should still care about injustices being done to women. Because they are humans. That is kind of the basis of human decency.”

    You’re not fucking listening. I don’t give a fuck about the ‘injustices’ facing women BECAUSE THERE AREN’T ANY INJUSTICES. What fucking injustices do women face in the UK? Or Canada? Or Peru? Show me one fucking issue they face. Christ even in Afghanistan men are 5x more likely to be killed than women.

    As for here in the UK – what the fuck are we talking about? If a woman commits a crime she’s less likely to be arrested, or charged, and if she’s found guilty she’ll do less time than a man. She’ll live longer, get custody of the kids, get a variety of flexible life/career options that men don’t get. She’s more likely to get a degree, more likely to get healthcare monies spent on her, more likely to get public services devoted to her needs – she’ll even pay less for drinks in some nightclubs. She’s infinitely less likely to be a victim of crime or be poor or homeless.

    So the issues that men face and which MRAs are concerned with are big, serious, meaty REAL issues like suicide, death, homelessness and misandry. The so-called ‘issues’ that feminists deal with are mostly made up – sometimes they actually DO have to make them up, otherwise they’d have fuck all to do:

    http://boston.barstoolsports.com/random-thoughts/university-of-wyoming-feminist-makes-up-fake-rape-threat-against-herself-on-uw-crushes-and-then-holds-rally-denouncing-rape-culture/

  64. 64
    Jacob Schmidt

    Adiabat

    Have Jezebel apologised for their earlier article or acknowledged that in the past they were part of the problem?

    To my knowledge, no. I don’t think they’ve admitted anything. Frankly, Jezebel’s cavalier attidtude towards female violence puts me on edge, even if they do repudiate it.

    Carnation

    You seem to have ignored one of Schala’s examples.

  65. 65
    Ally Fogg

    Sasha [63]

    who said this, do you think?

    “I make the following pledge as an activist, and as an American that believes fully in the rule of law. Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.”

  66. 66
    Adiabat

    Jacob Schmidt: “To my knowledge, no. I don’t think they’ve admitted anything. Frankly, Jezebel’s cavalier attidtude towards female violence puts me on edge, even if they do repudiate it.”

    I haven’t made my mind up. In your estimation how “big” are they within feminism in general? Do they run any visible campaigns? If it’s just a few nutters running a website I generally care less what they do than massive campaigns by prominant groups that get into the mainstream media and influence policy.

    “Carnation

    You seem to have ignored one of Schala’s examples.”

    I gave the Toronto Uni Free Speech example in another thread, and I don’t even follow MRA’s very much. Carnations full of shit.

  67. 67
    Adiabat

    Ally (65): I keep hearing about that. Isn’t the argument that if we restrict evidence of past false accusations being allowed into a rape trial then as a juror you can never convict beyond reasonable doubt? As you never know if the accuser is a nutter who’s gone through every guy who lives in the same apartment block (that was something an old work colleague told me actually happened where she used to live).

  68. 68
    Freja

    @6 Sid

    Why the double standards?

    Elam Jailbroke the Patriarchy on a feminist article that actually celebrated real violence, there is push back against the Elam article in the mens movement by those that don’t understand it.

    The feminist article it Jail broke received no push back from feminism, despite the fact was the actual glorification of violence.

    So by your value system, if it was to be applied in a non sexist way, feminism is “worse”.

    A few differences:

    1: Jezebel is not feminist. The tagline is “Celebrity, Sex, Fashion for Women. Without Airbrushing”. It raises some feminist/quasi-feminist issues at times (such as the “Without Airbrushing” part), but that just makes it a bit less traditional than Cosmo, and hardly different from men’s magazines. The contributors don’t do feminist activism, it was founded as a woman’s magazine, it’s described as a woman’s magazine, it’s staffed by people who used to write for women’s magazines, it is, for all intents and purposes, a woman’s magazine.

    AVfM is most definitely an MRA site, and one of the most mainstream ones at that. The contributors are much more involved in both MRA and (ironically) feminist activism (in the form of fighting against it) than Jezebel’s are, and AVfM is more likely to refer to feminists and feminism in its articles, and less likely to bring up the kind of issues that aren’t especially ideological but just happen to more often appeal to the gender they’re writing for (e.g.. sports, the way Jezebel writes about fashion and celebrities).

    Claiming Jezebel is feminist because it sometimes deals with issues of body image and gender equality, and that feminists have a special duty to constantly criticise it, would be like claiming that The Rush Limbaugh Show is the flagship of the MRM just because the host sometimes sprouts the same type of misogyny.

    2: Because Jezebel is not feminist, it is not commonly read by feminists, especially not the pieces that deals with potentially feminist/quasi-feminist issues. This means that most feminists, most of the time, will not be aware of what goes on on Jezebel, and aren’t so much not criticising Jezebel because they support (or don’t care about) the message, but because they’re not actively monitoring the site just to find things to complain about like MRAs are. But the same cannot be said for AVfM, which MRAs seem to read in much greater numbers than feminists. Thinking about it, most feminists even seem to criticise AVfM a lot less than MRAs criticise Jezebel, probably because MRAs read both sites at a higher rate. Which makes it all the more telling when they choose to only criticise one. Which leads me to the next point:

    3: Even though Jezebel isn’t feminist, feminists regularly refer to it as stupid, sexist, appalling, etc.. It happens almost every time the subject is brought up. And in addition, Jezebel is rarely, if ever, linked to approvingly, especially not without caveats, or in sensitive areas related to feminism. But despite having read quite a few articles and comments by MRAs, I have not seen AVfM routinely being referred to as a cesspool of misogyny by the same MRAs who complain that feminists aren’t constantly monitoring a non-feminist site just to find anti-male stuff to criticise. In fact, I’ve almost only seen it referred to neutrally or approvingly, and never criticised for its misogyny. It was actually brought up approvingly here not long ago.

    If MRAs in these comments spontaneously brought it up that AVfM is a putrid cesspool of misogyny, I could see a reason for them to demand that feminists did the same with Jezebel. It still wouldn’t be reasonable (see point 1 and 2), but I could see the reasoning behind it. But when MRAs wont even express disapproval when Elam or AVfM is brought up by others, it’s extremely disingenuous to claim that feminists support Jezebel, when feminists actually tend to express disapproval of Jezebel when the topic is brought up.

    4: Your example in comment 9 of there being a pushback against Elam in the MRM has nothing to do with his stances of rape and violence against women. As you have repeated said yourself, the pushback was about his rhetoric, not his opinions. Furthermore, the complaints were actually about misandry, not misogyny, which hardly addresses the point of Ally’s criticisms. I’d say it might be even more damning for the MRM that they obviously see Elam as an MRA (and a leader at that) and have read the piece (see point 1 and 2 again as to how this differ from the relationship between feminism and Jezebel), and find it important enough to comment on, and still chooses to brush over the misogyny.

    5: I think both pieces were wrong. Hitting others is only OK when done consensually or in self-defence. I don’t know which piece is worse. Jezebel advocates initiating milder physical violence (however much they felt their victims “deserved it”), which is obviously horrible for bringing physical violence into a non-violent situation. Elam advocates that men who’re in a relationship where they are not the least bit threatened by their girlfriend, and who are hit by said girlfriend in a way that doesn’t incapacitate them the least, should not report the incidence to the police, or even leave the girlfriend, but should instead exploit the situation to calculatingly inflict a level of physical trauma on her which is enough to potentially kill or main her for life, and then temporarily enslave her while still injured (“Make them clean up the mess”).

    Both pieces are bad for advocating unneeded non-consensual violence. Furthermore, Jezebel’s piece is bad because of the callousness with which it treats domestic violence, and the way it advocates initiating violence on non-violent partners. Elam’s piece is bad because of how calculated and extreme the violence it advocates is, and the way it assumes that the man in question would easily be able to “subdue them, or deliver an open handed pop on the face to get them to settle down” to establish dominance, but should instead choose cold-blooded torture followed by humiliation and deprivation of freedom, all of which are signs common to the most abusive kinds of relationships.

    But the thing is, at least I know both pieces are vile, and this seems to be the most common attitude among feminists I’ve talked to, especially when the issue is just about getting them to agree that violence a wrong regardless of gender. You, on the other hand, seems to defend Elam quite readily here, and only condemn the Jezebel piece. That might be why people find it more important to speak out against Elam.

  69. 69
    Jacob Schmidt

    Adiabat

    I haven’t made my mind up. In your estimation how “big” are they within feminism in general?[1] Do they run any visible campaigns?[2]

    1) Not very big. Ally references them more often than the feminists I read.
    2) I don’t think so. I wouldn’t know. I don’t follow them, much.

    Isn’t the argument that if we restrict evidence of past false accusations being allowed into a rape trial then as a juror you can never convict beyond reasonable doubt?

    Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.

    Doesn’t seem to be. A dumbass argument in any case.

  70. 70
    Freja

    @19 Sid

    Having read the whole article Kieth seems to really be saying don’t rise to a woman’s aggression, don’t pedestalize women, don’t fight with other men over women, don’t buy into the bullshit of men that white knight for women, treat women as equals.

    Intrasexual violence is more common than intersexual violence. At least that’s what studies in the area tend to conclude. Or in other words, men commit more violence against other men than against women. How does that fit your theory?

  71. 71
    Ally Fogg

    Adiabat [67]

    Ally (65): I keep hearing about that. Isn’t the argument that if we restrict evidence of past false accusations being allowed into a rape trial then as a juror you can never convict beyond reasonable doubt? As you never know if the accuser is a nutter who’s gone through every guy who lives in the same apartment block (that was something an old work colleague told me actually happened where she used to live).

    it’s something like that, but also beside the point. It’s a repugnant position to take.

    There is a similar argument around previous allegations of rape being made against the defender by other women, or even previous convictions.

    If a feminist were to argue that on that basis feminists should always vote to convict, regardless of the evidence, I would similarly call her out on a repugnant position.

  72. 72
    Adiabat

    Freja: I’ll believe you RE; Jezebel and feminism.

    But surely you can see how Elam’s parody article has been misrepresented, and selectively quoted, in the OP as well. This makes it harder to believe the feminists on here with regards to other “terrible” things Elam has done. And considering he’s rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things I can’t spend all my time double-checking all the accusations you all are making about him, especially as the first didn’t pan out. So sorry but I can’t condemn him.

  73. 73
    Sid

    @Freja

    I didn’t put a theory forward, I said what Keiths article seemed to be really about, because someone here (predictably) took a quote out of it that misrepresented it.

  74. 74
    Schala

    The contributors don’t do feminist activism

    Who took Hugo Schwyzer’s feminist card? He’s a regular contributor to Jezebel.

    And note that feminists tend to not like Schwyzer because he almost murdered his girlfriend. Not at all because what he says is bunk and ultra-traditionalist. Until the former came to light, he was lauded as a good feminist.

  75. 75
    Freja

    @ 63 Sasha

    Where? What MRA has ever advocated a policy that would harm women? I’ve been an active MRA for years and I can’t think of a single example of an MRA doing such a thing. Provide an example.

    I don’t think the Elam quote you rejected was about how you can never be sure, since he clearly talked about “overwhelming evidence”.

    But if that’s not enough, how about Warren Farrell advocating legalising male rape against women, even in cases where the victim clearly said “No”, as long as the rapist thinks something in her body language, dress, or behaviour meant that she wanted to have sex with him? Or do you agree?

  76. 76
    Adiabat

    Jacob: ““Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.”

    Doesn’t seem to be. A dumbass argument in any case.”

    I imagine he means that even if you see “overwhelming evidence” in court you still can’t convict because they may not be allowed to present overwhelming evidence that the charges are false.

    Adiabat: “it’s something like that, but also beside the point. It’s a repugnant position to take.”

    Can you explain that; my moral compass must be somewhere in the Bermuda Triangle? As a juror you have a responsibility to decide what is true. If the court is intentionally witholding evidence then you cannot make a decision beyond a reasonable doubt. Preventing the defence from presenting evidence is something kangaroo courts do.

    Note that I’m not taking a formal position on this yet, just trying to get the full picture still.

  77. 77
    Schala

    But if that’s not enough, how about Warren Farrell advocating legalising male rape against women, even in cases where the victim clearly said “No”, as long as the rapist thinks something in her body language, dress, or behaviour meant that she wanted to have sex with him? Or do you agree?

    Did he say dress? Do you have a quote on him saying “slutty dress/clothing means she wants it”?

    Behavior and body language is something else, case by case basis. Still would need a quote.

    If someone says no while massaging my penis, I’ll be conflicted (and yes, trans women can have penises).

  78. 78
    Sid

    @Freja

    Yes there are some differences, but the sexist double standards and dishonesty that are being used against AVF are still there.

    Elam parodied the Jezebele article, big deal.

    He deliberately poked a sacred cow and spoke in a way that would have been cheered and celebrated if it was feminists responding to an article that celebrated female targeted DV, big deal.

    The idea is to bait feminists into exposing their double standards just they are doing here.

  79. 79
    Ally Fogg

    It’s a repugnant position, Adiabat, because if adopted by sufficient numbers of people, no rapist would ever go to prison, and the judicial penalty for rape would vanish.

    Someone asked for an example of MRA proposals that are actively harmful to women. It doesn’t get much stronger than that.

  80. 80
    Sid

    Oh they are breaking out the false accusations about rape against Dr. Warren Farrell now.

    Can they not stray away from their evil men / damsel in distress narrative?

  81. 81
    Adiabat

    “Adiabat: “it’s something like that, but also beside the point. It’s a repugnant position to take.”

    That line is by Ally. No idea why I wrote my own name.

  82. 82
    Adiabat

    Ally (79): “It’s a repugnant position, Adiabat, because if adopted by sufficient numbers of people, no rapist would ever go to prison, and the judicial penalty for rape would vanish.”

    I agree, but the problem isn’t that position, but the court system which doesn’t allow past false-rape accusations as evidence? Surely?

  83. 83
    Anthony K

    And note that feminists tend to not like Schwyzer because he almost murdered his girlfriend.

    …and because he has a history of fucking his students.

    Until the former came to light, he was lauded as a good feminist.

    Uh, does that actually confuse you?

  84. 84
    Adiabat

    I imagine (and hope for morality’s sake) that Elam isn’t making that proposal as much to say it’s an ideal position to take, but rather to highlight the flaws within the court system that doesn’t allow past false-accusations.

  85. 85
    Dan L.

    What’s the Elam article supposed to be a parody of? The Jezebel article?

    What evidence is withheld from the defense during rape trials?

    Behavior and body language is something else, case by case basis. Still would need a quote.

    Geez, no room for mistakes there.

  86. 86
    Dan L.

    Ah OK, so once someone has made a rape accusation that wasn’t demonstrated in a court of law to be true (which is actually somewhat different from a “false rape accusation”) that person needs to be handicapped for any legitimate rape accusations forever after. Makes sense.

  87. 87
    Sid

    Ally Fog

    The idea of nullification is that justice would be restored and evidence would no longer be hidden from the defense and this would allow someone to declare a rapist guilty or innocent with good conscience.

    I’m also pretty sure you would support a similar argument were it innocent women being sent to prison for crimes they did not commit.

  88. 88
    carnation

    @ Sid

    If I said the following, what would you think?

    I find you, as an MRA to be a loathsome, vile piece of human garbage. I find you so pernicious and repugnant that the idea of fucking your shit up arouses me…

    Or:

    our current gender zeitgeist is one that has promoted and enabled such a degree of male narcissism and entitlement that it has now produced two generations of men that are for the most part, shallow, self-serving wastes of human existence—parasites—semi-human black holes that suck resources and goodwill out of women and squander them”

    Or:

    “I don’t give a fuck if men are raped or falsely accused of rape, because of MRAs bringing it up”

  89. 89
    Ace of Sevens

    Hugo Schwyzer’s feminist card, if he ever had one, got pulled a couple years ago:

    http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/12/24/a-different-take-on-accountability/

  90. 90
    carnation

    @ Ally Fogg

    Are male rape victims, too.

    The MRM is a far greater threat to men than women, though.

  91. 91
    Ace of Sevens

    I find the idea that no amount of evidence could prove a rape accusation regardless of the character of the accuser to be extremely odd. That only makes sense if you assume all cases are he-said, she-said, which isn’t true at all. I’m having trouble imaging a case where there is reasonable doubt, but establishing that the alleged victim has know known history of making false accusations would erase it.

  92. 92
    Jacob Schmidt

    I agree, but the problem isn’t that position, but the court system which doesn’t allow past false-rape accusations as evidence? Surely?

    How exactly are past false rape accusations overwhelming evidence? And is that even true?

    Oh, and no, dismissing massive amounts of evidence in all rape cases ever in favour of assuming that the victims lied about a previous rape case is far, far worse. I don’t care what you’re trying to combat, that position is repugnant.

  93. 93
    carnation

    @ Ally Fogg

    That should have read * and male victims too.

  94. 94
    Adiabat

    Dan L: “What evidence is withheld from the defense during rape trials?”

    I don’t know, I’m trying to get a handle on this. I imagine it differs.

    “Ah OK, so once someone has made a rape accusation that wasn’t demonstrated in a court of law to be true (which is actually somewhat different from a “false rape accusation”) that person needs to be handicapped for any legitimate rape accusations forever after. Makes sense.”

    I don’t know, but I gave an example before where past false rape accusations would be essential evidence in a rape trial. In any given trial, as a juror you have no idea if such evidence is being withheld from you, so you cannot get past reasonable doubt. Your example, like you said, wasn’t even a false rape accusation. I’m asking you nicely to engage with what I said and not do that thing where you all jump off the deep end and get all worked up.

    Carnation (88): “If I said the following, what would you think?”

    You say those kinds of things all the time about MRA’s.

  95. 95
    carnation

    @ Freja

    It’s a good idea, when talking to Sid, to insist he doesn’t (mis/over) use metaphors. His comments are difficult enough to follow without abstract linguistic illustrations.

  96. 96
    Sid

    @carnation

    I’d think that its sounds like the sort of thing I’m used to hearing feminists say.

    I’m pretty sure in men were going around using male rape victims as some sort of rhetorical bludgeon and shaming tactic people would get sick of it too.

    I’ve heard average feminists saying “what about teh menz (that are raped/abused/etc) LOL” for years now.

    What would you think if it was common practise for mra’s to laugh and chant “what about teh wimmimz (that are raped) LOL!?

    But of course the rules are different for men and women, because women are so frail and men are so strong, isn’t that right carnation?

  97. 97
    Adiabat

    Jacob: “How exactly are past false rape accusations overwhelming evidence? And is that even true?

    Oh, and no, dismissing massive amounts of evidence in all rape cases ever in favour of assuming that the victims lied about a previous rape case is far, far worse. I don’t care what you’re trying to combat, that position is repugnant.”

    I didn’t say that. You’ve gone off the deep end as I predicted in my last post. Please at least try to engage in good faith. Like I said I’m trying to get a handle on it.

  98. 98
    Anthony K

    I’m pretty sure in men were going around using male rape victims as some sort of rhetorical bludgeon and shaming tactic people would get sick of it too.

    They do, and we are.

  99. 99
    Jacob Schmidt

    Adiabat

    In any given trial, as a juror you have no idea if such evidence is being withheld from you, so you cannot get past reasonable doubt.

    This is true of literally every trial ever. This issue (if it even exists) needs to be solved by the court system, and changes need to me made about what evi8dence is allowed. It’s not up to juries to be assuming that there was evidence withheld from them.

    You say those kinds of things all the time about MRA’s.

    What the bloody fuck? Carnation has certainly been rude to MRA’s, but when the fuck did he say that violent assault of MRA’s arouses him? Or that two generations of men are parasites? Or that male rape victims don’t matter?

  100. 100
    carnation

    @ Adiabat 94

    Provide examples where I described my excitement, sexual or otherwise at “fucking MRAs shit up”, describing MRAs as subhuman, or expressed a lack of care and concern for victims of sexual violence?

    Or anything remotely approximating it? I’ve demonstrated, consistently, the lack of substance to MRA thinking. Different things excite me, MRAs don’t feature…

    Though I would like to give Sid a hug.

  101. 101
    Dan L.

    I don’t know, I’m trying to get a handle on this. I imagine it differs.

    So we’re talking about a complete hypothetical then? Sounds worthwhile.

    I’m asking you nicely to engage with what I said and not do that thing where you all jump off the deep end and get all worked up.

    Asking me nicely involves characterizing my previous comment as “getting all worked up”?

    In that case you can go suck a railroad spike. You don’t really seem worth engaging in the first place.

  102. 102
    Anthony K

    But of course the rules are different for men and women, because women are so frail and men are so strong, isn’t that right carnation?

    Ah, that’s you arguing in good faith, is it?

  103. 103
    Freja

    @72, Adiabat

    Freja: I’ll believe you RE; Jezebel and feminism.

    Thank you.

    But surely you can see how Elam’s parody article has been misrepresented, and selectively quoted, in the OP as well. This makes it harder to believe the feminists on here with regards to other “terrible” things Elam has done. And considering he’s rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things I can’t spend all my time double-checking all the accusations you all are making about him, especially as the first didn’t pan out. So sorry but I can’t condemn him.

    It’s not so much the parody (even though it doesn’t work), it’s the premise. That it’s not wrong. He doesn’t advocate not doing this to women because other people, even other people who have slapped you, don’t deserve it, just that it’s not worth it. Also, if your satire is too close to your regular opinions, it’s hard to think of as satire. And in my experience, that’s because it usually isn’t completely satire, but rather something the person in question actually agrees with to some degree, but know they will caused trouble if expressed honestly. See for instance the correlations found between telling jokes expressing prejudice against certain groups, and non-jokingly agreeing with those prejudices.

    Part of the problem is that Elam wants to have his cake and eat it too. He frequently expresses the opinion that men are fully capable of easily dominating women physically, but choose not to. He talks about how everything women do they do on men’s sufferance, and he treats female-on-male violence as an insult more than a danger. And yet, he also wants to paint men as victims whenever it’s convenient, and is completely willing to ignore the arguments about how female-on-male violence is generally less serious (size differences, less threatening, easier to escape from, less likely to result in significant injuries, etc..) even though he more or less makes the same points every time he gleefully talks about all the things men could easily do to women.

    I don’t necessarily agree with the arguments about how women’s violence is less serious (especially not when presented as universal) anymore than Elam do, but when the violence he makes such a big deal out of is usually nothing but slaps that don’t seriously wound or incapacitate, and when he talks so dismissively about women what mean to men (“not worth it”), it hard to see his rants about female-on-male violence as anything but a further excuse to hate on women.

  104. 104
    carnation

    @ Sid

    I asked what you would think if I said what I wrote.

    So, imagine that I had said all of that, then tell me what you think.

    It’s quite straightforward. Explain what you would think of a person who spoke about men in those words.

  105. 105
    Raging Bee

    You’re not fucking listening. I don’t give a fuck about the ‘injustices’ facing women BECAUSE THERE AREN’T ANY INJUSTICES.

    No, Sasha, we’re not listening to you, because, once again, you just gave us good reason not to listen to you: you’re more willfully ignorant than even the other MRAs here, and you clearly have nothing to contribute to an adult conversation. Seriously, I’ve heard flat-earthers who sound more open-minded than you. If you insist on being a blind, hateful, self-centered crybaby, then your proper place is the Slymepit. Taking your endless temper-tantrum here only gives self-centeredness a bad name.

  106. 106
    Adiabat

    Jacob: “This is true of literally every trial ever. This issue (if it even exists) needs to be solved by the court system, and changes need to me made about what evi8dence is allowed. It’s not up to juries to be assuming that there was evidence withheld from them.

    Maybe, I agree that it’s up to the court system to sort it out. I disagree that it is true of every trial ever. I think in most types of trial you can have no doubt that all evidence is presented as there are no restrictions in place for either party. As for whether it’s up to juries to take a stand against an injust court system, I don’t know. Should they just go along with the rules of kangaroo courts and potentially convict people without going beyond reasonable doubt, just because them’s the rules?

    Carnation: I apologise. The abuse you’ve dished out hasn’t been quite as bad as the abuse you described. I really do apologise.

    Dan L: “Asking me nicely involves characterizing my previous comment as “getting all worked up”?

    In that case you can go suck a railroad spike. You don’t really seem worth engaging in the first place.”

    Fair enough, I understand. Though I was predicting a pile on and mischaracterisation coming due to your rather hyperbolic post where the example wasn’t even a false rape accusation. I apologise if I’m wrong in pre-judging you like that, I guess I’m just used to it happening everytime I try and talk reasonable to feminists.

  107. 107
    Jacob Schmidt

    Adiabat

    I didn’t say that. You’ve gone off the deep end as I predicted in my last post. Please at least try to engage in good faith. Like I said I’m trying to get a handle on it.

    Methinks the problem is on your end. Here’s what Elam said: Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.

    By your description of his arguement, Elam must think that past false rape accusations are comparable to overwhelming evidence, or at least enough to produce reasonable doubt under all circumstances. Hell, worse than that, he thinks that the mere possibility that there was a false accusation at some point is enough to produce reasonable dount under all circumstances, since no false rape claim has actually been demonstrated.

    Now you said this: I agree, but the problem isn’t that position, but the court system which doesn’t allow past false-rape accusations as evidence? Surely?

    Now A), does this problem even exist? and B) how does this problem compare with the assumptions Elam is making? As far as I’m concerned, even if the courts aren’t allowing some evidence, the problem at hand is Elam’s proposal (since asking for an MRA proposal that harmed women was the reason he was brought up).

    Also, given that I’ve accused you of nothing, wouldn’t you be the one arguing in bad faith here?

  108. 108
    Freja

    @ 73 Sid

    I didn’t put a theory forward, I said what Keiths article seemed to be really about, because someone here (predictably) took a quote out of it that misrepresented it.

    It was your theory about what Keith was trying to say, and I pointed out that it didn’t make sense. To elaborate:

    If Keith truly believes that men commit more violence towards women than towards other men, even in western cultures, it means he (and by extension, Elam) is frightfully ignorant, his theory is built on a flawed premise, and we should all be concerned if one of the largest MRA sites in existence works on such a premise. But I think Keith knows it full well, because the site he wrote it on, and the movement he’s in, frequently site the higher rates of violence against men as proof of gendered oppression. Granted, a lot of them believes this is women’s fault, but men ignoring women is hardly going to cause women to become less violent, especially not if women are as self-important and feel as entitled to men’s attention as he suggests.

  109. 109
    Adiabat

    Freja (103): I’ve seen your post and will respond to it another time but I have to go.

    It’s probably best anyway before I upset more people.

  110. 110
    Jacob Schmidt

    Should they just go along with the rules of kangaroo courts and potentially convict people without going beyond reasonable doubt, just because them’s the rules?

    I can say little but that I certainly wouldn’t. I don’t think the existence of a “kangaroo court” has come close to being established, though.

  111. 111
    Sid

    @Ferja

    Its common knowledge that men absorb most violence and women are the most insulated from it. I didn’t put forward a theory that it isn’t, as far as I can Kieth didn’t either.

    As far as male on male violence goes, Kieth seems to be saying to men, don’t compete with each other for women and don’t fight over women.

  112. 112
    Raging Bee

    But surely you can see how Elam’s parody article has been misrepresented…

    You say that to Freja AFTER she described what the article said, in some detail, based on direct quotes from the article? Seriously? I’ll believe that when you describe EXACTLY what we got wrong about Elam’s article. And no, “it was a parody of something else” doesn’t cut it. It was, at best, a LOUSY parody (otherwise you wouldn’t have to tell us it was a parody), and calling it a parody doesn’t invalidate anyone’s criticism of it.

  113. 113
    Ace of Sevens

    @Adiabat

    I think in most types of trial you can have no doubt that all evidence is presented as there are no restrictions in place for either party.

    You know nothing about law then. There are all sorts of evidence restrictions in all kinds of trial. Reading a newspaper account of pretty much any high-profile trial should tell you that. Look at the Martin text message and expert testimony on voice ID in George Zimmerman’s trial, for instance.

  114. 114
    Adiabat

    One last post as it was decent reply:

    Jacob Schmidt: “Also, given that I’ve accused you of nothing, wouldn’t you be the one arguing in bad faith here?”

    True, and I’m sorry. I’m being over wary due to past experience of trying to talk reasonably to feminists on a subject I’m not fully au fair with. Sorry to Dan again as well.

    “By your description of his arguement, Elam must think that past false rape accusations are comparable to overwhelming evidence, or at least enough to produce reasonable doubt under all circumstances. Hell, worse than that, he thinks that the mere possibility that there was a false accusation at some point is enough to produce reasonable dount under all circumstances, since no false rape claim has actually been demonstrated.”

    I don’t know what exactly would constitute overwhelming evidence. You may be right. What is your view for cases where it just goes beyond reasonable doubt and there’s the possibility that evidence has been withheld? Should the possibility that evidence has been withdrawn be a factor?

    “Now A), does this problem even exist? and B) how does this problem compare with the assumptions Elam is making? As far as I’m concerned, even if the courts aren’t allowing some evidence, the problem at hand is Elam’s proposal (since asking for an MRA proposal that harmed women was the reason he was brought up).”

    Not if Elam’s proposal is intended to highlight the injustice of the courts in withholding certain types of evidence. I’ve not seen the original post. If he’s seriously proposing it, and not intending to highlight a problem with the court system, then it’s seriously fucked up.

  115. 115
    Dan L.

    Adiabat@106:

    Though I was predicting a pile on and mischaracterisation coming due to your rather hyperbolic post where the example wasn’t even a false rape accusation.

    Due to the lack of information supplied by you I had no choice but to make assumptions about what was being discussed. It’s hardly “hyperbolic” to do so. Your “argument” simply isn’t worth discussing without more details.

    So I assumed you were talking specifically about cases where a woman brings rape charges against a man, the man is found not guilty, and the fact of that court case is then used as exculpatory evidence in a later court case. A scenario with that kind of specificity is worth discussing. However in that scenario the rape accusation is not demonstrated to be false but merely not found to be true.

    If we’re talking about a court finding a woman guilty of a false rape accusation and that fact is not admitted you might have a point but apparently you have no idea what you’re talking about in the first place.

  116. 116
    Ali Scott

    Again this juvenile argument keeps getting repeated “feminists do it all the time” is not a rebuttal to “why are you being an asshole?”. Surprisingly for a broadly anti-feminist movement it seems the MRM idolises the uglier aspects of feminism, especially the more batshit segment of radfems and tries to emulate it. Or at least hold it as some kind of benchmark for how to behave. Feminism has screwed up dealing with intersectionality a bunch of times in the past, and a sensitivity to gendered male suffering is one of those. Thankfully it seems to slowly be getting better in a lot of ways, but one thing that would definitely help that would be if the people trying to speak about gender as it affects men stopped acting like dicks and pulling the “but they started it” card.

  117. 117
    Sid

    @carnation

    Drop the pretension and attempts to talk down your nose. Try to be authentic like I suggested. If you have good arguments they will stand on their own merit. Your pretentious tones seem to be just window dressing for the fact you that don’t contribute baring dishonesty. smearing and sexist double standards. Everyone else can see right though it, you aren’t fooling anyone but yourself.

    And as you know I already answered you.

    “I’d think that its sounds like the sort of thing I’m used to hearing feminists say.

    I’m pretty sure in men were going around using male rape victims as some sort of rhetorical bludgeon and shaming tactic people would get sick of it too.

    I’ve heard average feminists saying “what about teh menz (that are raped/abused/etc) LOL” for years now.

    What would you think if it was common practise for mra’s to laugh and chant “what about teh wimmimz (that are raped) LOL!?

    But of course the rules are different for men and women, because women are so frail and men are so strong, isn’t that right carnation?”

  118. 118
    Freja

    @74 Schala

    Who took Hugo Schwyzer’s feminist card? He’s a regular contributor to Jezebel.

    You mean the Hugo Schwyzer who is utterly reviled by almost all feminists who’ve ever heard of him? What ever the reason is for that revulsion, doesn’t it tell you a thing or 2 about how much Jezebel is in accordance with the rest of feminism? Also, I believe Hugo has said he’ll stick to writing about men, so I’m not even sure he’s doing feminist activism.

    But I’ll admit that in my haste to not make too overly long posts, I didn’t include as many caveats as I could. So let me elaborate once again: When saying that the contributors don’t do feminist activism, I’m not saying that it is impossible that a few of them could be involved in feminist activism or even be a feminist, I’m saying that their hypothetical feminism is largely incidental to writing for Jezebel.

    As I’ve already said before, Jezebel sometimes deal with feminist/quasi-feminist subjects, which means it makes sense to have someone who deals with the subject write for them (to bad they don’t have a person like that). But they also have some pretty anti-feminist articles, like “I Am Amber Cole’s Father”, which argued that it was just the nature of boys to film their sex acts with underage girls and distribute it nonconsensually, and that we should focuson changing young girls and their mothers. Just because something shows up in a magazine does not make it the focus of that magazine. I believe Cosmo has had an article written be a chef, but it hardly makes it a cooking magazine.

  119. 119
    Adiabat

    Agh, one last one:

    Jacob: “I can say little but that I certainly wouldn’t. I don’t think the existence of a “kangaroo court” has come close to being established, though.”

    No, but we are talking hypotheticals as I have no idea if Elam was talking about a propsed change or something. And witholding evidence that actually could be important in making a decision is at least partway heading to a kangaroo court.

    Ace of Sevens: “You know nothing about law then. There are all sorts of evidence restrictions in all kinds of trial. Reading a newspaper account of pretty much any high-profile trial should tell you that.”

    I am aware of some restrictions. I’m generally against them unless it is genuinely something which is unimportant to the case but people hold incorrect views on: such as what a rape victim was wearing or past sexual history.

  120. 120
    Dan L.

    Sid@117:

    I’ve heard average feminists saying “what about teh menz (that are raped/abused/etc) LOL” for years now.

    I’ve mostly seen that used in contexts where the topic of discussion was abuse of women and people tried to derail by talking about abuse of men instead. It doesn’t indicate that there’s anything wrong with discussing abuse against men, just that it’s being discussed in the wrong venue or context.

    If you’re on an MRA blog and some feminist comes into the comments to talk about battered women then maybe “what about teh wimmenz” would be an appropriate response. I wouldn’t judge you for it.

  121. 121
    Adiabat

    Dan L: “Due to the lack of information supplied by you I had no choice but to make assumptions about what was being discussed.”

    Maybe you could’ve asked instead of jumping to conclusions. That’s exactly what I mean by “going off the deep end”. I’m not criticising but it nearly ruined this conversation.

    Ali Scott: “Again this juvenile argument keeps getting repeated “feminists do it all the time” is not a rebuttal to “why are you being an asshole?””

    And it continues as predicted. How did I present it as a rebuttal? I apologised and explained why I jumped to the conclusions I did. I didn’t excuse them just explained in the hope that people would show empathy instead of tribalism and hatred based on the misconception that I’m a MRA. At least Jacob seems to have managed that so far.

    I’m definitely going this time :)

  122. 122
    Ali Scott

    Aah no Adiabat that wasn’t directed at you! It is a general trend that has popped up a few times in the argument, but I can’t say you were guilty of it there.

  123. 123
    Dan L.

    Also, Sid@117:

    If you have good arguments they will stand on their own merit.

    Sounds good in theory but that’s not really how it works. “Good” by what criteria? Yours? What if your head is up your ass on the issue being discussed and you couldn’t tell a good argument from a recipe for apple crisp?

    Just as an example, gun control opponents really seem to think they have great arguments but they’re almost universally stupid arguments. I can patiently explain for hours what’s wrong with them and they’re just going to come back with some variant of “you’re a libtard {insert homophobic slur here}”. Good arguments are too often in the eye of the beholder.

    Taking seriously an argument you’re not sure is very good is the essence of good faith argumentation.

  124. 124
    Dan L.

    Adiabat@121:

    Maybe you could’ve asked instead of jumping to conclusions. That’s exactly what I mean by “going off the deep end”. I’m not criticising but it nearly ruined this conversation.

    From my perspective I made a reasonable assumption and in response it was you who “went off the deep end”. I think you’re the one who ruined this conversation.

    Try being clear about your arguments in the first place and people don’t need to make assumptions to engage. And try to take some ownership of your failures instead of trying to deflect onto others.

  125. 125
    Ali Scott

    @Adiabat If anything I was impressed by your apology and the explanation. My comment was more aimed at the general lack of empathy in these sorts of conversations, which was kinda what you were getting at. Sorry I gave you the wrong idea!

  126. 126
    Sid

    @

    “I’ve mostly seen that used in contexts where the topic of discussion was abuse of women and people tried to derail by talking about abuse of men instead. It doesn’t indicate that there’s anything wrong with discussing abuse against men, just that it’s being discussed in the wrong venue or context.

    If you’re on an MRA blog and some feminist comes into the comments to talk about battered women then maybe “what about teh wimmenz” would be an appropriate response. I wouldn’t judge you for it”

    That would be different.

    It would have to be a case where mra’s were controlling the public discussion and resources on rape and abuse and erasing female victims and male perpetrators and when women approached for help and advocacy, the mra’s repeatedly made a game out of mocking them, and said their suffering was less important, so that they experience secondary victimization.

    I really don’t think that feminists would forgive mra’s saying “what about teh wimminz (that are raped) lol”.

    It would more likely for all eternity be held up as proof of teh evilz menz movement, thats just how it is.

  127. 127
    Dan L.

    Sid@126:

    I’ll have to ask you for some evidence for what you’re arguing since the only example of “what about teh menz” I’ve seen is exactly as I’ve described: feminist blogs discussing violence against women being derailed by people who want to talk about violence against men instead.

  128. 128
    Sid

    Im going to bail.

    I look forward to seeing how this progresses. Will Paul be able to get Ally to examine his own sexism and double standards?

    Needless to say, the sneering, pretentious baboon gallery here are a lost cause.

  129. 129
    Dan L.

    Just for example, Sid, Ally discusses violence against men all the time. Do you see feminists invading his threads saying “what about teh menz”? No, because the use of that phrase is restricted to a more limited context than you’re letting on.

  130. 130
    Dan L.

    Needless to say, the sneering, pretentious baboon gallery here are a lost cause.

    Nothing sneering or pretentious about you though…

  131. 131
    Sid

    Ok one more

    @Dan L

    “I’ll have to ask you for some evidence for what you’re arguing since the only example of “what about teh menz” I’ve seen is exactly as I’ve described: feminist blogs discussing violence against women being derailed by people who want to talk about violence against men instead.”

    You just provided testimony.

    What you saw is feminists mocking men that were wanting to talk about abuse inclusively and holistically.

    Then you saw them project their own characteristics (wanting to keep it about one gender only) onto these men.

    Inclusivity is “derailing” from the “real issue” to these people.

    I’ve seen it many times, in much the same way the baboons here here are trying to bully and marginalize, male abuse victims treated the same way and “what about teh menz (that are raped/abused) LOL”

    But of course, women are morally pure and incapable of doing wrong, this behaviour would only be wrong were the gendered reversed.

  132. 132
    Dan L.

    Sid@131:

    If the men in question were overwhelmingly asking in good faith for help and support rather than intentionally derailing conversations about violence against men you might have a point.

    They’re not. You don’t. And you obviously have no capacity to engage on this issue in good faith. Have a nice day.

  133. 133
    Jacob Schmidt

    Adiabat

    True, and I’m sorry. I’m being over wary due to past experience of trying to talk reasonably to feminists on a subject I’m not fully au fair with. Sorry to Dan again as well.

    Accepted. I wasn’t really accusing you of arguing in bad faith; I figure honest mistakes and a bit of bias cover most misinterpretations online.

    What is your view for cases where it just goes beyond reasonable doubt and there’s the possibility that evidence has been withheld? Should the possibility that evidence has been withdrawn be a factor?

    Even if reasonable doubt has been barely established, the mere possibility that evidence has been withheld isn’t enough to tip the scales because it goes both ways. It’s also possible that evidence hasn’t been withheld. There’s also the fact that a past false rape accusation has little effect on the contemporary case; if there’s evidence that it did happen this time, the victims previous lies do nothing to change that. Really, past false accusations could only count in a civil court, where “beyond reasonable doubt” isn’t the goal. You might be confused about what “reasonable doubt” means; it’s above and beyond circumstancial evidence.

    In any case, I’m wary of using past false accusations as evidence; a single wrong doing does not a habit make, and rape victims (of both genders) have a hard enough time being taken seriously as it is.

    Not if Elam’s proposal is intended to highlight the injustice of the courts in withholding certain types of evidence. I’ve not seen the original post. If he’s seriously proposing it, and not intending to highlight a problem with the court system, then it’s seriously fucked up.

    How exactly does this highlight anything? I’m stuck thinking either Elam is either staggeringly incompetent, or outright repugant.

    And witholding evidence that actually could be important in making a decision is at least partway heading to a kangaroo court.

    Even assuming the evidence in question is really that relevant, one flaw (even a large one) does not a kangaroo court make.

    At least Jacob seems to have managed that so far.

    Oooh, thank you! I graciously accept your backhanded compliment. :)

  134. 134
    QRG/Elly

    Hi ally

    As someone who considers themselves a member of the ‘MHRM’ I really don’t need to be told by you – an out and proud feminist enabler -what I need to think or do. Your commitment to men and boys always includes writing about violence, crime, inappropriate sexual behaviour – by men. I have plenty of criticisms of Paul Elam’s writings. But your offerings are not where I go for positive considerations of men and masculinity.

    Elly

  135. 135
    Jacob Schmidt

    What you saw is feminists mocking men that were wanting to talk about abuse inclusively and holistically.

    Whiny derailing is not advocating for inclusivity nor holistic solutions.

    Inclusivity is “derailing” from the “real issue” to these people.

    You think “stop derailing my thread” means “stop talking about this at all”?

    It’s also telling that most feminists who get accused of “controlling the discourse” talk about male victims. Even Jezebel does it, and we’ve already established that they’re pretty shitty.

    But of course, women are morally pure and incapable of doing wrong, this behaviour would only be wrong were the gendered reversed.

    Who said this anywhere? Or are you arguing with the feminists in your head?

  136. 136
    Jacob Schmidt

    Random derail question:

    Adiabat, when you get back, does your ‘nym have any connection to the thermodynamic principle of adiabatic processes?

  137. 137
    Raging Bee

    Im going to bail.

    Well, so much for the idea that loud-mouthed extremists like Sid are more effective at getting the men’s rights message across.

    Agh, one last one…

    Agh, you boys can’t even flounce credibly. Like the old song goes, “How can I tell you/How much I miss you/When you won’t go away?”

  138. 138
    Sid

    @Dan L

    >Sid@131:

    If the men in question were overwhelmingly asking in good faith for help and support rather than intentionally derailing conversations about violence against men you might have a point.

    They’re not. You don’t. And you obviously have no capacity to engage on this issue in good faith. Have a nice day.>

    Only in feminist cloud cookoo-land are male help seekers and people that want inclusive abuse services and gender equality re-cast these sinister sub humans with a bizarre agenda to “derail” conversations about violence against women “the real issue”.

    This is exactly the sort of thing they faced, as well as the bullying and mockery.

    This is one of the paths to becoming an mra, an anti-feminist or both.

  139. 139
    Dan L.

    Sid@138:

    The instances in which I’ve seen the phrase “what about teh menz” invoked are not fairly characterized as “male help seekers and peoplethat want inclusive abuse services and gender equality”. Again, you seem incapable of engaging in good faith on this issue. Once again, have a nice day.

  140. 140
    Dan L.

    Sid@138:

    And your “argument” (read “unsupported assertion”) here seems to assume that there are no anti-feminists or MRAs who intentionally derail or troll feminist blogs. I can assure you that’s very far from the truth.

  141. 141
    Sid

    @JS

    “Who said this anywhere? Or are you arguing with the feminists in your head?”

    This is an un-examined assumption that underlies feminist thought. Some call feminism the “ladies auxiliary of the patriarchy”, this is why you have men here aggressively cutting down other men on behalf of women and holding men and women and to different standards, Its the reason why Elams parody of the Jezebele article is seen as so monstrous, while the original Jezbelle article is not so much and its also behind the mentality you see all over this tread from the baboons – feminists can never really do anything wrong, and the mens movement can never do anything right.

    Its all patriarchal assumptions and role playing, that’s behind the double standards and disagreements here. Its just that the feminists don’t know that’s what they are doing.

  142. 142
    Carrie Griffin

    Ally, is that meant to be you in the drawing with the demon ladies on AVFM? That rendering is the most offensive, insulting bit of all!

  143. 143
    Ace of Sevens

    @Sid: It would really help your case if you cited examples. (Please avoid Jezebel comments sections in your examples.) You are basically saying that people say “what about the menz?” whenever someone objects to a article framing DV or whatever as a problem affecting women only. The counter is that the people making thsi objection aren’t trying to improve thing for men, just use them as a rhetorical point to delegitimize women’s issues. Without examples, you’re just going to go back & forth on this.

  144. 144
    Jacob Schmidt

    Sid

    C’mon, you can’t even stick to a flounce.

    This is an un-examined assumption that underlies feminist thought.

    So yes, you’re arguing with the feminists in your head? Honeslty, this response in incoherent. Who, exactly, is making that assumption. No one in this thread has. No feminist I know of has. So who?

    this is why you have men here aggressively cutting down other men on behalf of women and holding men and women and to different standards

    The fuck are you talking about?

    Its the reason why Elams parody of the Jezebele article is seen as so monstrous, while the original Jezbelle article is not so much and its also behind the mentality you see all over this tread from the baboons

    Are you seriously unable to distinguish between making light of violence and advocating severe violence? The former is why Jezebel’s article is held to be dispicable (funny how you don’t admit that pretty much everyone in this thread, without question, condemns the Jezebel piece) while the latter is why Elam’s piece seems monstrous in addition to dispicable.

  145. 145
    Sid

    @Dan L

    >Sid@138:

    >And your “argument” (read “unsupported assertion”) here seems to assume that there are no anti-feminists or MRAs who intentionally derail or troll feminist blogs. I can assure you that’s very far from the truth.<

    Well, a male help seeker that doesn't know better or someone advocating for inclusive abuse services for marginalized abuse victims has presumably gone to the feminist area deliberately.

    The fact that this is seen as derailing, trolling and a good time to bully and mock is more of an indictment of the mentality of people there, than it is the help seeker that thinks feminist areas are the obvious places to go, or the advocate for inclusive services.

    I think these peoples ideology stops them from realizing how nasty they are. Its the same thing here, the real nasty pieces of work in the story of this thread found in the Jezebele article and the comments section but they are not the mra's in the story, yet they fly under the radar. When people fly under the banner of feminism, and their target is men, they think they get a pass to be really nasty.

  146. 146
    Sid

    @JS

    >Are you seriously unable to distinguish between making light of violence and advocating severe violence? The former is why Jezebel’s article is held to be dispicable (funny how you don’t admit that pretty much everyone in this thread, without question, condemns the Jezebel piece) while the latter is why Elam’s piece seems monstrous in addition to dispicable.>

    Are you seriously not able to see that women in the mainstream laughing and bragging about serious violence including stabbing, against men is actual violence, and someone making a parody of them isn’t actually advocating serious violence.

    You have some sexist blinkers on not to be able to see the different.

  147. 147
    Schala

    Also, I believe Hugo has said he’ll stick to writing about men, so I’m not even sure he’s doing feminist activism.

    Hugo writes about men alright. He projects his own failings onto men as a gender, then says “men should do better”, thinks women can do no wrong, holds men to an impossible standard of agency where EVERYTHING THEY DO is their own fault, including anything that happens to them. But stuff women do is the fault of patriarchy, so you can’t punish them.

    ———————-

    @143

    And examples could be Salon comment threads.

    Mention rape at all (not gendered) in the topic, and you CANNOT mention male rape victims. Commentators go on about how “men need to stop raping women”, someone says “but women rape too, tell them to stop raping also”, then the first one says “Men are 99% of rapists, what about the menz” the second replies with CDC stats saying women are 40% of rapists, the first one says its a lie, impossible, cannot happen.

  148. 148
    carnation

    @ Sid

    Sid, Sid, Sid…

    Got you in a right pickle, don’t I?

    You misused a load of metaphors in your reply to my message, but ignored the substance, so I’ll ask you again. But first I’ll explain why it’s important that you answer.

    You accuse people of hypocrisy here, in a daily basis, including the publisher of the blog, Ally Fogg. And you’ve accused me of a number of things, including being pretentious and looking down my nose at you.

    So here is it. I’m going to make some statements, and you, Sid, if you have any integrity, will respond with how you feel about them. If you don’t answer them directly, you’ll be seen as a coward. If you do answer them directly, you will most likely appear a hypocrite.

    You never challenge me directly, or Ally Fogg, you instead make sweeping generalisations, that are impossible to respond to.

    So, here it is again:

    If I said the following, what would you think?

    I find you, as an MRA to be a loathsome, vile piece of human garbage. I find you so pernicious and repugnant that the idea of fucking your shit up arouses me…

    Or:

    our current gender zeitgeist is one that has promoted and enabled such a degree of male narcissism and entitlement that it has now produced two generations of men that are for the most part, shallow, self-serving wastes of human existence—parasites—semi-human black holes that suck resources and goodwill out of women and squander them”

    Or:

    “I don’t give a fuck if men are raped or falsely accused of rape, because of MRAs bringing it up”

    We all look forward to your response, Sid.

  149. 149
    Schala

    Are you seriously unable to distinguish between making light of violence and advocating severe violence?

    Elam made light of violence, said he didn’t really advocate for it, that it was hyperbolic to show a point.

    Jezebel advocated severe violence, in all seriousness.

  150. 150
    Sid

    @JS

    >So yes, you’re arguing with the feminists in your head? Honeslty, this response in incoherent. Who, exactly, is making that assumption. No one in this thread has. No feminist I know of has. So who?>

    You did. You see women celebrating real violence including stabbing against men, as less serious than a man making a parody of them.

    This sort of Victorian sexism underlies feminist thought.

  151. 151
    carnation

    @ Sid

    Look at comment 148 – we’re all waiting for your wisdom…

  152. 152
    daniellavine

    Sid@145:

    The fact that this is seen as derailing, trolling and a good time to bully and mock is more of an indictment of the mentality of people there, than it is the help seeker that thinks feminist areas are the obvious places to go, or the advocate for inclusive services.

    Actually, it’s an indictment against extremists like Paul Elam and yourself who would rather spend their time hurling invective at feminists and women in general and generally poisoning the well than use any of that time or energy for, you know, actually helping men and boys who need help.

    Notice that not one person taking the feminist side in this argument has defended the Jezebel article — all who’ve addressed it at all have condemned it. But those taking the anti-feminist position have resolutely defended Paul Elam’s “arguments” — mostly by interpreting them much more charitably than they would ever interpret a much more temperate argument made by a feminist.

    Yes, I’m mostly talking about you, Sid.

    Now this point we’re currently arguing about — “what about teh menz” — is at best a tu quoque fallacy on your part. It’s not a particularly substantive point from any reasonable perspective on DV issues. But your inability to acknowledge that you may be mistaken about the context in which this phrase is used on even an insubstantial point that doesn’t do much to support your overall position does indicate the mindset with which you’re trying to engage in argument.

    It indicates that it’s pointless for me to try to convince you of anything at all. Even a fairly mild objection to a tangential point is met by you with assumptions of bad faith, accusations of outright lying, and imputations of opinions that I do not hold in the first place.

    It’s pointless to try to reason with you because you are simply not reasonable.

    Have a nice day.

  153. 153
    daniellavine

    Elam made light of violence, said he didn’t really advocate for it, that it was hyperbolic to show a point.

    Jezebel advocated severe violence, in all seriousness.

    Actually, the Jezebel article advocated mild violence in all seriousness and has been condemned by everyone in this particular discussion taking the “feminist side” of the argument.

    The Elam article made light of severe violence. It did so hyperbolically, but the admission of hyperbole also contained the caveat that Elam does not actually think such violence against women is wrong. And it’s been defended by everyone taking the “anti-feminist side” of the argument.

  154. 154
    Schala

    mostly by interpreting them much more charitably than they would ever interpret a much more temperate argument made by a feminist.

    Don’t have to, some feminists, accepted by most as feminists, have advocated outright genocide of men.

    I doubt any MRA can top that.

  155. 155
    Ally Fogg

    While we’re about it Sid, you still haven’t answered my question at 60

  156. 156
    Schala

    The Elam article made light of severe violence. It did so hyperbolically, but the admission of hyperbole also contained the caveat that Elam does not actually think such violence against women is wrong. And it’s been defended by everyone taking the “anti-feminist side” of the argument.

    I also don’t think parodic violence is wrong, because tatum ta, it doesn’t actually happen *claps from nowhere*.

    I also condone videogame and movie violence.

  157. 157
    daniellavine

    Don’t have to, some feminists, accepted by most as feminists, have advocated outright genocide of men.

    Which feminists again? I don’t see anyone in this thread advocating genocide of men.

    Or are you holding all feminists responsible for the opinions of an extremist fringe? Should I do the same for you?

  158. 158
    Jacob Schmidt

    Sid

    Are you seriously not able to see that women in the mainstream laughing and bragging about serious violence including stabbing, against men is actual violence, and someone making a parody of them isn’t actually advocating serious violence.

    Except Elam specifically stated that what he was saying wasn’t wrong. The only one to attempt to address this was adiabat, who brought up this:

    The better option is to kick her to the curb, figuratively speaking, and hopefully move on to some better choices. Besides, violence in self defense should be in some way commensurate with the violence of the attack.

    So it’s not wrong, it’s just not the best response.

    And who the fuck advocated stabbing?

    Schala

    And examples could be Salon comment threads.

    Links or it didn’t happen. I’m not going through threads looking for evidence for your claim.

    Elam made light of violence, said he didn’t really advocate for it, that it was hyperbolic to show a point.[1]

    Jezebel advocated severe violence, in all seriousness.[2]

    1) Oi: “Now, am I serious about this? No. Not because it’s wrong. It’s not wrong.
    2) Where?

  159. 159
    daniellavine

    I also don’t think parodic violence is wrong, because tatum ta, it doesn’t actually happen *claps from nowhere*.

    I also condone videogame and movie violence.

    Which is not strictly relevant to the argument I made. But then your style of argumentation relies solely on harping on irrelevancies. If I take that away from you I guess you’ll have nothing left, poor thing.

  160. 160
    Sid

    @daniellavine

    Nope.

    The practice of abusing male help seekers and people that advocate gender equality for abuse victims in feminist areas long predates AVM and the decision to use controversial rhetoric.

    Feminists abusing male help seekers in an official capacity or hiding them with statistical data has nothing to do with AVM either, the mens movement is critical of feminism because of these things.

    Those things do not exist in feminism not because of the mens movement, but they will cease to exist in feminism because of the men’s movement.

  161. 161
    daniellavine

    Sid@160:

    Was that supposed to be some sort of argument against something I said?

    As I already told you: you’re simply not worth engaging. I could argue against you and all I’d get for my trouble are more accusations of lying, bad faith, and imputations of opinions I don’t hold.

    Talk to me when you can discuss like an adult. Not interested otherwise.

  162. 162
    Raging Bee

    Don’t have to, some feminists, accepted by most as feminists, have advocated outright genocide of men.

    Names and specific examples, please, or admit you’re full of shit.

  163. 163
    carnation

    @ Sid 160

    What you said made no sense, it is literally nonsense, complete with inane metaphors and typical MRA delusions of grandeur.

    Now, even your fellow MRAs have stopped assisting and defending you. You have no credibility.

    So, Sid, go back and look at comments #148 and #60

    We’re all waiting to see what you’ve got to say.

  164. 164
    Schala

    Which feminists again? I don’t see anyone in this thread advocating genocide of men.

    Or are you holding all feminists responsible for the opinions of an extremist fringe? Should I do the same for you?

    In this thread? Where was that as a criteria.

    Mary Daly, and Janice Raymond for trans women, Germaine Greer too, as well as Sheila Jeffreys – about trans and intersex women. Note that their opposition to trans and intersex women is all based on them being invading, evil men, wanting to destroy woman-only space.

    And while they’re not lauded as examples to follow or great feminists, they’re still considered feminist enough to cite and have on reading lists in Women’s Studies courses.

    How would you do the same for me? I disavow membership in all factions. I’m not a MRA, I’m not a feminist, and I don’t even want an official name for my position.

    I defend Elam’s argument for the Jezebel thing, only. Not for anything else he might have said. I defend or attack things based on their own merit, one at a time. And some things I just prefer to remain silent on, not having any real informed opinion on the subject.

    @158

    Right after Elam says ““Now, am I serious about this? No. Not because it’s wrong. It’s not wrong.” is “one should have the right to defend themselves.” And he says further down:

    “The better option is to kick her to the curb, figuratively speaking, and hopefully move on to some better choices. Besides, violence in self defense should be in some way commensurate with the violence of the attack.”

    Adiabat at comment 12 completes the quote.

    Where?

    The article Elam parodied.

  165. 165
    Schala

    Mary Daly for the genocide thing, if that’s not clear enough. Should be easy to find this “reduce the population of men to 10%”.

  166. 166
    Sid

    Yes daniellavine,

    Yes, I was directly addressing your non sequitur that feminists conceptualizing male help seekers and people that advocate equality for abuse victims as derailing and trolls is somehow indictment of Paul Elam rather than an indictment of themselves.

    Again the patriarchal thought, if women do wrong, well they didn’t really, its really a mans fault!. Only men can act, you see.

  167. 167
    Raging Bee

    Mary Daly for the genocide thing, if that’s not clear enough. Should be easy to find this “reduce the population of men to 10%”.

    Then you have no excuse not to find it yourself. YOU made the accusation, YOU back it up.

  168. 168
    debbaasseerr

    I’m still waiting to see someone show up in a white horse, towing a lifeboat. (Sid #57)

    Should I check the streets or the rivers? The intersection of bad ideas and sloppy writing, or the great flowing river of delusion? Who can guess?

  169. 169
    daniellavine

    In this thread? Where was that as a criteria.

    Criterion is the singular, BTW (I know you’re not a native English speaker, just trying to be informative.)

    This is what I said:

    mostly by interpreting them much more charitably than they would ever interpret a much more temperate argument made by a feminist.

    Your response was a non sequitir. I wasn’t talking about extremist arguments by feminists that any sane feminist would regard as wrong. I was talking about feminist arguments that are mild by comparison to anti-feminist arguments but are nonetheless interpreted uncharitably while the more unhinged anti-feminist arguments are interpreted as charitably as possible.

    Once again, you’d be a lot more credible if your rebuttals engaged with the actual arguments rather than dragging the discussion into a morass of irrelevancies.

  170. 170
    Sid

    Ally @ 60

    I think you are mistaken and need to examine yourself a little closer.

  171. 171
    daniellavine

    Sid@166:

    As I predicted, accusations of bad faith and imputations of opinions I don’t hold. One more time: have a nice day, Sid. Talk to me when you’ve grown up a little.

  172. 172
    Sid

    Hi daniellavine

    Did you or did you not feminists abusing male help seekers and people that advocate for gender equal is more of an indictment of Paul Elam than it is the feminists themselves?

  173. 173
    daniellavine

    Sid@172:

    1. You seem to be missing a verb there.
    2. No, I didn’t say that. That’s more of you imputing opinions to me that I do not hold and (willful?) misinterpretation of the arguments that I am making.
    3. You’re not worth arguing with because you’re incredibly self-righteous and unwilling to criticially examine you preexisting beliefs and biases.
    4. Have a nice day.

  174. 174
    Jacob Schmidt

    Schala

    Mary Daly, and Janice Raymond for trans women, Germaine Greer too, as well as Sheila Jeffreys – about trans and intersex women.

    So not a genocide of men, then. Monstrous as bloody heel and absolutely vile, but not the way you describe.

    Adiabat at comment 12 completes the quote

    You could’ve just looked up a bit, where I addressed that: “So it’s not wrong, it’s just not the best response.

    The article Elam parodied.

    No it didn’t. It made light of it, it didn’t advocate it. Jezebel, btw, repudiates female violence.

    daniellavine

    Criterion is the singular, BTW (I know you’re not a native English speaker, just trying to be informative.)

    Is it? I’ve had it totally backwards this whole time.

  175. 175
    daniellavine

    JS@174:

    Looks to be a little up in the air. Just looked it up and “criteria” and “criterion” have identical definitions. I was just basing on the general rule in Greek (“-on” being singular and “-a” being plural).

  176. 176
    Sid

    @debbaasseerr

    >I’m still waiting to see someone show up in a white horse, towing a lifeboat.>

    They are already here, just look for the people that think a man parodying feminists bragging about serious domestic abuse is the more serious of the two. They are also relentlessly attacking the mens movement while staunchly defending feminism,.the mrm is the bad man, feminism is the damsel distress, they are the white knights.

    Hilarious and ironic to watch feminists playing out these roles.

  177. 177
    Jacob Schmidt

    Mary Daly for the genocide thing, if that’s not clear enough. Should be easy to find this “reduce the population of men to 10%”.

    I did. Either you’re misquoting her, or she didn’t actually say anything to that effect. All I get is a list of MRA’s saying thats the goal of feminism.

  178. 178
    Jacob Schmidt

    They are already here, just look for the people that think a man parodying feminists bragging about serious domestic abuse is the more serious of the two. They are also relentlessly attacking the mens movement while staunchly defending feminism,.the mrm is the bad man, feminism is the damsel distress, they are the white knights.

    Oh god, you are just hilarious.

    Don’t worry, 158 will be there for as long as you wanna wait.

  179. 179
    Sid

    Look at the stupidity of men, and patriarchal gender role playing.

    Women attack men, even stab them and laugh about it in the mainstream, the mainstream doesn’t care.

    A man puts the shoe on the other foot with a parody to draw attention to double standards and permissive attitudes towards abuse of men.

    And here is the stupid part, men get together to fight the man who came to their defense from violent women.

  180. 180
    thascius

    @134-Yes it is shocking isn’t it that Ally would condemn violence against men by the gender that actually commits the majority of violence against men?

  181. 181
    carnation

    @ Sid

    Answer #60 and #148 in full…

    Your avoidance reeks of cowardice

  182. 182
    Sid

    Ally

    The double standards and sexist assumptions have been explained over and over on this thread. I don;t think that feminist leaning people can see their own sexism, or at least won’t have it pointed out to them by mr’s, on account of the arrogant attitudes they have have towards us.

    You can if you like show me an example of you showing the same contempt for a feminist or a feminist as you shown Paul Elam, for something as minor. You have already once before put Elam on a par with people that advocacy for mass murder and genocide … I didn’t think you can see how biased you are.

  183. 183
    Sid

    @Ally

    I think going by your words

    You see Paul Elams parody as more serious than the Jezebele article (which is far more serious) and about on a par with feminists that advocate genocide.

  184. 184
    carnation

    @ Sid

    You’re struggling with this, so once again, respond to #60 and #148 – give examples, not just broad statements with no justification.

    Go and read them, and then come back.

    We are looking forward to what you have to say. Don’t let yourself down.

  185. 185
    Sid

    @JK

    >Oh god, you are just hilarious>

    Not as funny as an ironically patriarchal feminist.

    >Don’t worry, 158 will be there for as long as you wanna wait.<

    Who was talking about stabbing? One of the feminists on Jezebele was talking the time they stabbed their boyfriend.

  186. 186
    Ace of Sevens

    @Schala: You admit in your own response that the the anti-trans and anti-male parts of what these women said has been widely repudiated, but they still count, because some of their work is still used in women’s studies. Women’s studies and feminism are not synonymous. Also, physics classes still teach about Isaac newton, but that doesn’t mean they give a pass to alchemy.

    Your claim seems to be shrinking. I don’t think anyone disputes that some feminist-identified people, including some who had a large audience, were real callous jerks. You could have also mentioned Robin Morgan’s advocacy for attempted-murder Valerie Solanas. What’s your point, though? Was anyone claiming all feminists ever would paragons of virtue and egalitarianism?

  187. 187
    maudell

    Ally writing a post denouncing the trivialization of male DV victims = Ally finding Elam’s post more serious than the Jezebel example of the actual topic he was denouncing.

    Interesting. It almost sounds like preconceived ideas.

  188. 188
    Sid

    but let me guess JS

    feminists committing actual acts of violence against men pales by comparison to a man satirizing and parodying them to draw attention to their permissive attitude to violence against men.

    Hilariously and ironically patriarchal and sexist.

    Anyhow, enough of the young baboons in their Emperors New Clothes, I’ll leave you enjoy your pretend moral superiority.

  189. 189
    Anthony K

    Anyhow, enough of the young baboons in their Emperors New Clothes, I’ll leave you enjoy your pretend moral superiority.

    Oh? Off to the echo chamber in which you first learned to use the term ‘baboons’ to characterise FtB?

  190. 190
    Schala

    I did. Either you’re misquoting her, or she didn’t actually say anything to that effect. All I get is a list of MRA’s saying thats the goal of feminism.

    Later in the interview, she said, “If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males.”[23]

    Wikipedia.

    and more:

    In Gyn/Ecology, Daly asserted her negative view of transsexualism, writing, “Today the Frankenstein phenomenon is omnipresent . . . in . . . phallocratic technology. . . . Transsexualism is an example of male surgical siring which invades the female world with substitutes.”[24] “Transsexualism, which Janice Raymond has shown to be essentially a male problem, is an attempt to change males into females, whereas in fact no male can assume female chromosomes and life history/experience.”[25] “The surgeons and hormone therapists of the transsexual kingdom . . . can be said to produce feminine persons. They cannot produce women.”[26]

    Daly was also the dissertation advisor to Janice Raymond, whose dissertation, published in 1979 as The Transsexual Empire, is critical of transsexualism.

    @Schala: You admit in your own response that the the anti-trans and anti-male parts of what these women said has been widely repudiated, but they still count, because some of their work is still used in women’s studies.

    Her anti-trans views were repudiated. Her misandry got barely a mention.

    Women’s studies and feminism are not synonymous. Also, physics classes still teach about Isaac newton, but that doesn’t mean they give a pass to alchemy.

    Women’s studies is about an ideology. Physics is about the inquiry of truth towards how the world functions. Your physics class could 100% ignore physicians in the books, and only learn about principles. Your women’s studies class would find it a bit harder to do this, as there is no consensus and no science.

    Your claim seems to be shrinking. I don’t think anyone disputes that some feminist-identified people, including some who had a large audience, were real callous jerks. You could have also mentioned Robin Morgan’s advocacy for attempted-murder Valerie Solanas. What’s your point, though? Was anyone claiming all feminists ever would paragons of virtue and egalitarianism?

    Valerie Solanas is widely rejected as a feminist by most. I don’t know about Robin Morgan.

    Janice Raymond, Mary Daly, Sjeila Jeffreys and Germaine Greer are widely listened to, and can affect policy. They’re also considered feminist leaders, in a positive way. Their racism and transphobia got criticized. Their misandry got passed under the radar as “hating on the oppressor is A-OK”.

  191. 191
    Ally Fogg

    Sid

    The double standards and sexist assumptions have been explained over and over on this thread.

    No, they’ve been asserted repeatedly, but when I’ve asked you to provide specific examples and details you have changed the subject. About 7 times and counting.

    You can if you like show me an example of you showing the same contempt for a feminist or a feminist as you shown Paul Elam, for something as minor.

    You seem to have forgotten how this wee stramash began. I wrote an article which was basically about 1200 words of harsh criticism of many feminists behaviour and rhetoric in the history of DV policy. At the end I said the following:

    My contempt for the feminists who have actively obstructed efforts to help men is matched by my contempt for those men who seek to actively undermine women’s services with sneering, paranoid references to a ‘domestic violence industry’, or violently misogynistic reactions to any perceived provocation. Two wrongs do not make a right.

    In other words I was quite explicitly spelling out my contempt for people who lose their humanity on either side of the debate.

    You are repeatedly demanding that I condemn one side while giving the other side a completely free ride (as you do yourself) And you accuse me of being sexist and having double standards? .I’m sorry if you think you’ve already explained this, but your rationale is really not clear to me.

    You see Paul Elams parody as more serious than the Jezebele article (which is far more serious) and about on a par with feminists that advocate genocide.

    Well I’ve very carefully not ranked them, as it happens. They are not quantifiable. My only point is that both positions are horribly wrong. One being more wrong wouldn’t make the other any more right.

    But you’ve put me in mind of an interesting thought.

    One of the usual suspect feminists that hasn’t been mentioned yet is Valerie Solanas. I presume you’ve heard of her. She wrote the SCUM Manifesto, usually taken to stand for Society for Cutting Up Men.

    She was a dangerously disturbed woman who of course tried to murder Andy Warhol, but her book has its defenders and its fans.

    What they say is that she wasn’t really advocating cutting up men, it was meant to be ironic, understood as a satirical outburst of rage, a turning of the tables on thousands of years of male violence against women, she didn’t really mean it. She may have said bad things, but she’d been driven to it by all the horrible things that had happened to her.

    Here’s Suzanne Moore defending it just a few months ago:

    So there you have it, the goal of all feminism made clear: murderous rage directed against men. Except that it’s not true, not if you read it, not if you cherish it, not if you go with her flow.

    Remind you of anything?

    So yes, if I had to compare Elam’s efforts with a feminist on the other side that’s probably who I’d go for.

    And it goes without saying I think Solanas’s writing is corrosive, wicked and hateful, and her defenders (Moore included) are wrong. Don’t you?

  192. 192
    Ally Fogg

    I see you got there before me with Solanas, folks!

  193. 193
    somedude

    This is what Schala is misremembering:

    http://ressourcesfeministes.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/no-mans-land-interview-of-mary-daly-by-susan-bridle.pdf

    “WIE:
    Which brings us to another question I wanted to ask you. Sally Miller Gearhart, in her article “The Future Is Female” writes: “At least three further requirements supplement the strategies of environmentalists if we were to create and preserve a less violent world. 1) Every culture must begin to affirm the female future. 2)Species responsibility must be returned to women in every culture. 3) The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately ten percent of the human race.” What do you think about this statement?

    MD:
    I think it’s not a bad idea at all. If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males. People are afraid to say that kind of stuff anymore”

    Schala and Sid shitting up the comments section as usual with their monomania.

  194. 194
    somedude

    And well, there’s no denying that there have been radfems with absolutely awful ideas, Mary Daly included.

  195. 195
    Ace of Sevens

    @somedude: So while Mary Daly doesn’t come out of that smelling like roses, she didn’t advocate genocide. She seemed to think evolution would lead to a men becoming a smaller part of the population. She clearly wasn’t a biologist.

  196. 196
    debbaasseerr

    Hey hey now! Context is Misandry!

  197. 197
    Miri, Professional Fun-Ruiner

    Several people have been asking how feminists respond to “feminist” articles that excuse violence against men. I can’t speak for all feminists, but here’s how I respond: http://freethoughtblogs.com/brutereason/2012/10/15/guess-what-rapes-not-funny-when-the-victim-is-a-man-either/

    And I’m pretty much as feminist as they come.

  198. 198
    Ace of Sevens

    Miri. I don’t know. My impression from upthread is that true-feminists love Jezebel. How do we know you aren’t a provocateur?

  199. 199
    Pitchguest

    #189

    Echochambers again, Anthony? Do you really want to rehash this?

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/kagin/2012/09/26/to-blog-or-not-to-blog-or-why-edwin-hasnt-posted-recently/#comment-9235

    It didn’t end well the last time.

    Anyway.

    What’s to say about Paul Elam? He’s an idiot. His thoughts on rape are appalling, his musing on women sometimes seem genuinely misogynistic — and I don’t use that word lightly — or at the very least the musing of a MGTOW (the worst kind of MRA). His hypocrisy is equal that of some of the feminists he decries, who in all their talk of gender equality only seems to focus on their own. And my personal opinion, he’s boring. If AVfM wants any hope of being taken seriously as a human rights group as well as a men’s rights group, then Elam needs to go. Fuck him.

  200. 200
    Pitchguest

    #197

    “As feminist as they come.” Like a true Scotsmen?

  201. 201
    Schala

    @somedude: So while Mary Daly doesn’t come out of that smelling like roses, she didn’t advocate genocide. She seemed to think evolution would lead to a men becoming a smaller part of the population. She clearly wasn’t a biologist.

    Eugenicists do that too.

    Just ask J Michael Bailey. He thinks it would be ethical, maybe even desirable, to abort known-to-be-gay fetuses (if it could be detected in some way). His reasoning? Well, if they’re never born, they’re never hurt by homophobia, parents are never hurt by failed expectations of gay children to have children of their own later (ie becoming grand-parents), and homophobia would soon “die out”, without any targets for it.

    And it would even be natural (not chemical).

    To make Mary Daly’s dream come true, we only have to abort 90% of male fetuses. Selective abortion. Totally natural.

  202. 202
    Schala

    ” transsexualism would best be served by morally mandating it out of existence” ~Janice Raymond on trans women (yes, she doesn’t care about trans men).

    Not quite genocide I guess? I’m not sure of the definition of genocide. Transsexual people represent maybe 0.2% of people. Surgery or not.

    Now imagine, this desire to kill trans women comes from hatred of men. How powerful must this hatred be?

  203. 203
    Ace of Sevens

    @Schala: You have to read a lot between the lines to say that when Mary Daly said evolution, she meant selective abortion. Is that the best you have? A bizarre interpretation of something an old-guard feminist said during the Clinton years? Someone who has been roundly criticized by other feminists and forced into retirement by those anti-discrimination laws that feminists allegedly control and who has been dead for several years? I’m not sure what this has to do with establishing that an influential feminist establishment is hostile to men.

  204. 204
    Ace of Sevens

    @202: You are misrepresenting Janice Raymond here. While she was quite transphobic and has been roundly criticized by lots of other feminists for it, she never advocated violence, much less said that trans women should be killed and the quote you supplied doesn’t even imply it.

  205. 205
    Schala

    @202: You are misrepresenting Janice Raymond here. While she was quite transphobic and has been roundly criticized by lots of other feminists for it, she never advocated violence, much less said that trans women should be killed and the quote you supplied doesn’t even imply it.

    Mandated out of existence sounds very Godwin to me. Sorry to say.

  206. 206
    Ace of Sevens

    I get the impression all you know about the Transsexual Empire is various snippets you’ve read criticizing it. Keep in mind she thought there was no such thing as a transsexual person, only transsexual behavior, which was a social construct and would disappear if societal ideas about gender weren’t screwed up. It’s wrong, but it wasn’t how you are portraying it.

  207. 207
    Sid

    AllyFog

    “You seem to have forgotten how this wee stramash began. I wrote an article which was basically about 1200 words of harsh criticism of many feminists behaviour and rhetoric in the history of DV policy. At the end I said the following:”

    You have just repeated an earlier argument that we’ve already had.

    I’ve read your criticism about feminism’s deliberate covering up abuse and excluding abuse victims, you are quite generous, considering how horrific the reality of it is.

    You have not published the same contempt as you have for Elam, and at the same time you claim you hold Elam in the same contempt you hold feminists that systematically cover up abuse because he

    ” … wrote a particularly provocative response to it, in order to demonstrate how that sort of mentality might appear in a scenario where the perpetrator was male and the victim was female. In it, I made some overtly graphic references to the violence and proclaimed that we were declaring a “Bash a Violent Bitch Month.”

    which is obviously a relatively minor thing.

    You are strongly biased, there are no two ways about it.

    I can only imagine how you’d react where it Elam that was covering up male perpetrated child and domestic abuse for 30 years.

    You’re biased and your insulting me by trying to say you’re not. This one of the reasons that people so angry with feminist people, the endless lying and smear tactics.

  208. 208
    Schala

    I get the impression all you know about the Transsexual Empire is various snippets you’ve read criticizing it. Keep in mind she thought there was no such thing as a transsexual person, only transsexual behavior, which was a social construct and would disappear if societal ideas about gender weren’t screwed up. It’s wrong, but it wasn’t how you are portraying it.

    Yeah, TERFs are kind of that way in thinking its made up. Just ask mAndrea.

    But for most trans women, not transitioning is a death sentence. The suicide rate dwarfs the suicide rate of divorced disabled gay men no doubt (quadruple whammy of suicide).

    Suicide ideation for trans people is nearly 100%. Suicide attempts is about 50%. And suicide success…is above 10% easy.

  209. 209
    Sid

    Whats more, instead of just writing the piece about all these marginalised abuse victims and the tragedy of them being swept under the carpet, you used them and it as a means to take a swipe at someone else.

    “Even though these feminists have buried all that abuse and being lying to us all along, he is the real bad guy, look he wrote some satire”.

    You’re biased, don’t insult your readers.

  210. 210
    Suido

    Sasha said:

    I couldn’t give a flying fuck about misogyny, or what feminists think – misogyny barely fucking exists anywhere in the world – the only thing women can complain about these days is ‘Loaded’ being at the newsagents – meanwhile they’re frivolously divorcing men, stripping their kids away and leaving them to commit suicide in fucking droves. We’re still dying younger, we’ve got no services or help if we’re experiencing domestic abuse because feminists portray us as perpetrators – fuck ‘em – fuck ‘em six ways and sideways.

    If only that was an unfortunate choice of words. But it isn’t. Why not add ‘fuck ‘em with a knife’ in there too?

    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/brutal-attacks-on-women-in-tahrir-square-as-sex-assaults-soar-reports-20130704-2pd6i.html

    Good to see that Sid repudiated Sasha in this thread. Oh, wait, that didn’t happen. Chance of Sid repudiating Paul Elam? Not likely.

  211. 211
    Raging Bee

    Schala: none of the quotes you cite support your claim that Mary Daly advocates genocide against men. The best you can do is the bit about an “evolutionary process” that results in fewer men. That’s not the same as genocide or extermination. She doesn’t even bother to mention a mechanism for this “process,” so that makes it nothing more than a fantasy of an ideal world with fewer men. And fantasizing about a world without group X is not at all comparable to advocating the extermination of all members of group X.

    I dream of a world without Christian or Muslim bigots — does that mean I advocate killing them all?

    As I suspected earlier, you’re completely full of shit. And now that we’ve proven you to be a FUCKING LIAR, there’s no need to waste any more time trying to reason with you. Take your bigoted hatemongering lies and shove ‘em back where you pulled ‘em.

  212. 212
    Raging Bee

    Whats more, instead of just writing the piece about all these marginalised abuse victims and the tragedy of them being swept under the carpet, you used them and it as a means to take a swipe at someone else.

    Actually, you hypocritical sack of shit, Ally wrote quite matter-of-factly about those victims you mention. YOU AND YOUR FELLOW MRAs are the ones taking endless gratuitous swipes, both at Ally and nearly everyone else. Stop pretending you’re the grownup here, you’ve proven the opposite long ago.

  213. 213
    Jacob Schmidt

    Sid

    feminists committing actual acts of violence against men pales by comparison to a man satirizing and parodying them to draw attention to their permissive attitude to violence against men.

    Quote me saying this anywhere. I’ll help you. Look up ‘site:freethoughtblogs.com Jacob Schmidt’ on google.

    Whats more, instead of just writing the piece about all these marginalised abuse victims and the tragedy of them being swept under the carpet, you used them and it as a means to take a swipe at someone else.

    Yes, the crux of a 1200 word essay on the downplaying of male victims is a one off swipe at someone else.

    Schala

    But for most trans women, not transitioning is a death sentence. The suicide rate dwarfs the suicide rate of divorced disabled gay men no doubt (quadruple whammy of suicide).

    Isn’t that significantly do to harassment and rejection, though? Wouldn’t that rate drop should our cultures ideas on gender suddenly disappear?

  214. 214
    Jacob Schmidt

    Not quite genocide I guess? I’m not sure of the definition of genocide.

    Murdering an ethnic group, technically (Nazi’s and Jews, colonials and natives, etc). Typically used to mean “murdering a distinct group” irrespective of actual ethnicity.

  215. 215
    Schala

    Isn’t that significantly do to harassment and rejection, though? Wouldn’t that rate drop should our cultures ideas on gender suddenly disappear?

    For transgender people – meaning people who identify as genderqueer, androgyne, agender, bigender, cross-dresser and transvestite, plus drag queen and drag king?

    Undoubtedly, yes. They might still like or prefer to dress the way they do, and have the exact same feeling about it. But they won’t be identifiable by society.

    Transsexual people, wether non-op, pre-op or post-op? Not a chance. Even in an utopia they would still exist. Because it has nothing to do with culture, and everything to do with biology.

    And before someone says a non-op person is transgender because they don’t “change their sex” (because seriously, even my boyfriend thinks that), transsexual isn’t about changing anything. It’s about genitals and hormones being at odd with another sexed part of the brain, the BSTc, which governs bodymap and hormone controls/tolerances. Regardless of what’s undertaken about it.

  216. 216
    Anthony K

    Echochambers again, Anthony? Do you really want to rehash this?

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/kagin/2012/09/26/to-blog-or-not-to-blog-or-why-edwin-hasnt-posted-recently/#comment-9235

    It didn’t end well the last time.

    Oh? Was it you who coined the term ‘baboons’? Who’s to be congratulated for starting the meme that spread through your little nest of freethinkers like fleas?

    Ah, who cares? it’s not like you folks have personalities to differentiate you from each other.

  217. 217
    Tamen

    @DanL 127:

    I’ll have to ask you for some evidence for what you’re arguing since the only example of “what about teh menz” I’ve seen is exactly as I’ve described: feminist blogs discussing violence against women being derailed by people who want to talk about violence against men instead.

    In other words: “what about teh menz” is an accusation of derailment.

    How about this:
    http://feministing.com/2013/01/31/the-dangers-of-a-gender-essentialist-approach-to-sexual-violence/

    An article discussing male rape where commenter (disclosure: I was commenting as T.A.O on that thread) Andrea posted:

    A similar hijacking of the thread by MRA’s happened at Sociological Images, concerning a story on Fox News and a statement made by a “feminist” on their panel. The same statistics and focus on the “made to penetrate” aspect of sexual assault utterly derailed the topic. Yes, the inclusion of sexual assault with regards to people not on the gender binary is important, both in language and description, as well as access to crisis support, etc.

    Please ban the MRA derails or you will in for a flood of hijackers.

    Song posted:

    MRAs being allowed to constantly interrupt feminist discussions to inject their non-feminist perspectives is why there are so few productive discussions on Feministing. Feminists are not interested in focusing their efforts on MRA issues, and attempts to make us do so result in us finding spaces with less misogyny and fewer derailments.

    redsky commented:

    there are certain repeat commenters who seem to add nothing to any discussion except some clearly anti-feminist ideology, and only serve to derail everything with their “what about the menz” questions. It gets very frustrating having to stop in the middle of a discussion to explain basic principles like “sex without consent is always rape” to these people.

    Which is pretty ironic considering that I had to inform the commenter song who quoted the NISVS 2010 Report that “being made to penetrate someone” should be included in rape prevalency numbers – even though CDC define it as not rape.

  218. 218
    Sid

    daniellavine

    @152 you clearly said that feminists defining male help seeking and advocating for equal rights for abuse victims as derailing and trolling is more on an indictment of Elam than it is the feminists themselves.

    You transferred responsibility for feminists behaviour that predates AVM and controversial rhetoric from the mrm onto Elam @152.

    And now you are lying about it. This is why the gender movements because so balkinized, feminists thinking their ideology is a free pass on bad and nasty behaviour. .

  219. 219
    Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened

    I genuinely wrote out a sensible reply to Sasha, after he misattributed me comparing misogyny to racism @#47, but then he said this:

    Christ even in Afghanistan men are 5x more likely to be killed than women.

    Anyone who is so fucking stupid that they think Afghan men have it worse than Afghan women simply would not be able to comprehend any argument presented to them. Therefore I will not bother.

    Seriously, that is beyond the fucking pale. What a twat.

  220. 220
    Sid

    JS

    “Quote me saying this anywhere. I’ll help you. Look up ‘site:freethoughtblogs.com Jacob Schmidt’ on google.”

    You have already said it, you and the others see Elam satirizing the violent feminist article and commentators that celebrated show what it would look like with the genders reversed as something terrible.

    Underlying your bias, are patriarchal and sexist assumptions based in the idea that women are delicate and week and men are invulnerable.

    That’s why even a satirical male to female version of what the Jezebele commentators and writers were saying, is so deeply offensive to you.

  221. 221
    unfamiliar w/ your ways

    Ally,
    Interesting post and discussion as usual. You’re quickly becoming one of my regular must-reads on FtB.

    I must echo the kudos to Adiabat, its refreshing to see reasonableness and courtesy still floating here and there amongst all the invective. You are worth talking to about these things, I’d imagine a productive discourse could be undertaken with one so willing to correct/clarify themselves and ask for help to understand positions other than one’s own.
    Sid? lulz wow, not so much.

    A lot of this discussion was consumed by pre-read assumptions about motivations and “what they REALLY meant”. Sid was the most comical example of this, his bragadoccio in levelling accusations of everyone (else)’s “double standard sexism” etc. was pretty grating. Not to be a hippy about this (can’t we all, like, just get ALONG, man?), but one cannot enter a discussion in good faith and assume one knows the subtext of everything that will be said. I mean, what’s the point of discussion in that case? Shouldn’t be a shouting match, but so frequently gets approached that way…

    Judge the words. Respond to the words, not your reading of the words. Because I tell ya, it gets old when someone comes out with the same old rhetorical guns ablazing, accusing everyone in the room of Victorian reverse-sexism, disengenuity, and expect for a second to be taken at all seriously… which, by the way, Sid was not. You guys made a noble stab at refuting him, I really liked the backed-into-the-corner-Sid who wouldn’t respond to the direct questions and still refused to shut up, recycling his same talking points again and again, but I don’t think any of us, once he began, could at all take him seriously.

    And shit, how could we? I hate pulling a “NO U”, but seriously? Unwilling to question OUR assumptions? Emperor’s New Clothes? WE’ve got a hilariously cognitively-dissonant double standard going on? Wow, dude. Spend some quiet minutes of reflection on this.

    Reestablishing common ground:

    I’d hazard a guess that everyone (maybe overly-generous here, but i’m an optimist) here agrees that DV/rape against any victim is wrong/abhorrent/condemnable. Historically-speaking, DV/rape involving female victims is a WAY larger problem, but obviously, laws should be egalitarian enough that the victim’s gender/sex shouldn’t be a factor. Agreed?

    Now that historical basis matters, however, its the whole reason feminism is older as a movement than the MRM response. Most of my criticism of the MRM is, and remains, that instead of expanding help to victims not focused on by feminism (with legitimate historical need for their special advocacy, remember), instead they are mostly an anti-feminist movement, more concerned with sniping/opposing feminist goals than actually helping anyone.

    Anyone considering themselves an MRA and also an active participant in this discourse community:

    Help address this criticism. Go do some good legwork, go talk to a women’s shelter, start agitating for expanded coverage to men, that sort of thing. The words “feminist” nor “feminism” need ever emerge from your lips when you talk to one another nor to anyone else about your legitimate goals. You must represent people without sufficient representation (what was that phrase? male victims/help-seekers?), not tearing down a parallel cause.
    So what if some old-school radfems said some messed up misandrist stuff? I guarantee its nowhere near as prevalent nor influential to listeners as the bunch of guys taking a smoke break out back swapping woman-in-the-kitchen jokes. No amount of media focus on these people can overcome the entrenched misogyny that still is rampant in most of Earth’s cultures. Schala, sorry, but if you can’t see it, look within. Tell any good jokes lately?
    So work the “parallel cause” angle, do some good, not the “feminism is destroying the world” angle, which helps no one, especially men. Because for most of us, our feminism (if we express it as such) is informed by our egalitarianism. We just all want things equal for everyone, right? Screw what the leaders say, our good deeds will thunder over the sound of their faulty words.

  222. 222
    karmakin

    One of the major problems with this topic is that there’s been a lot of activity (in some cases pretty deliberate IMO) to “radicalize” the issue and push people out onto the wings, and to deny that there might be a middle ground on the topic. This has had the effect of making most “discussions” look like this one. And the thing is, often the middle ground is talking on an entirely different axis. And for that I find, in a lot of places, we must be destroyed.

    The villain, IMO, is the gender binary. The notion that men and women are entirely different..or let’s put it this way, MORE different (It’s not an all or nothing thing, of course) is the cause, or is the thing preventing from fixing, these issues.

    Paul Elam is a gender binary promoting asshole. So are the people at Jezebel. The terms “Men’s Rights Advocate” and “Feminist” are both part of the gender binary. Same thing with Patriarchy or Matriarchy.

    When we talk about the problem as women being raped instead of people being raped, that’s reinforcing the gender binary.

    When we talk about a lack of men’s rights in family court rather than how family courts are valuing the wrong things in making their decisions, that’s reinforcing the gender binary.

    And so on. You get my drift.

    And I don’t see things moving in a positive direction, at least in either of these two camps. I think they’re both self-reinforcing and echo chambering out anti-gender binary egalitarian voices for whatever reason. Well…I know the reason.

    We complicate the narrative.

    Well. The world is a complex place. Deal with it (.jpg), and unless you accept and embrace that complexity, you will never solve these critical issues that face us.

  223. 223
    unfamiliar w/ your ways

    @222. karmakin

    I hear you, agree with the gender binary reinforcement part, but one cannot deny the historical need for a feminist cause emerging in the first place. Moving beyond it, I believe, is your pont, with which I agree.

  224. 224
    Sid

    @unfamiliar with your ways

    >DV/rape involving female victims is a WAY larger problem>

    You have been misinformed about DV, this is one of the reasons the mrm is so critical of feminism and male DV victims have been excluded.

    Your view is informed by Patriarchy Theory, the actual cycle of abuse does not play out as patriarchy theory predicts , however it is easy for people to buy into because of preexisting sexism and double standards.

    “The most comprehensive review of the scholarly domestic violence research literature ever conducted concludes, among other things, that women perpetrate physical and emotional abuse, and engage in control behaviors, at comparable rates to men. The study was directed by the Editor-in-Chief of Partner Abuse, a Springer Publishing Company journal.”

    http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10741752.htm?PID=4003003

    “Most of my criticism of the MRM is, and remains, that instead of expanding help to victims not focused on by feminism (with legitimate historical need for their special advocacy, remember), instead they are mostly an anti-feminist movement, more concerned with sniping/opposing feminist goals than actually helping anyone.”

    I can see how it looks like that from the outside.

    Feminism controls all the resources and the public story on DV and abuse you see. The mens movement focuses on discrimination against men, the source of most discrimination against male abuse victims is feminism.

    So, in order for male abuse victims and all victims of female abusers to be properly recognized, the public story and present intervention based on the public story needs to be changed, and that means changing feminism.

  225. 225
    unfamiliar w/ your ways

    @224. Sid

    Thanks for engaging with me calmly. Much appreciated.

    See, we do have common goals, equal law for the entirety of the populace.

    But as far as the feminist movement getting a stranglehold on media coverage and the public discourse… the thousands of years of patriarchy is not so easily unmade by a public feminist focus for a few decades. I spent 8 years in the US Army, I can assure you the patriarchy in that cultural subgroup is still pretty intense.

  226. 226
    karmakin

    @223: Right, there was a historical need for a women-based movement, for whatever reason. We did have a lot of structural imbalances based around a extremely strict gender binary, and those had to be taken care of. Most of those have. That’s not to say I think we’re at 50/50 parity…we’re not..but I do think that we’re at a point where all that’s carrying most of the imbalance is momentum, which is slowing. The full effects of what we have now won’t be seen for generations.

    The bigger problem is that the structural imbalances that more heavily affect men in a negative way are still there. I just think that we’re at a point, especially with the fact that culturally there’s been a drastic relaxing of the gender binary for women, that we should just do away with the whole thing. (There hasn’t been that relaxing for men, and that’s a big source of a lot of the conflict/drama).

  227. 227
    karmakin

    Ooops. Slowing isn’t the right word there. I meant that the momentum is moving closer and closer towards parity.

    I actually think that without other structural/cultural changes that we’re going to move right PAST parity, to a significant degree but that’s neither here nor there.

  228. 228
    Sid

    @224. Sid

    >See, we do have common goals, equal law for the entirety of the populace.But as far as the feminist movement getting a stranglehold on media coverage and the public discourse… the thousands of years of patriarchy is not so easily unmade by a public feminist focus for a few decades. I spent 8 years in the US Army, I can assure you the patriarchy in that cultural subgroup is still pretty intense.>

    Feminism has been controlling and influencing the public story on, manipulating domestic violence and controlling abuse intervention data since it took over the initial shelters movement in the 1970s.

    So, in order for the public story and abuse intention to be changed to reflect reality, feminism, feminist laws and interventions have to be changed.

    This is the back story.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey

    and her is how feminist researchers have fooled the public and government into believing that DV is strongly gendered.

    http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V71-Straus_Thirty-Years-Denying-Evidence-PV_10.pdf

  229. 229
    Sid

    @unfililarw/your ways

    >>See, we do have common goals, equal law for the entirety of the populace.>

    This is an older form of liberal feminism, the men’s movement picked up where that left off, equal laws is no longer the goal of feminism. This is why feminism is being criticized so much.

  230. 230
    blorf

    Ally, can we please have a “Dear Sid” article? Just point out one, relatively mild, error by Sid and then correct the new fallacies as they explode? It would make the rest of the blog so much easier if one could just rebut with “Dear Sid, comment 134″ and get on with discussing reality.

  231. 231
    Sid

    Hi Blorf

    Can you point out the fallacies in 228 and 229 and I’ll address them.

    From what I can see, I haven’t said anything that Ally hasn’t apart from making the statement that traditional liberal feminism is about equal laws, and modern feminism is equal outcome through which it will use unequal laws (eg. quotas).

  232. 232
    Sid

    oh and blorf

    Stick to what I actually have said, don’t make something up.

  233. 233
    carnation

    Hello again Sid, you intellectual titan.

    You are a coward and a hypocrite. You refuse to answer the following, because you are well aware that you would be unable to do so without revealing your double standards. Some new people have joined this debate and are perhaps unaware of your cowardice, lack of intellectual fortitude and touchingly slavish devotion to your MRA masters.

    So we’ll try again.

    If I said the following, what would you think?

    I find you, as an MRA to be a loathsome, vile piece of human garbage. I find you so pernicious and repugnant that the idea of fucking your shit up arouses me…

    Or:

    our current gender zeitgeist is one that has promoted and enabled such a degree of male narcissism and entitlement that it has now produced two generations of men that are for the most part, shallow, self-serving wastes of human existence—parasites—semi-human black holes that suck resources and goodwill out of women and squander them”

    Or:

    “I don’t give a fuck if men are raped or falsely accused of rape, because of MRAs bringing it up”

    We all look forward to your response, Sid.

  234. 234
    blorf

    Um Sid, what are you accusing me of making up? Stick only to what I have said.

  235. 235
    Sid

    Hi blorg

    I’m not accusing of making things up, a was preempting you making something up.

    Can you point out the fallacies in 228 and 229 and I’ll address them, without strawman, ad hom etc.

  236. 236
    carnation

    @ unfamiliar w/ your ways

    A wonderful post

  237. 237
    blorf

    OK:

    equal laws is no longer the goal of feminism.

    What then is the goal of feminism? Cite your sources and explain why they are authoritative please.

    about.com
    says

    the one basic characteristic of feminism which has been important throughout its history has been the importance of achieving equal rights, equal respect and equal opportunity for women in all aspects of society

    as a layperson’s definition.

  238. 238
    Sid

    To the baboons.

    If people are taking an issue with an ideology that has covered up abuse and marginalised abuse victims, that’s fair enough.

    You might follow that ideology yourself, but the criticism of the ideologies treatment of abuse victims isn’t a personal attack on you anymore than criticism of the RC for covering up abuse is a personal attack on and individual catholic nor is it justification for rude/dishonest/abusive behaviour.

    You need to take a step back and try to look at yourselves from the perspective of someone that is not a true believer.

    Feminism isn’t all right, the men’s movement isn’t all wrong and visa versa.

  239. 239
    Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened

    @sid

    “…the source of most discrimination against male abuse victims is feminism.”

    It’s completely undeniable that male victims of abuse are often trivialised, but I disagree entirely with your idea that the fault lies with feminism. I’d be interested to hear how you arrived at that conclusion, and by what mechanism feminism trivialises male victims.

    Personally I lay the blame at the feet of rigid, culturally reinforced gender roles. Men are supposed to be big and tough and capable of violence, women are supposed to be small and dainty and gentle. Therefore any man who gets beaten up by a woman must be a pussy, and therefore a ripe target for ridicule. This gender essentialist attitude is embedded in our culture, and I think a lot of the problems both men and women face stem from it. People have a stereotypical idea of what a man “is”, and any man who deviates from this stereotype is “not a real man”.

  240. 240
    unfamiliar w/ your ways

    @228./ 229. Sid-

    see, get too absorbed in the rhetoric of a movement, it can distort meanings of words for us; if ‘older liberal feminism’ is how you’d prefer to classify most of us (since pretty much that’s the only other stance being presented in this thread), then ok, but everytime we say we are ‘feminist’ then you’ll have to mentally add some words to what we say to keep us all on the same page.

    more on the societal focus on the feminist cause: any unbalance in favor of women at the expense of men, we must admit, is a recent phenomenon, and specific to our Western Culture. As someone pointed out earlier, an Afghani woman is one oppressed and miserable creature. Cultures all over the world still are heavily patriarchal, from Africa to Japan. The MRM is right to draw attention to the recent imbalance, but not at the expense of derailing equality for women the world over. Even if it (the ‘feminist agenda’ or something else similarly scary) has accomplished its goals here in our culture, the ‘older liberal feminism’ still has centuries of fighting left to do, globally.

  241. 241
    Sid

    @blorf

    Blorf.

    I asked you not to be dishonest.

    I acknowledged that liberal feminism was about achieving equal legislation @229.

    I also pointed out that modern feminism is no longer traditional liberal feminism, and it now seeks equal outcomes instead, through the use of unequal laws.

    There are no laws that are not equal for women anyway, and in many cases, women have more legal rights and privileges, quotas and reproduction for example.

    So, can you point out a fallacy from either of those posts honestly, Y/N?

  242. 242
    karmakin

    @237 blorf: As a policy example, what about VAWA? Seems to be on its face a prime example of pushing for gendered laws.

    We can all agree that the Duluth Model is horribly sexist and bigoted and any ideas that resemble it should be dismissed outright…right? Just so we’re all on the same page?

  243. 243
    Sid

    @unfamiliar w/ your ways

    I wouldn’t classify most here as traditionally liberal feminists. Most here are modern feminists that support the movement in its current from and support 2nd wave radical feminism in the form of harassment policies, quotas and rape culture and so on.

    The more traditionally liberal feminists would be the likes of Cristina Hoff Sommer and Wendly McElroy and has a large crossover with the men’s movement movement.

    A traditionally liberal feminist wouldn’t be depicting women as weak delicate flowers that need to be protected from satire and would identify with the egalitarian sub text of the Elam article everyone is oh so offended by.

  244. 244
    karmakin

    @Unfamiliar: I personally try to use the term “neofeminism” to refer to the type of thing that Sid is talking about, to create a clear distinction. Or if I’m feeling verbose, anti-egalitarian feminism. Some people use Equality Feminist and Gender Feminist to keep the two apart, however I strongly believe that what we’re seeing more and more today is a mutation of Gender Feminism of sorts, and calling it that isn’t accurate.

    While Gender Feminism is the belief that gender is entirely a social construct (my actual beliefs are somewhere between the two…it’s a combination of wildly diverging biological and social), it shys away from the notion that this social construct is highly prescriptive and predictive. What we’re seeing more and more of now, is an embracing of the prescriptive and predictive nature of social gender. Which I think is sexist and bigoted.

    Whenever you hear talk about “male culture” in a negative (or a positive fashion, for that matter) in reality you’re listening to this sort of thinking.

  245. 245
    Klangos

    @Thumper in 139

    Personally I lay the blame at the feet of rigid, culturally reinforced gender roles. Men are supposed to be big and tough and capable of violence, women are supposed to be small and dainty and gentle. Therefore any man who gets beaten up by a woman must be a pussy, and therefore a ripe target for ridicule.

    Absolutely.

    The idea that it’s principly feminists who ridicule men for being victims of abuse, or stop them from seeking help, is just absurd.

  246. 246
    unfamiliar w/ your ways

    @241. Sid-

    To be fair, you’ve repeatedly asserted that the goal of modern feminism is different, or has changed, but like blorf (c. 237.) said, most people know “feminism’ to mean “equality for women”. Your problem seems more to be with the radical misandrist wing (as every movement has its radicals to whom no commonsense solution will ever go far enough) of feminism…. and as many before have pointed out, if we judge every movement by its extremist vocal fringe… none of us has room to talk.

    so for the facilitation of future conversations here at FtB, everytime someone mentions “feminism”, please mentally translate to “older liberal feminism”. Cuz that’s all any of us mean.

  247. 247
    carnation

    @ Sid 243

    Hoff Summers is anti-feminist, same as yourself. But anyway, you’re backed into a corner and running scared.

    Your refusal to offer commentary indicates that you support the following statements with the sexes reversed,

    This isn’t going away, Sid. Everywhere you go on this blog, you will be challenged.

    So we’ll try again.

    If I said the following, what would you think?

    I find you, as an MRA to be a loathsome, vile piece of human garbage. I find you so pernicious and repugnant that the idea of fucking your shit up arouses me…

    Or:

    our current gender zeitgeist is one that has promoted and enabled such a degree of male narcissism and entitlement that it has now produced two generations of men that are for the most part, shallow, self-serving wastes of human existence—parasites—semi-human black holes that suck resources and goodwill out of women and squander them”

    Or:

    “I don’t give a fuck if men are raped or falsely accused of rape, because of MRAs bringing it up”

    We all look forward to your response, Sid.

  248. 248
    Jacob Schmidt

    Sid

    You have already said it, you and the others see Elam satirizing the violent feminist article and commentators that celebrated show what it would look like with the genders reversed as something terrible.

    No quotes, eh?

    I’m not accusing of making things up, a was preempting you making something up.

    So the accusation is accurate but for the tense.

    You need to take a step back and try to look at yourselves from the perspective of someone that is not a true believer.

    You are a master of projection; I bow to your god like skill.

    Schala

    And before someone says a non-op person is transgender because they don’t “change their sex” (because seriously, even my boyfriend thinks that), transsexual isn’t about changing anything. It’s about genitals and hormones being at odd with another sexed part of the brain, the BSTc, which governs bodymap and hormone controls/tolerances. Regardless of what’s undertaken about it.

    See, I’m going off the stories of transsexuals who aren’t comfortable with transitioning in the first place. Transitioning for them is unnecessary or unwanted, but they still feel suicidal due to societies emphasis on gender conformity.

    Karmakin

    (There hasn’t been that relaxing for men, and that’s a big source of a lot of the conflict/drama).

    Yes there has. You see it everywhere; more stay at home fathers, gender neutral parental leave so that fathers can take leave too, makeup marketed at men, increased focus on male victims (Toronto’s resources for DV and sexual assault victims, for instance, specifically states that men can be victims and has services available for men specifically), universities offering classes on the social issues regarding masculinity, etc. I agree it’s not enough, but it’s definitely happening.

    My problem with your statement is that it hides away the progress we’ve made in this area. We should parade these things and add to the momentum, not act as though they don’t exist.

  249. 249
    unfamiliar w/ your ways

    @244. karmakin

    fair enough distinction, for these conversations where we need to hold these two positions separately and compare them.

  250. 250
    blorf

    @ Sid:

    This is an older form of liberal feminism, the men’s movement picked up where that left off, equal laws is no longer the goal of feminism

    I am quoting your exact words here, how is that dishonest?
    You imply that there is a new feminism with new goals, what are these goals?

    There are no laws that are not equal for women anyway

    Really? Where is the law that you need a medical device stuffed up your nether regions if you don’t want a child? There are several for women wanting an abortion.

  251. 251
    karmakin

    @245

    Klangos: Take ideology out of it. What’s being pushed back against is the notion that the only thing stopping men from looking for help is other men ridiculing them, when it’s something that both men and women do.

    I do think that a lot of the stuff is very..intellectually sloppy to say the least. But there’s a very real level of sexism there that’s being pushed back against. And unfortunately, yes, much of anti-egalitarian feminism seeks to sustain that sexism rather than fighting against it.

  252. 252
    unfamiliar w/ your ways

    @243. Sid-

    sorry, posting and reading get mixed up in an exchange like this. Careful with the preconceived notions, friend, that’s exactly what i’m talking about not bringing in your own subtext. No one here has advocated any pro-female-anti-male position AT ALL other than you accusing it of them. Equality Feminism only here, from all I’ve seen and read today (thanks for the term, karmakin)

  253. 253
    karmakin

    @Jacob:To be honest, I haven’t seen anything in terms of makeup marketed at men (really)…maybe I live under a rock but that’s not something I’ve EVER seen. But for the rest of those things, yes those are great things and make me happy I live in Canada. (Truth be told the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a very good egalitarian document, and it’s a great basis for similar guidelines in other countries..which it’s being used as).

    Like I said, I’m in the middle here, and I think that most of the structural problems are by and large fixed. And that should be touted. But you could say the same thing to feminists of various flavors who act like the world is stacked against them and there’s been zero progress EVER.

    Actually, one of the big problems with ALL movement work is the attitude that something needs to be “eliminated”. Nothing is ever eliminated, really. If your goal is that something never ever happens, you’re always going to be disappointed. And at a certain point, the cost for further fixing something becomes higher than the benefit received from it. We can (and will) debate that point. But complete elimination, which seems to be what people on BOTH SIDES want., is a pipe dream, in most cases. It’s also counter-productive.

    I do think however, that culturally, the gender binary HAS been relaxed far more for women than it has been for men.

  254. 254
    Sid

    @unfililarwithyouways

    @241. Sid-

    >To be fair, you’ve repeatedly asserted that the goal of modern feminism is different, or has changed, but like blorf (c. 237.) said, most people know “feminism’ to mean “equality for women”. Your problem seems more to be with the radical misandrist wing (as every movement has its radicals to whom no commonsense solution will ever go far enough) of feminism…. and as many before have pointed out, if we judge every movement by its extremist vocal fringe… none of us has room to talk.

    so for the facilitation of future conversations here at FtB, everytime someone mentions “feminism”, please mentally translate to “older liberal feminism”. Cuz that’s all any of us mean.>

    The people here would be the radical misandrist wing, the radical misandrist wing isn’t a wing. Its now the mainstream and traditionally liberal feminists are an extreme minority.

    Traditionally liberal feminists that advocate equal rights, choices and responsibilities are considered anti-feminist now, as you can see one of the Baboons is saying Christine Hoff Sommers is “anti-feminist”, Wendy McElroy too, is considered “anti-feminist”.

    I think the issues here is that although you identify as feminist, you do not realise that feminism is no longer about equal rights and responsibilities.

  255. 255
    unfamiliar w/ your ways

    @254. Sid-

    lol or perhaps the issue is we are getting hung up on titles and definitions, letting them get in the way of our common aims

    and i think your view on who-feels-what-in-feminism is a bit distorted by the rhetoric and fervor of the MRM. I can only assume these things about others, but i feel when you look at the big picture (planetary/species-wide), feminism is still very imperative, by whatever name. Local over-corrections? fight em, forget em. We still, as a planet, have a very bad sexism problem. And the overwhelming majority of it happens at the expense of our females.

    @243. karmakin-
    keep in mind, like i’ve said, globally-speaking, feminism has a long long way to go yet…

  256. 256
    carnation

    @ Sid 254

    “The people here would be the radical misandrist wing, the radical misandrist wing isn’t a wing. Its now the mainstream and traditionally liberal feminists are an extreme minority.”

    OK… Where’s your proof?

    You, Sid, are a misogynist. You fail to condemn blatant misogyny, and in fact openly condone it.

    You, Sid, are an intellectual troglodyte, unwilling, or incapable, of applying your own, albeit haphazard and chaotic, standards to others.

    You, Sid, tacitly endorse the description of women as “semi-human parasites” and the trivialisation of all victims of sexual abuse.

    You, Sid, come onto this thread accusing others of bias, but are yourself biased, obviously and crudely so.

    And finally, Sid, you have at best, rudimentary presentation and debating skills.

  257. 257
    Sid

    @unfamiliar w/ your ways

    “sorry, posting and reading get mixed up in an exchange like this. Careful with the preconceived notions, friend, that’s exactly what i’m talking about not bringing in your own subtext. No one here has advocated any pro-female-anti-male position AT ALL other than you accusing it of them. Equality Feminism only here, from all I’ve seen and read today (thanks for the term, karmakin)”

    The objections to the Elam article here are rooted in a pro-female , anti-male position.

    There are unexamined misandrist (and misogynist ) assumptions that are underlying the misconception and the misrepresentation of the satirical article.

    An egalitarian minded person would understand the satire and egalitarian subtext of the Elam article but we are dealing with people here that are viewing it through and sinister man / delicate damsel in distress lens.

  258. 258
    unfamiliar w/ your ways

    @257. Sid-

    I dunno man. Ally Fogg is no pro-woman-anti-male fellow. The objection to the Elam article (which I for integrity reasons am still refusing to go and give another free webhit to his advertisers) is mostly that he says at the end, in so many words, “i’m kidding, but seriously tho, i’m not kidding. fuck women”

    you’re giving him a highly sympathetic reading, from what i can tell

  259. 259
    Jacob Schmidt

    Karmakin

    To be honest, I haven’t seen anything in terms of makeup marketed at men (really)…maybe I live under a rock but that’s not something I’ve EVER seen.

    There hasn’t been much, I admit. I remember some ads for “makeup base” (I don’t know the actual term), which covers up blemishes. Also some eye liner ads, some makeup pencil ads and acne cleanser (which isn’t really makeup; I’ve only seen women in such ads though, so seeing men in them seems relevent).

    But you could say the same thing to feminists of various flavors who act like the world is stacked against them and there’s been zero progress EVER.

    I do.

    I do think however, that culturally, the gender binary HAS been relaxed far more for women than it has been for men.

    Meh. Maybe. I’m not sure how to actually quantify that. And given that the relaxation of gender roles for women neccessarily erodes the gender binary narrative, I think maybe things are a little better than you think.

    Sid

    The people here would be the radical misandrist wing…

    Really? ‘Cause I’ve just had a little quip with Karmakin about how awesome the relaxation of genders roles for men is (that is, it’s awesome but needs to go further). What the fuck are you talking about?

  260. 260
    karmakin

    @252 Unfamiliar:

    I mean this is an entirely non-sarcastic way. You seem like a really nice person. I don’t like bad things happening to good people.

    Be careful.

    I’ve walked the same path as you, to be honest. I used to think the same things as you, and it really bloody hurt when I walked into the lion’s den. I don’t think you realize that Equality/Equity (I’ve seen both terms used) feminism is a non-starter in an increasing amount of feminist spaces (Ally’s blog being one of the ones where it is). That the notion that equality of opportunity isn’t enough for our society, and that what’s needed is at least equality of outcome (there’s zero discussion about when those outcomes go in the other direction).

    Now, a lack of equality of outcome MAY reveal places in our culture where there’s not an equality of opportunity. And it does sometimes. But we have to keep in mind that the later is always the goal, NOT the former.

    You think everybody is that sort of liberal feminist. I used to think the same thing. Actually, I’d argue (and I do) that sort of liberal feminism used to be the driving cultural power among feminism. And that was a great thing that I’d be more than happy to identify and be part of.

    That culture’s been driven into the shadows by and large.

    Maybe I had it wrong all along and I was projecting my values onto other people. Maybe. But I don’t feel that way. I think there’s been major changes in feminist culture over the last few years. (The embracing of the notion of “toxic male culture”, including a hyperfocus on an, honestly, inept and powerless MRA movement).

    Anyway. That’s just my two cents.

  261. 261
    unfamiliar w/ your ways

    @ karmakin

    btw, i agree with your notion that gender binary roles have relaxed more for women than men. it needed to happen, women’s roles were obviously way more confining, but i look forward to (meaning ‘have not yet seen’) men moving toward a more gender-neutral societal role.

  262. 262
    Sid

    Hi carnation.

    I’m going to limiting the time I spend responding boboonery.

    blorf @250

    You were asked to honestly show a fallacy. You have not.

    >Really? Where is the law that you need a medical device stuffed up your nether regions if you don’t want a child? There are several for women wanting an abortion.>

    Men have no legal option for an unplanned or coerced pregnancy, they have obligations under the treat of prison.

    Women having options and choices are rights, privileges and control over their lives that men do not have, even if they are asked to have a procedure first in some jurisdictions.

    Imagine if a woman had an accidental or coerced pregnancy and the state forced her to parent the child and threw her in prison for non compliance, that’s the position men are in. Women have reproductive rights, men have reproductive obligations.

  263. 263
    unfamiliar w/ your ways

    @260 karmakin-

    good advice always appreciated, now i know dangers lurk.

    that being said, i have participated in exactly zero amount of feminist discourse community talk about feminism before lurking moar for a year but now finally participating at FtB. If the discourse communities are being corrupted, that’s its own problem, but as an expert witness to the layman perspective here (lol), take heart, to the outside world people still think of women’s equality when someone drops the f-bomb

  264. 264
    unfamiliar w/ your ways

    262. Sid-

    see, now, you say stuff like that and you sound very misogynist. do you see why?

  265. 265
    debbaasseerr

    The people here would be the radical misandrist wing, the radical misandrist wing isn’t a wing. Its now the mainstream and traditionally liberal feminists are an extreme minority.

    Oh look, another absurd feather for your nonsense hat!

  266. 266
    carnation

    @ Sid 262

    Eh? WTF are you talking about?

    To anyone engaging with Sid, keep in mind he supports obvious misogny.

  267. 267
    karmakin

    @263 unfamiliar:

    Yeah. That’s the gears behind one of the problems that people talk about (if ham-handedly), some people, when they hear talk of feminism, they assume they’re just talking about women’s equality, so people kind of rely on that sort of pattern recognition to trust the source more than they would.

    I have a phrase that I use when explaining anti-religion to religious folks. I call it Dawkins’ Complaint. Named, of course, after Richard Dawkins and something he said (or heavily implied). That the religion of his youth, in and of itself didn’t really bother him and he could see the charm and attraction to it, but the problem with it is that it provided cultural cover for more divisive and oppressive forms of religion, and that moderate/liberal churches had a responsibility of strongly distancing themselves from the “radicals”. (Don’t like that term in general)

    This is something similar to me. I don’t identify as a feminist for this same reason. It’s to distance myself from things that I think are problematic. Truth be told, it all comes down to one point. I think that promoting power structures as unidirectional simply doesn’t line up in reality. But because we assume that feminism=equality, at least in the US, as an example, you have DV policies that follow the Duluth Model to some degree. Or rape statistics that don’t included forced envelopment.

    So that’s why anti-feminism is a thing. . I do wish that people were doing a much better job of it (they’re doing a terrible job IMO)

  268. 268
    Adiabat

    Jacob Schmidt (133): Thanks for accepting my apology.

    “Even if reasonable doubt has been barely established, the mere possibility that evidence has been withheld isn’t enough to tip the scales because it goes both ways. It’s also possible that evidence hasn’t been withheld.”

    But you don’t know which ‘way’ is occurring in that particular case you are a juror on, meaning that there is doubt. It’s exactly that state of ‘not-knowing’ I am referring to.

    “There’s also the fact that a past false rape accusation has little effect on the contemporary case; if there’s evidence that it did happen this time, the victims previous lies do nothing to change that.”

    I think this is the strongest argument against what I’m saying. Lies in the past don’t necessarily mean that the accuser is lying this particular time. But if we agree with the feminist argument (not necessarily yours, please clarify) that false accusing is rare (at least the completely-made-up type), and only done by certain types of individual (sociopaths or mentally ill, like the woman in the anecdote I gave upthread), then past false accusations add a lot of weight to the possibility that the current accusation is a lie, as its an indicator of sociopathy and/or mental illness. Even if it’s not an indicator of such, it is a sign that this person is not above making false claims and this should be taken into account. It’s not die-hard evidence, but evidence that should at least be considered by a jury, and could possibly tip the decision.

    I can see that this makes the situation very bad for those who have made up accusations in the past, as it makes it harder for them to get justice if they are telling the truth this time. So I can see why there is so much opposition to allowing this evidence. But it also prevents miscarriages of justice the other way; for the accused innocents. It’s complicated, but it seems to me that the moral situation is not quite as clear-cut as claimed. I’m still to decide which side I fall on.

    “How exactly does this highlight anything? I’m stuck thinking either Elam is either staggeringly incompetent, or outright repugant.”

    Without the original post by Elam I also can’t make a decision. I can just see that it’s at least possible he’s making a serious point, if in a crappy way, but won’t decide unless I see the context of the quote Ally provided.

    “Even assuming the evidence in question is really that relevant, one flaw (even a large one) does not a kangaroo court make.”

    The principle I was demonstrating with the ‘kangaroo court’ analogy is that if a court system is set up in such a way that may prevent the jurors from deciding on the truth, then it is fair (morally right even) for the juror not to go along with it just because ‘them’s the rules’.

    “Oooh, thank you! I graciously accept your backhanded compliment.”

    Lol, and that’s me trying my best not to be an asshole. I guess I can’t help it :)

    Dan L: “From my perspective I made a reasonable assumption and in response it was you who “went off the deep end”. I think you’re the one who ruined this conversation.

    Try being clear about your arguments in the first place and people don’t need to make assumptions to engage. And try to take some ownership of your failures instead of trying to deflect onto others.”

    We’ve both made incorrect assumptions about the others’ post yet I’m the only one who didn’t pass all the blame onto the other person.

    But from your reactions since, and your posts to others, I’m starting to wonder whether my assumption was wrong at all. Just compare your reaction to Jacob’s when I made a similar error to him and apologised.

  269. 269
    Sid

    unfamiliar w/ your ways@264

    >see, now, you say stuff like that and you sound very misogynist. do you see why?<

    If I point to the fact that women have reproductive rights and choices while men have none and instead have obligations under the threat of violence it means I hate women??!!!

    No, I don't see how that is legitimately misogynist.

    How does pointing out those facts mean I hate women?

    My position on reproductive rights is liberal feminist/mens rights, egalitarian and the opposite misogynist because it sees women are responsible adults that are control of their lives.

    "If women have the right to choose if they become parents, men [should] have that right too. There is a connection between legalizing abortion for women and ending of paternity suits for men. Giving men their own choices would not deny choices to women. It would only eliminate their expectation of having those choices financed by men."

    "Justice therefore dictates that if a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support. Or, put another way, autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice."

  270. 270
    karmakin

    BTW, Re: Abortion.

    It is a problem that pretty much only affects women, however I do not believe that misogyny is the primary reason for anti-abortion views. Personally, I think it’s more about trying to mandate a set way of life to make sure that everybody is doing the same thing, as well as proving their power and cultural influence, which has been waning over the last few decades.

    I.E. It has more to do with religious privilege and power claiming than gender. And considering the privilege we give religion in our society, that’s why fighting back against abortion legislation is so difficult. It’s also because as a society we worship babies. (And hate kids IMO). It’s part of the purity fetish.

    So stopping these assaults on women’s bodily rights is going to entail tackling head on the notion of religious privilege.

    BTW, I think the MRA stance on reproductive rights is stupid. It’s always going to suck AT BEST, and often what they call for is worse than the status quo IMO. Especially when you take into account the right-wing bent of the movement.

  271. 271
    Sid

    Hi carnation @ 266

    There isn’t any need for you to be flinging feces, your baboonery is a waste of time and energy.

    You can re-read my message @ 238

    To the baboons.

    If people are taking an issue with an ideology that has covered up abuse and marginalised abuse victims, that’s fair enough.

    You might follow that ideology yourself, but the criticism of the ideologies treatment of abuse victims isn’t a personal attack on you anymore than criticism of the RC for covering up abuse is a personal attack on and individual catholic nor is it justification for rude/dishonest/abusive behaviour.

    You need to take a step back and try to look at yourselves from the perspective of someone that is not a true believer.

    Feminism isn’t all right, the men’s movement isn’t all wrong and visa versa.

  272. 272
    unfamiliar w/ your ways

    262. Sid-
    “Men have no legal option for an unplanned or coerced pregnancy, they have obligations under the treat of prison.
    Women having options and choices are rights, privileges and control over their lives that men do not have, even if they are asked to have a procedure first in some jurisdictions.”

    Men and women have equal control over their own lives, thanks. Both parties are responsible for preventative measures. That women by the grace of medicine have a failsafe option for fuck-ups at all is a blessing. I don’t know what right you would like men to have in the case he doesn’t want and she does. The right to falcon punch her? I mean, if both parties are cool with it, there are legal opt-out pathways, at least here in the US, where the father can say ‘peace’. But most likely you mean a scenario where she’s going to want child support for the next 18 years, ja?

    (watch me do this without needing to cop to sexist constructs like ‘man up’)
    Then it is time for that young man to take responsibility for taking a wrong turn somewhere and getting involved with this vindictive person in the first place. THAT’s what a chunk of 18 yrs of salary will be for, not the kid. That mistake. Or do time, if he can’t take responsibility and refuses to shell out any amount of dough. I mean you say ‘under t[h]reat of prison’, but imagine the kind of shitbag it would take to walk away from child support. (this is the awkward part where everyone thinks about that one guy they know or are that actually did that)

    “Imagine if a woman had an accidental or coerced pregnancy and the state forced her to parent the child and threw her in prison for non compliance, that’s the position men are in.”

    This is the part that makes you sound particularly horrible. You’re implying that a lazy shitbag who refuses to pay child support going to prison is in any way shape or form worse a problem than very real terrible situations women could be and routinely are put in by being forced to raise a child they do not want and/or cannot afford? That’s really dumb. So it looks like you have such a problem with reason for whatever myriad reason or reasons that you would say something that dumb. That’s what makes you sound mysogynistic when you say that.

    “Women have reproductive rights, men have reproductive obligations.”

    Naw, man. Women have biological options, men don’t, and men have parallel reproductive obligations to womens’.

  273. 273
    Jacob Schmidt

    Karmakin

    That the notion that equality of opportunity isn’t enough for our society, and that what’s needed is at least equality of outcome (there’s zero discussion about when those outcomes go in the other direction).

    The problem with equal opportunity is that it’s ostensibly already here. And yet, you still see bias in hiring practices and other places. One of the things we saw in orchestras and concert bands was that they were full of white men. The moment that blind auditions became the standard, orchestras and other large bands became far, far more equal.

    You see it in hiring practices, too. Send in a resume with that’s ostensibly from a man and it’ll be better recieved than the same one submitted by a woman.

    I remember one (anecdotal) testimony from an office manager who was in charge of hiring interns. The company had a history of hiring only white men, so the board decided that after 6 white male interns, no more were allowed to be hired. So when someone proposed hiring a seventh (they filled their max of 6 very quickly), the manager had to say no. The immediate response was how unfair the decree was, how it was sexist and racist and how they were just trying to hire the most qualified, etc. He came back the next day with a resume from a female applicant who was better qualified than the man he wanted to hire.

    Also, most quotas don’t enforce equality of outcome. Most range from 25-40% women, which is hardly equal and certainly allows room for inequality due to mere circumstance.

    Now I don’t like quotas (I’d rather we came up with a blind system, similar to musical auditions), and sometimes they seem to be an inadvisable and useless patch (I remember one where the board of directors in a finance company had to 40% women, where the actual employee ratio was about 10-15%; I’d say the ratios of employees was the greater problem, and the quota didn’t address that).

    Equality of outcome is emphasized because it seems to be more reliable measure than equality of opportunity. We simply can’t guarentee equality of opportunity.

    Adiabat

    I gotta get to work; I’ll respond when I have a break. Do you mind answering my pointless curisosity in comment 136?

  274. 274
    unfamiliar w/ your ways

    dammit, typo!

    “such a problem with WOMEN for whatever reason…”

  275. 275
    Klangos

    Klangos: Take ideology out of it. What’s being pushed back against is the notion that the only thing stopping men from looking for help is other men ridiculing them, when it’s something that both men and women do.

    I do think that a lot of the stuff is very..intellectually sloppy to say the least. But there’s a very real level of sexism there that’s being pushed back against. And unfortunately, yes, much of anti-egalitarian feminism seeks to sustain that sexism rather than fighting against it.

    Yes, men and women do ridicule men for appearing weak. But the point is that it’s absurd to blame feminism for men not seeking help.

    I’m really not convinced that ‘anti-egalitarian feminism’ is enough of an actual thing to have an influence in the real world. Tthere’s a huge tendency in these debates to over-estimate the power of feminism.
    Ask most people what their position on feminism is and they’ll probably look blank or shrug or say they’re not interested or against it because of this or that cliche.

    Ask a man why he doesn’t seek help for being beaten by his female partner, and is he more likely to say
    a) ‘I’d be a laughing stock if my friends and people I work with knew about this’ or
    b) ‘the anti-egalitarian feminists have ensured that I won’t get the support I need even if I tried’

  276. 276
    unfamiliar w/ your ways

    “Ask a man why he doesn’t seek help for being beaten by his female partner, and is he more likely to say
    a) ‘I’d be a laughing stock if my friends and people I work with knew about this’ or
    b) ‘the anti-egalitarian feminists have ensured that I won’t get the support I need even if I tried’”

    I lol’d

  277. 277
    karmakin

    @273 Jacob: I fully support blind hiring practices for that very reason. We still have a lot of ingrained gender roles, tropes and stereotypes. I don’t generally, however, support quotas. (I do think that as governments have a special view in terms of developing a diverse viewpoint, so I do support quotas and such other programs in terms of government hiring)

    I just don’t think they’re very effective in terms of corporate culture.

    There are definitely some fields that need to embrace this dynamic..but we have to realize that it’s some more than others. High-end MBA culture being a big one. (Nuke it from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure)

    I mean there are other things that I thin are inequal for various reasons, but I have what I consider egalitarian ways of rectifying them.

    As an example, take the pay gap. I support making wages relatively public knowledge I.E. banning employers from punishing workers for sharing their wages with co-workers (under pain of losing their corporate charter, if need be). I support taking steps (either legal or cultural) to get rid of different wages for the same or strongly comparable jobs on hiring, and to replace individual raises with team-based raises, based on team performance.

    I think these things will reduce most, if not all of the inter-office pay gap that exists. And they’re all perfectly egalitarian and gender neutral.

    HOWEVER. That said, this is not my main concern. Sorry. But it’s not. It’s a bit 1st world problem, IMO. I’m much more concerned, and think it’s a much more pressing issue to get low-income workers…both men and women, better wages and working conditions.

    One of the things that gets derided, but it’s a very real, valid criticism of a lot that goes on, is that there’s a strong apex fallacy in play. There really is this focus on educated middle/upper class women in modern feminist culture that lower-class concerns are left out.

    May not be appropriate, but it’s a really good example. Remember that whole “Atheism+” thing? Didn’t include class. Either intentional or an oversight. Doesn’t matter. There’s a big ignorance of the biggest oppression that exists in our culture today. From both sides. And that’s why I want to go tell them all the piss off.

  278. 278
    Adiabat

    Freja (103): As promised:

    “It’s not so much the parody (even though it doesn’t work), it’s the premise. That it’s not wrong. He doesn’t advocate not doing this to women because other people, even other people who have slapped you, don’t deserve it, just that it’s not worth it.”

    I read the post very differently. Towards the end he says that it’s not wrong, in the sense that defending yourself against abuse is not wrong. And he states that it should be commensurate with the level of violence you are receiving. He’s phrased it clumsily but this interpretation seems just as valid as yours.

    “Also, if your satire is too close to your regular opinions, it’s hard to think of as satire. And in my experience, that’s because it usually isn’t completely satire, but rather something the person in question actually agrees with to some degree, but know they will caused trouble if expressed honestly.”

    You’re claim relies on not listening to what he says his opinion is, but rather what you believe his real opinion is. You may be right, but I don’t feel you have successfully shown that. It’s just as likely that he’s poor at expressing what he really means than he really means something despite saying the opposite.

    You give a rundown other examples of thing Elam has allegedly said, without references, but since I find your previous interpretation to be wrong, or at least one possible interpretation that hasn’t been shown to be the correct one, I must withhold accepting your subsequent characterisation of his position.

    RE: Ally and others using Solanas as an counter example to Elam:

    Did Solanas explicitly say that her writings were a parody, like Elam has done?

  279. 279
    Schala

    @219

    Anyone who is so fucking stupid that they think Afghan men have it worse than Afghan women simply would not be able to comprehend any argument presented to them. Therefore I will not bother.

    Seriously, that is beyond the fucking pale. What a twat.

    Girlwriteswhat makes a compelling case that being beholden to responsibilities means having rights to fulfill said responsibilities, while not having any responsibility, in bad times, means taking from those who have to fulfill their duty. In short, if someone who doesn’t need to work (because they don’t need to sustain themselves, according to law itself – it’s ALL disposable income), them being allowed and able to work is secondary to people who MUST support their family or be judged as responsible for their very deaths by starvation. And the wars and conflicts there are no stranger to there being bad times of scarcity.

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/when-female-privilege-backfires-2/

    Though I still think that it means that, on the balance, women tend to have it worse than men – over there (I value freedom more than protection if I have to choose JUST one). I do agree with her solution: Remove the forced responsibility of men to support their wife + children, add the responsibility of women to support themselves. Do something egalitarian for children. And then there’ll be no block or resentment towards women working, or getting education. They’ll have equal rights and burdens with the men.

  280. 280
    blorf

    @ Sid:

    equal laws is no longer the goal of feminism

    is a fallacy. You claim to know a new goal, which you have not described, cited or sourced yet.

    Being ‘mehrkin I have plans and obligations for the day, so I expect this post to be buried by the time I get back.

    Still, the question remains: What is this new goal?
    When others here ascribe goals to the MRM they point to specific actions and patterns of response while so far all we have heard from you is “cuz I sed so!!”

  281. 281
    Schala

    @221

    accusing everyone in the room of Victorian reverse-sexism

    Reverse sexism doesn’t exist. Sexism against men is sexism. Sexism against women is sexism. Sexism against trans women is often sexism as well (not always transphobia).

    I’d hazard a guess that everyone (maybe overly-generous here, but i’m an optimist) here agrees that DV/rape against any victim is wrong/abhorrent/condemnable. Historically-speaking, DV/rape involving female victims is a WAY larger problem, but obviously, laws should be egalitarian enough that the victim’s gender/sex shouldn’t be a factor. Agreed?

    It’s SEEN as a larger problem. Because that’s how we’ve been raised to see it. Not because it objectively is. Confirmation bias.

    Most of my criticism of the MRM is, and remains, that instead of expanding help to victims not focused on by feminism (with legitimate historical need for their special advocacy, remember), instead they are mostly an anti-feminist movement, more concerned with sniping/opposing feminist goals than actually helping anyone.

    Feminism has opposed every step of female perpetrators being recognized, as pedophiles, as rapists and as batterers. It’s been the number one opposition to having services for male victims and female perpetrators. Is it that surprising then, that MRAs who care about male victims would focus on them? Is it sniping a feminist goal to critique the majorly flawed Duluth Model? If it is, then I will encourage them to go ahead, because it’s a disgusting piece of policy.

    I guarantee its nowhere near as prevalent nor influential to listeners as the bunch of guys taking a smoke break out back swapping woman-in-the-kitchen jokes. No amount of media focus on these people can overcome the entrenched misogyny that still is rampant in most of Earth’s cultures. Schala, sorry, but if you can’t see it, look within. Tell any good jokes lately?

    In your head maybe. Misandry is so entrenched and accepted that boys, as young as 7, think girls are better. Girls think girls are better as young as 4, but that’s probably in-group bias. Must be entrenched misogyny.

    I have no idea what you’re talking about when you address me, by the way.

    When someone makes a joke denigrating women, it’s called sexism and misogyny. When someone makes a joke denigrating gay people, it’s called homophobia. When someone makes a joke denigrating trans people, it’s called transphobia. When someone makes a joke denigrating people of color, it’s called racism.

    Do you seriously think people care when someone makes a joke denigrating men? That it’s labeled misandry and sexism by the mainstream? Fish meet water, we’re swimming in it.

    So work the “parallel cause” angle, do some good, not the “feminism is destroying the world” angle, which helps no one, especially men. Because for most of us, our feminism (if we express it as such) is informed by our egalitarianism. We just all want things equal for everyone, right? Screw what the leaders say, our good deeds will thunder over the sound of their faulty words.

    I’m more cynical than you. I don’t think Joe Idealist can make changes to her NOW organization through wishful thinking and thinking good thoughts.

  282. 282
    Gjenganger

    @Sid 296

    No, I don’t see how that is legitimately misogynist.
    How does pointing out those facts mean I hate women?

    No point in fighting it, my friend. In these discussions ‘misogynist’ just means that you are anti-feminist and they do not like you. Both of which are true. It is a distortion of the King’s English, but do we really want to discuss semantics here? Why not accept it as a badge, and try to reclaim the word, like other groups have reclaimed ‘gay’ and ‘queer’?

    Yours – misogynist, bigot, theist, and heteronormative – Gjenganger

  283. 283
    Schala

    @239

    It’s completely undeniable that male victims of abuse are often trivialised, but I disagree entirely with your idea that the fault lies with feminism. I’d be interested to hear how you arrived at that conclusion, and by what mechanism feminism trivialises male victims.

    Personally I lay the blame at the feet of rigid, culturally reinforced gender roles. Men are supposed to be big and tough and capable of violence, women are supposed to be small and dainty and gentle. Therefore any man who gets beaten up by a woman must be a pussy, and therefore a ripe target for ridicule. This gender essentialist attitude is embedded in our culture, and I think a lot of the problems both men and women face stem from it. People have a stereotypical idea of what a man “is”, and any man who deviates from this stereotype is “not a real man”.

    Feminism has built ON the narratives of gender roles, instead of dismantling it.

    It presents DV as weak, fragile, dainty female victims in distress against strong, brutish, evil male perpetrators, since the 1970s. Duluth Model: Never intended to be gender-neutral, and based entirely on patriarchy theory, saying that male privilege causes DV against women, and all DV against men is self-defense from their own violence.

    Feminism should have dismantled this notion, made services for both men and women, and made a gender-neutral model that actually captures what people do and think, not a conspiracy theory ideology.

    That feminism didn’t, is a failing of feminism, not of culture.

  284. 284
    Schala

    @240

    more on the societal focus on the feminist cause: any unbalance in favor of women at the expense of men, we must admit, is a recent phenomenon, and specific to our Western Culture.

    No it’s not a recent phenomenon.

    All privileges, male or female, are at the expense of one sex, in favor of another, and the drawbacks of each privilege are also damning.

    Women have an extreme amount of freedom of expression through clothing, hairstyles and other means. This has the advantage of augmenting their expression, allowing them to be themselves better (and not just a clone), but also the drawback that you might be judged based on your choices in that matter.

    This privilege is not recent. This privilege becoming better (ie women having access to all previously men’s clothing) is recent.

    Being presumed responsible for your household, and any wrong they do, any debt they incur, any tax they owe, any harm or ill that befalls them…can be rewarding (you’re considered useful, powerful, etc). The drawback is, well, if something bad happens…it happens to you. ALL consequences to you. And you think DV of women was bad before? DV of men had the man humiliated publicly for it. On a donkey if I remember right.

    Now, you typically don’t have a choice which set of privileges and drawbacks you get. The richer you are, the less any of them affect you (all responsibilities you can delegate for example). But you can’t honestly say that none of the privileges on the men’s side have big enough drawbacks to be considered advantages for women.

    Women are presumed physically weaker, more moral and more nurturing than men. Which conversely means men are presumed physically stronger, less moral, and less nurturing than women. Which leads us to pedophilia scares, about men – and only men. Because women are defacto excluded as suspects due to cultural bias. Being presumed strong is nice when you need it, not when it makes you ‘scary’ to everyone.

  285. 285
    Schala

    @248

    See, I’m going off the stories of transsexuals who aren’t comfortable with transitioning in the first place. Transitioning for them is unnecessary or unwanted, but they still feel suicidal due to societies emphasis on gender conformity.

    I can’t speak for the people you know, or have talked to.

    Personally, while I abhor prescriptiveness of gender conformity and fight it wherever I see it, since I was a young kid, I don’t conform more than “necessary” to avoid a fatal assault. I go towards my own tastes. I don’t think I have to wear make-up to be presentable. I don’t think hair on my arms is unsightly. And I don’t shave my bikini zone in case someone sees it in public (though I’ll admit, I never go swim). I look androgynous, and like it that way. That’s far enough from gender conformity.

    I haven’t been pushed to suicide because I don’t conform.

    I’ve been pushed to suicide because not being allowed to be recognized as myself was unbearable. And made my life unliveable.

  286. 286
    Sid

    Hi blorf

    You are mistaken.

    Traditional liberal feminism had the goal equal rights, opportunities and equal responsibilities.

    Modern feminism requires the use of unequal laws to get equal outcomes. For example the use of quotas to get equal representation.

    There is no fallacy there. Both statements are true.

    I asked you demonstrate a fallacy honestly, it seems you cannot, so please desist.

  287. 287
    Schala

    Really? Where is the law that you need a medical device stuffed up your nether regions if you don’t want a child? There are several for women wanting an abortion.

    Men are told, keep it in your pants, or become permanently infertile. Or deal with having a unwanted child.

    Cry me a river is you want a different standard. Equalize it for men.

  288. 288
    Sid

    Klangos @ 275

    “Ask a man why he doesn’t seek help for being beaten by his female partner, and is he more likely to say
    a) ‘I’d be a laughing stock if my friends and people I work with knew about this’ or
    b) ‘the anti-egalitarian feminists have ensured that I won’t get the support I need even if I tried’”

    The general population is more supportive of male abuse victims than feminist run abuse services.

    >Results indicate that men who seek help for IPV victimization have the most positive experiences in seeking help from family/friends, and mental health and medical providers. They have the least positive experiences with members of the DV service system.

    http://vc.bridgew.edu/socialwork_fac/9/1

  289. 289
    unfamiliar w/ your ways

    @Schala- damn, buddy, you must be surrounded by angry feminazis regularly administering you beatings with their purses, the way you describe the world!

    “Reverse sexism doesn’t exist.”

    Hooray! I made a funny and you got the joke! Yeah, that’s why I mentioned it. Because it’s a ridiculous concept. Let us ridicule it together.

    “It’s SEEN as a larger problem. Because that’s how we’ve been raised to see it. Not because it objectively is. Confirmation bias.”

    Again, try to think outside the American box, here man. I know you made that very silly statement about afghan slaves having it actually pretty good not having to work for their food and all, but c’mon man, that’s a pretty shitty thing to say. Did I say slaves?

    “Is it sniping a feminist goal to critique the majorly flawed Duluth Model?”

    No. From what karmakin was saying, sounds repugnant. I have no idea what the model is, but everyone here today has been anything but opposed to it. But it is sniping to quotemine old vanguard leaders for “oh YEAH lookit what THEY SAID” type shit when we’re talking here-and-now policy issues. Childish, man.

    “In your head maybe. Misandry is so entrenched and accepted that boys, as young as 7, think girls are better. Girls think girls are better as young as 4, but that’s probably in-group bias.”
    and
    “Do you seriously think people care when someone makes a joke denigrating men? That it’s labeled misandry and sexism by the mainstream? Fish meet water, we’re swimming in it.”

    And this is the root of my suspicion that you either are living in a militant feminazi hive or just have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about. The audience hasn’t made up their minds yet, and I am baffled. Do you get made fun of? You perceive in the world that people make misandrist jokes outside misandrist lesbian bars in the worst part of town? Who would even laugh? A “boyfriend so stupid” joke? I could tell you an hour of hilarious sexist jokes that talk about beating women to get them go make me a sammich. Never heard one of those, eh? Just the men jokes?

    “I have no idea what you’re talking about when you address me, by the way.”

    Ah, ok, the main point. You need to go think about these things alone, not outloud, not at a keyboard, unless you’re typing up a diary or something. Think about these things. Borrowing karmakin’s other good phrase, none of us here are Neofeminists. Read all this again later. That breed of feminism is not in control. The point people have been trying to make when they’ve been asking you guys what the goals are of that kind of feminism, they want you to say them outloud, to hear yourself saying it. “Why, the goals are obviously the enslavement or subjugation or extermination of men!” to show you how fucking retarded that is.

  290. 290
    Adiabat

    Jacob (136): “Adiabat, when you get back, does your ‘nym have any connection to the thermodynamic principle of adiabatic processes?”

    Yep, an adiabat is a line on a PVT (pressure, volume, temperature) diagram which shows a thermodynamic process that varies in pressure and volume but remains constant in heat.

    I chose it to remind myself that in online debates that I can post as much as I want, and apply as much pressure as possible, but should never get hot-headed. (I’m sure any physicists here are laughing their asses off. Everyone else… probably not as much)

    Sometimes I fail to live up to the name :)

  291. 291
    Sid

    unfamiliar w/ your ways

    >Men and women have equal control over their own lives, thanks.<

    No they don't, if there is an accident, fraud or tampering with B/C, a woman has options and choices.

    In the same case with men, the women can take some control of the mans body and labour for 21 years under the threat of state violence.

    Generally, people that do not recognise the need for men to have get out options, do not recognise a woman's ability to control and chose whether not she brings a baby into a dysfunctional / unwanted situation or not ,and that's why they think that men should just man up and have no protections against reproductive coercion and unwanted pregnancies. This position is both misandrist and misogynist.

    You have not explained how my pointing out that women have reproductive privileges and rights that men do not yet somehow translates into hating women.

  292. 292
    Schala

    “Ask a man why he doesn’t seek help for being beaten by his female partner, and is he more likely to say
    a) ‘I’d be a laughing stock if my friends and people I work with knew about this’ or
    b) ‘the anti-egalitarian feminists have ensured that I won’t get the support I need even if I tried’”

    I lol’d

    Probably A) until he does seek help, then B).

    If people think B outright, without experience, then they’re cynical, as B only works in a world that isn’t fair or just – and we like to think our world is fair or just – at least some of the time.

  293. 293
    unfamiliar w/ your ways

    @284. Schala-

    let me get this right…

    “too bad barbie didn’t get that job, good thing she can express herself with clothing”

    did i get that right?

    “But you can’t honestly say that none of the privileges on the men’s side have big enough drawbacks to be considered advantages for women.”

    You’re gonna have to be specific there, buddy, because I have no idea wtf you could possibly mean.

    “Women are presumed physically weaker, more moral and more nurturing than men. Which conversely means men are presumed physically stronger, less moral, and less nurturing than women. Which leads us to pedophilia scares, about men – and only men. Because women are defacto excluded as suspects due to cultural bias. Being presumed strong is nice when you need it, not when it makes you ‘scary’ to everyone.”

    Uh huh. Good point, Wreck-It-Ralph. I can’t tell if you are saying you presume these things, or if you’re instead saying that society presumes these things, which are of course all wrong and bad and should be fixed. For culturally-biased assumptions of guilt regarding pedophiles. Which, frankly, is about the smallest problem on Earth. Thanks for finding it for us. That’s not even a great argument for what you’re saying. How about the draft?? Hello! Your gender makes you a meat shield! Sexist much? C’mon man, this is an atheist forum, gotta be on your A-game. So many better examples coulda been drawn there. All the female assumptions have their own slew of great examples of sexist problems pertaining from heteronormative patriarchal bullshit hurting everyone. That’s what I’m saying. Everyone here at FtB, as general-purpose atheists, don’t pull that Neofeminist shit. We don’t worship a gender god, either.

    @287. Dude. Condoms. C’mon man. Reproductive aisle at the store. very good alternatives to sterility and abstinence are readily available, any city on the continent.

    Ah HA! You DO live in a bubble!

  294. 294
    Schala

    Again, try to think outside the American box, here man.

    I’m not a man.

    No. From what karmakin was saying, sounds repugnant. I have no idea what the model is, but everyone here today has been anything but opposed to it. But it is sniping to quotemine old vanguard leaders for “oh YEAH lookit what THEY SAID” type shit when we’re talking here-and-now policy issues. Childish, man.

    But IT IS the here and now policy. It was made up in the 1970s, but it’s still on, now, in 2013.

    And this is the root of my suspicion that you either are living in a militant feminazi hive or just have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about. The audience hasn’t made up their minds yet, and I am baffled. Do you get made fun of? You perceive in the world that people make misandrist jokes outside misandrist lesbian bars in the worst part of town? Who would even laugh? A “boyfriend so stupid” joke? I could tell you an hour of hilarious sexist jokes that talk about beating women to get them go make me a sammich. Never heard one of those, eh? Just the men jokes?

    I perceive that men hate maleness themselves, that it’s so entrenched, that it’s become a staple of commercial advertisements and sitcoms. Male writers will write incompetent, stupid (and proud of it), but “interesting” male characters, like Homer and Bart Simpson. Sure they have interesting lives, but so does the guy of Jackass. Doesn’t mean they’re a good character.

    Dads who are incompetent to change diapers. Who can’t put clothing on right on babies. Who can’t hold babies right. Men are too lazy to mow the lawn or do anything inside or around the house. Men who are henpecked by their obviously superior wife/girlfriend, as she controls sex, and he’s a drooling idiot who will do anything to get any. Men can’t laugh at a joke that might imply a rib at women, if they’re with a woman. Women can laugh though, men who would even react negatively towards their partners would be called chauvinists.

    Violence against men being seen as funny, from the kick to the crotch, to the bloody nose, the glass content thrown in the face, slapped, punched, bitten, scratched, or outright beaten up. The constant drone about all men being perverts and who would jump at the chance of seeing female flesh (ie they would spy/enter the woman’s restroom or changing room, for nefarious purposes).

    I bet I could google some too, but that’s just off the top of my head.

    Ah, ok, the main point. You need to go think about these things alone, not outloud, not at a keyboard, unless you’re typing up a diary or something.

    I still don’t get why you addressed me about jokes. I don’t make jokes except to friends, in an obvious friendly context. Not in debate. In debate I’ll use sarcasm and hyperbole, not humor.

  295. 295
    Schala

    “too bad barbie didn’t get that job, good thing she can express herself with clothing”

    did i get that right?

    No, you obviously didn’t.

    In America, right now in 2013, how hard is it for women to get ANY job (not a top job, ANY job)?

    Irrelevant point therefore.

    Freedom of expression is fucking good, okay? I like that I can choose to wear pants, a skirt, capris, super short shorts, a skort, a dress, and in multiple types of fabric, stretchy or not, with pockets or not. Heck, I can even go shop in the men’s section, without a problem.

    But that must be a drawback, I should just do like men, and dress like a fucking clone with no option.

  296. 296
    Adiabat

    unfamiliar w/ your ways: “Dude. Condoms. C’mon man. Reproductive aisle at the store. very good alternatives to sterility and abstinence are readily available, any city on the continent.”

    I think the argument is that if contraception fails, then the woman has options with regards to her own body and commitments, while the man has none. Control over his body/labour is completely under the control of the woman.

    Usually the reply to this is something about how child support isn’t enforced very well, which of course is missing the point, which is about rights over control over your body that are enshrined in law, and that when you actually look at them, women have more options than men.

    P.S the argument is not that men should get a say in abortion, but that they should be given similar opportunities to eschew responsibility for an unwanted child that a woman has. A “paper-abortion”.

  297. 297
    Sid

    Adiabat

    I love all the potential benefits of paper abortion. If the concept of consent to fatherhood was present, there would be far fewer children born into dysfunctional situations, more social resourced freed up, smaller prison populations, less crime, addiction, pain and dysfunctional adults.

    It just makes so much sense.

  298. 298
    Adiabat

    Me: “Usually the reply to this is something about how child support isn’t enforced very well, which of course is missing the point, which is about rights over control over your body that are enshrined in law, and that when you actually look at them, women have more options than men.”

    And yes, women have fought for those options, but a true egalitarian should now be fighting to get them for men as well.

    The criticism of feminism is that they don’t do this, presumably because it would actually disadvantage women to create equality here. Therefore they are not being egalitarian and by fighting the people proposing these changes are actually working against equality.

    Does that make sense? I agree the validity varies depending on your local laws re:abortion.

  299. 299
    Freja

    @268, Adiabat

    I think this is the strongest argument against what I’m saying. Lies in the past don’t necessarily mean that the accuser is lying this particular time. But if we agree with the feminist argument (not necessarily yours, please clarify) that false accusing is rare (at least the completely-made-up type), and only done by certain types of individual (sociopaths or mentally ill, like the woman in the anecdote I gave upthread), then past false accusations add a lot of weight to the possibility that the current accusation is a lie, as its an indicator of sociopathy and/or mental illness.

    And yet, if there is “overwhelming evidence” that a rape has been committed, are you willing to let a rapist go free to rape again and deny a victim justice, just to prove a point?

    Even if it’s not an indicator of such, it is a sign that this person is not above making false claims and this should be taken into account. It’s not die-hard evidence, but evidence that should at least be considered by a jury, and could possibly tip the decision.

    “Overwhelming evidence”. There have been rapes caught on tape, including rapes so forceful violent there is no doubt the victim wasn’t consenting. Or do you think someone caught on tape beating someone else bloody (no self-defence) should be allowed to walk free just because the judge wont tell you if the victim has previously been lying about being assaulted?

    Listen, the justice system is faulty. There are also laws about not bringing up people’s previous criminal charges in courtroom if they haven’t been convicted, even if having several people bring up the same charges unrelated of each other is also something that should be taken into account. There are examples of multiple women reporting the same rapist independently of each other and being dismissed (sometimes even accused and convicted of false report), until, by a lucky coincidence, the rapist makes a huge mistake, or someone finally decides to do a little investigation, after which it turns out that several rapes could have been prevented if the police had just bothered to listen.

    This is also one of the reasons I find it highly unlikely that a woman who had previously made a false accusation would even get her rape on trial, because the police is notorious for refusing to bring rape charges to court.

    The principle I was demonstrating with the ‘kangaroo court’ analogy is that if a court system is set up in such a way that may prevent the jurors from deciding on the truth, then it is fair (morally right even) for the juror not to go along with it just because ‘them’s the rules’.

    But is it fair to lie about your intentions in order to make the trial reach a foregone conclusion? It’s one thing to say that you wont sit in rape trials because you believe they need to be treated differently than all other trials, but it’s another thing completely to say that you’re willing to let a rapist (someone you know, due to the overwhelming evidence, to be a rapist) walk just to make a point.

  300. 300
    Adiabat

    Sid: Abortion is not a good thing though (in the sense more=better. It is a good thing in tems of giving control over womens bodies). While the option should be there for those who want it paper abortions will mean more women may have abortions as they may not be able to support the child on their own.

    There is a conflict between this and the equal rights of men over control over their bodies in case of failed contraception and I see why feminist appose paper abortions. Personally I think the equality argument outweighs the ‘pressure on women to make a certain choice’ argument.

  301. 301
    unfamiliar w/ your ways

    @294. Schala-

    The clouds part and all becomes clear.
    “I’m not a man.”
    You know not of which you speak? Perhaps a gender-ambivalent ally to beleaguered men everywhere? See the problems you keep mentioning just are not serious problems. Other than support for abuse victims, which, all night and all day, we’ve all been saying are terrible injustices. Right, Ally?

    btw, man for me is pretty gender-neutral. my wife used to get annoyed when i called her dude, but sorry, from San Diego. be not offended by my seemingly-gendered pronouns. I colloquially make no distinctions with them, dude.

    “But IT IS the here and now policy. It was made up in the 1970s, but it’s still on, now, in 2013.”

    Well then damn the torpedoes, we’ve got to get to a computer, cuz some congressmen done gonna get wrote! Why are you wasting your time and ours typing for hours in this thread if there’s something real out there that needs to go get fixed? The first time i wrote that, it was all caps, but i’m trying to keep my cool here. Or is that your aforementioned cynicism that has your butt rooted?

    “I perceive that men hate maleness themselves, that it’s so entrenched, that it’s become a staple of commercial advertisements and sitcoms. Male writers will write incompetent, stupid (and proud of it), but “interesting” male characters, like Homer and Bart Simpson. Sure they have interesting lives, but so does the guy of Jackass. Doesn’t mean they’re a good character. Dads who are incompetent to change diapers. Who can’t put clothing on right on babies. Who can’t hold babies right. Men are too lazy to mow the lawn or do anything inside or around the house. Men who are henpecked by their obviously superior wife/girlfriend, as she controls sex, and he’s a drooling idiot who will do anything to get any.”

    Here here! Down with negative stereotypes! Don’t replace them with positive ones either! Write better fiction! Subscribe to HBO!

    “Men can’t laugh at a joke that might imply a rib at women, if they’re with a woman.”

    That’s called reading your audience, mate.

    “Women can laugh though, men who would even react negatively towards their partners would be called chauvinists.”

    You musta seen this happen in person once, because to think you assume this about the world by any other means would be exceptionally creative. Let me assure you, this is not a problem that actually happens to most people.

    “Violence against men being seen as funny, from the kick to the crotch, to the bloody nose, the glass content thrown in the face, slapped, punched, bitten, scratched, or outright beaten up.”

    Slapstick is funny no matter who is involved, but men hitting women has way too much baggage to pull off on stage/camera. And men, with their patriarchy-derived ideas about what is expected of them, tend towards goofy antics. Most those shows’ audiences are guys anyway, tho…

    “The constant drone about all men being perverts and who would jump at the chance of seeing female flesh (ie they would spy/enter the woman’s restroom or changing room, for nefarious purposes).”

    Not being a male, you obviously don’t get this joke. It’s because unlike women, men are fertile and ready to inseminate something always, biologically-speaking, so imagine what a guy’s internal hardware must be. Those old cliches about guys thinking about sex all the time are because in puberty, that’s exactly what happens. That’s why its such a popular trope, because it makes every man laugh at himself and his own inner demons he’s conquered for the sake of civilization.

  302. 302
    Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened

    @Gjengenger

    No point in fighting it, my friend. In these discussions ‘misogynist’ just means that you are anti-feminist and they do not like you. Both of which are true. It is a distortion of the King’s English, but do we really want to discuss semantics here?

    Queen’s English. We have a Queen, moron. You deliberately subvert the accepted standards of the English language in a petty attempt to make it explicitly male, in complete defiance of the contemporary situation, and yet you wonder why we think you are anti-woman? You can’t even pretend it was a typo, we’ve had a Queen since 1952, and therefore it has been the Queen’s English since 1952. Enough time for anyone to et used to the convention, you would think.

    @Sid

    Care to answer my last post at #239?

  303. 303
    unfamiliar w/ your ways

    @Schala-

    sorry to beat a dead horse, here, but…

    ” Men are too lazy to mow the lawn or do anything inside or around the house. ”

    The sexist stereotype at play there is actually that a man is supposed to be good at those things. The character’s laziness is usually comical. And if that’s all you got from the Simpsons is that they’re stereotypically male bad people, you should really give Seasons 2-10 another shot, they’re expertly written

  304. 304
    carnation

    @ Sid

    Your responses make no sense because you insist on using metaphors and have no substance. Now I realise that you probably haven’t been to university, but when debating, it’s important to use facts. You use vague feelings, illustrated by ridiculous metaphors.

    I’ve taken the time to carefully explain what you have to do to win back all of the credibility you’ve lost, now it’s up to you to responsibly and carefully respond.

    It’s really quite simple. All you have to do is read what’s written and deal with it point by point. You pointed to your response in #238. That response consisted of a metaphor that doesn’t relate to the questions posed to you, and a couple of pointless cliches.

    Now Sid, right now, everybody on this blog is watching you squirm. You cannot hold two opposing views.

    So what I’m going to do is ask you to respond to some statements. As someone in this debate, you have a responsibility to answer, if you want to be taken seriously.

    There will be three statements, I want you to read, absurd, and describe each one. Nice and simple. No talk of baboons, gas lighting et al.

    I have faith in you, Sid, I’m sure you can do this. Ok, here goes:

    If I said the following, what would you think?

    I find you, as an MRA to be a loathsome, vile piece of human garbage. I find you so pernicious and repugnant that the idea of fucking your shit up arouses me…

    Or:

    our current gender zeitgeist is one that has promoted and enabled such a degree of male narcissism and entitlement that it has now produced two generations of men that are for the most part, shallow, self-serving wastes of human existence—parasites—semi-human black holes that suck resources and goodwill out of women and squander them”

    Or:

    “I don’t give a fuck if men are raped or falsely accused of rape, because of MRAs bringing it up”

  305. 305
    unfamiliar w/ your ways

    @ Sid

    yeah, Lucy, you got some splainin’ to do… The unanswered questions list is getting pretty long, and I for one would love to see you engage in carnation’s thought experiment

  306. 306
    unfamiliar w/ your ways

    @291. Sid

    “You have not explained how my pointing out that women have reproductive privileges and rights that men do not yet somehow translates into hating women”

    Yes I did. Because you said that in the field of reproduction and human possibility, it is worse sometimes to be a man. And that is so stupid a statement, you’d have to be pretty upset to have uttered it. I assume its anger, which indicates vehemence. Yoda takes over, hate leads to suffering, you get the drift.

    Because when it comes to the human experience of reproduction, you as a male are always, always the lucky one. Our hormone levels are stable month-to-month, year-to-year, and we don’t have to shove a child out our bodies. Oh yeah, and then society expects you to be the one to raise it, alone if need be. Count your lucky stars mate.

    Been a pleasure folks, but I gotta bounce

  307. 307
    Schala

    Why are you wasting your time and ours typing for hours in this thread if there’s something real out there that needs to go get fixed?

    Because I’m cynical like that. Anything I could do in the real world would be awkward, consequence-free (at least, any consequence I would seek, like real change) and ineffective. I disidentify from people who do bad stuff, and promote equality. That should be enough. And yes, I do this in my real “physical” life too.

    Slapstick is funny no matter who is involved, but men hitting women has way too much baggage to pull off on stage/camera. And men, with their patriarchy-derived ideas about what is expected of them, tend towards goofy antics. Most those shows’ audiences are guys anyway, tho…

    Which, like body image issues for women. Is no less a problem.

    It says “violence against women is a serious crime we should ALL fight” and “violence against men…is just funny”.

    Want to portrait a sad death? Kill a woman, or a child. Want to portrait an anonymous death no one should care about? Kill a man. Bonus if he wears a mask like a storm trooper. Or a red shirt.

    Not being a male, you obviously don’t get this joke.

    I’m a trans woman. Still ‘legally’ male. And had a “male childhood” (I use quotes because I don’t think having a penis makes my childhood that common in every way). I’ve also had normal levels of testosterone until 24 years old. And NEVER had sexual urges towards someone by simply seeing them. I’m demi-sexual (and pansexual), and my libido pre-transition was LOWER than now (with 0 testosterone). I had sex the first time at 25, and have never orgasmed from masturbating in my entire life.

    It’s because unlike women, men are fertile and ready to inseminate something always, biologically-speaking, so imagine what a guy’s internal hardware must be. Those old cliches about guys thinking about sex all the time are because in puberty, that’s exactly what happens. That’s why its such a popular trope, because it makes every man laugh at himself and his own inner demons he’s conquered for the sake of civilization.

    Sure, guys between 10 and 25 want sex more than guys between 50 and 75. I won’t deny that. But most men don’t want sex as much as the sex-crazed stereotypes say. Or nothing would have been ever built or done by men. They’d all be constantly masturbating.

    Someone using your assumptions, Mainonides (12th century Jew), told other Jewish people, that circumcision is good, because it turns men off lust and sex so they can do productive stuff. That cutting into sexual pleasure was actually intended from the very start.

    I got news for you: Women like sex. For its own sake.

    Except women don’t gain status for scoring, women don’t get punished for being sexless, women don’t get punished for “using their hand”. And women aren’t measured by what men they can bed, only what man they can marry. That’s an awful lot of socialized incentives for a difference, no?

    Maybe men have, on average, higher libido than women, but not the 1000x higher society says.

  308. 308
    Adiabat

    Freja: “And yet, if there is “overwhelming evidence” that a rape has been committed, are you willing to let a rapist go free to rape again and deny a victim justice, just to prove a point?”

    Not at all, especially with the example you give of overwhelming evidence. Like I said, it’s not evidence that’ll contradict the evidence you suggest (die-hard evidence). I’ve said already that if Elam is seriously suggesting it it’s fucked up. If he was trying to draw attention to the problem of not allowing certain evidence in court then less so. We need the context of that Elam quote.

    If you are wanting to discuss the issue of allowing this evidence in court then I don’t think the extreme ends of the spectrum are useful. We can both think up extreme examples. That’s why I’ve suggested discussing situations where reasonable doubt is only just established. Maybe such an approach is pointless and/or unrealistic and if you think so I’m happy to drop the conversation. I’d rather drop it than upset any victims that may be reading this, or anyone who feels strongly about the issue.

    “Listen, the justice system is faulty.”

    I agree. I think that’s the point really.

    “This is also one of the reasons I find it highly unlikely that a woman who had previously made a false accusation would even get her rape on trial, because the police is notorious for refusing to bring rape charges to court.”

    I’m inclined to agree, but perhaps the best way to improve that situation is not to prevent the defence form presenting evidence. It would definitely work, but at what cost?

    Anyway, have to go now.

  309. 309
    carnation

    @ Schala 307

    “women don’t get punished for “using their hand”. And women aren’t measured by what men they can bed, only what man they can marry. That’s an awful lot of socialized incentives for a difference, no?”

    What? Let’s break that down.

    “women don’t get punished for “using their hand” And men do? When? By whom?

    “And women aren’t measured by what men they can bed, only what man they can marry” Who’s measuring? And isn’t there a well known saying “trophy wife”?

    You’re coming out with some pretty wild stuff…

  310. 310
    Sid

    unfamiliar w/ your ways

    “@ Sid

    yeah, Lucy, you got some splainin’ to do… The unanswered questions list is getting pretty long, and I for one would love to see you engage in carnation’s thought experiment”

    Unfamiliar. I have answered you and have given you various sources to back up my positions, which you ignored. I also asked you what magic turns pointing out that women are more rights, choices and privileges re. reproduction into hatred of women, which you also ignored.

    I’ve put carnation on my ignore list because of their behaviour, I’ve said a few times now I will be putting less time into the posters that conform to the free thought blogs baboon stereotype.

  311. 311
    Sid

    correction.

    Unfamiliar.

    I see you have given me a non answer for the question that pointing out that women have more rights and privileges re. reproduction than men equates to hating women.

  312. 312
    carnation

    @ Sid 310

    Sid, you just used another irrelevant metaphor in response to a serious thought experiment.

    I am going to keep asking you, others will see that you don’t have the integrity or intellect to respond.

    Now here’s the thing, Sid. I doubt you’re a bad person, the fact that you’re feeling so much cognitive dissonance over my thought experiment demonstrates that you realise how ridiculous your “beliefs” are.

    To reiterate, Sid refuses to condemn egregious misogyny and cannot describe his feelings with the sexes reversed because to do so would mean he had double standards.

    Amusingly, Sid often accuses others of having double standards.

    Now Sid, just to remind you, this will follow you round this blog.

  313. 313
    Sid

    Adiabat

    The presence of consent to fatherhood, would generally only really effect the women that are trying to get pregnant without informing their partner anyway, and presumably with consent to fatherhood present in society, that behaviour would be far less common and more BC would be used, so the rate of abortions might not change that much at all.

  314. 314
    Sid

    Hi carnation.

    Just because you patronize women to the point that satirical article looks like misogny to you doesn’t mean I do.

    I view the article as its was intended.

    “Three years ago I wrote a satirical, and somewhat belated response to an article on Jezebel.com in which the staff of that publication and their readers were having a grand old time bragging to each other and backslapping over who had been the most physically abusive with their male partners.

    It was the most disgusting display of domestic violence glorification I have seen, before or since.

    I wrote a particularly provocative response to it, in order to demonstrate how that sort of mentality might appear in a scenario where the perpetrator was male and the victim was female. In it, I made some overtly graphic references to the violence and proclaimed that we were declaring a “Bash a Violent Bitch Month.”

    There is no reason for me to condemn something as the hatred of women, that its not. That’s just a cheap theoretical trick that people like you seem to like to use.

    I don’t believe the danish cartoonist commit any real crime when he drew the prophet either.

    Im not interested in your Baboonery. Its pointless.

  315. 315
    Jacob Schmidt

    This is a multi-screener, and I’ve got a big screen. You’ve been warned.

    Adiabat

    I chose it to remind myself that in online debates that I can post as much as I want, and apply as much pressure as possible, but should never get hot-headed. (I’m sure any physicists here are laughing their asses off. Everyone else… probably not as much)

    I like the name. I thought it was interesting, but now I just straight up want to steal it. My joking response would be “What do you do when you walk into a discussion hot headed?”

    But you don’t know which ‘way’ is occurring in that particular case you are a juror on, meaning that there is doubt. It’s exactly that state of ‘not-knowing’ I am referring to.

    I’m aware. My point is that it’s not comparable to a case where evidence is clearly present. “Evidence” and “possible evidence that may be hidden” are two seperate things. The latter deserves far less weight, as far as I’m concerned.

    I think this is the strongest argument against what I’m saying. Lies in the past don’t necessarily mean that the accuser is lying this particular time.

    Ah, good. I was half expecting some resistance on this.

    But if we agree with the feminist argument (not necessarily yours, please clarify) that false accusing is rare (at least the completely-made-up type), and only done by certain types of individual (sociopaths or mentally ill, like the woman in the anecdote I gave upthread), then past false accusations add a lot of weight to the possibility that the current accusation is a lie, as its an indicator of sociopathy and/or mental illness.

    I don’t know why women (or for that matter, men) would lie about being sexually assaulted. I’ve seen explanations ranging from “she’s a sociopath”, “she feels the need to conform to cultural expectations” (i.e. she doesn’t want to admit that she consent ’cause she doesn’t want to be a slut), to “they’re honest mistakes” (i.e. someone takes advantage of you when you’re drunk, and you misidentify the next day; the person who put this forward wasn’t saying they were all honest mistakes). I’m willing to bet that the reasons run the gambit of human eccentricity.

    So no, I don’t think past false accusations is a reliable indicator of mental illness. Even if it was, I’m extremely wary of any policy that would make it harder for someone mentally ill to press charges. Also, even if it was, that a person is capable of lying doesn’t mean they are. I think your giving such evidence to much weight.

    Even if it’s not an indicator of such, it is a sign that this person is not above making false claims and this should be taken into account. It’s not die-hard evidence, but evidence that should at least be considered by a jury, and could possibly tip the decision.

    Ok. Think about this, You’re in a jury. You’ve seen plenty of evidence to indicate that rape actually happened (he lied about where he was that night, everyone in the bar saw them leaving together, her friends and the bartender can all attest that she was too drunk to be making decisions, there’s DNA evidence that they had sex, there’s some injuries that indicate struggling, whatever would convince you that rape happened). Then you find out she’s made a false accusation in the past. What’s changed? You can say she’s capable of lying about it, but in my scenario the point is moot since she was too drunk to consent in the first place (which actually covers the majority of rapes). If there’s evidence of a struggle, that exists irrespective of her testimony. You’d need to construct a narrow set of scenarios where such evidence would even matter. I’m convinced that those scenarios wouldn’t reach reasonable doubt in the first place.

    But it also prevents miscarriages of justice the other way; for the accused innocents. It’s complicated, but it seems to me that the moral situation is not quite as clear-cut as claimed. I’m still to decide which side I fall on.

    “Reasonable doubt” is, in my opinion, a high enough bar to clear that past lying has little to no effect. In a “he said, she said” scenario, than sure. Take it into account.

    Without the original post by Elam I also can’t make a decision. I can just see that it’s at least possible he’s making a serious point, if in a crappy way, but won’t decide unless I see the context of the quote Ally provided.

    The “bitches be lying” narrative is strong enough that Elam adding to it is dispicable in itself, regardless of whether or not he meant well.

    Lol, and that’s me trying my best not to be an asshole. I guess I can’t help it

    No worries. Just keep in mind that statements like “at least Jacob managed that” carry some negative connotations.

    We’ve both made incorrect assumptions about the others’ post yet I’m the only one who didn’t pass all the blame onto the other person.

    But from your reactions since, and your posts to others, I’m starting to wonder whether my assumption was wrong at all. Just compare your reaction to Jacob’s when I made a similar error to him and apologised.

    If my reaction is commendable, why didn’t you use it? You jumped right to accusing him of jumping off the deep end, rather than a gentle correction regarding a bad assumption.

    Karmakin

    I just don’t think they’re very effective in terms of corporate culture.

    I couldn’t say for sure. I don’t see why they would be inneffective however, particularly when most are rather “gentle” (if half your employees are female, a 35% quota at the board level shouldn’t cause any problems). I agree that they can be an ugly patch, at times.

    As an example, take the pay gap. I support making wages relatively public knowledge I.E. banning employers from punishing workers for sharing their wages with co-workers (under pain of losing their corporate charter, if need be).[1] I support taking steps (either legal or cultural) to get rid of different wages for the same or strongly comparable jobs on hiring,[2] and to replace individual raises with team-based raises, based on team performance.[3]

    1) YES. Holy fuck, yes. I love that idea. It would bring out any gender bias out into the clear, as well as any sort of bias at all.
    2) Definitely
    3) Eh, I’m iffy. Then again, the team I worked with in my other job were a bunch of lazy fuckers, and I carried them often. Giving them the same pay as me would piss me off. Though it would be better than them getting paid more than me, which is how it worked for a while.

    One of the things that gets derided, but it’s a very real, valid criticism of a lot that goes on, is that there’s a strong apex fallacy in play. There really is this focus on educated middle/upper class women in modern feminist culture that lower-class concerns are left out.

    What? Abortion rights and DV shelters are the two biggest things I associate with feminism, and both of those are mainly problems for low class women.

    May not be appropriate, but it’s a really good example. Remember that whole “Atheism+” thing? Didn’t include class. Either intentional or an oversight.

    Didn’t it? I remember watching A+ start up. One of the criticisms at the time was the focus on upper middle class people within atheism and skepticism (i.e. Tam costs about $500 just to get in, plus hotels, workshops and food), as well as the pattern of totally ignoring that religion has a massive correlation with quality of life and atheists dismissing theists as “morons” rather than adressing that.

    Schala

    Dads who are incompetent to change diapers. Who can’t put clothing on right on babies. Who can’t hold babies right. Men are too lazy to mow the lawn or do anything inside or around the house. Men who are henpecked by their obviously superior wife/girlfriend, as she controls sex, and he’s a drooling idiot who will do anything to get any. Men can’t laugh at a joke that might imply a rib at women, if they’re with a woman. Women can laugh though, men who would even react negatively towards their partners would be called chauvinists.

    I couldn’t even count the number of TV shows I’ve watch with jokes based entirely on women being bitches. I watched one just recently where apparently every single women ever get’s irrationally angry. And they’re are tons of shows based on the premise of “feminists be crazy”.

    I’m a trans woman. Still ‘legally’ male.

    In canada? I thought we recognized transgender people by their preferred gender.

    Freedom of expression is fucking good, okay?

    Have a look through Greta Christina’s archives. Shes had a few posts on the awesomeness of clothing expression, and often attacks the idea that men shouldn’t use it, or that it’s a women thing.

  316. 316
    Freja

    @ 278 Adiabat

    I read the post very differently. Towards the end he says that it’s not wrong, in the sense that defending yourself against abuse is not wrong.

    But he did not advocate self-defence: “I don’t mean subdue them, or deliver an open handed pop on the face to get them to settle down. I mean literally to grab them by the hair and smack their face against the wall till the smugness of beating on someone because you know they won’t fight back drains from their nose with a few million red corpuscles.And then make them clean up the mess.”

    Most rapists don’t call what they do rape, but it still is. What some people call murder, some people call restoring the family honour. A lot of assaults are described by the attacker as then standing up for themselves and responding to a provocation, even when said “provocation” is nothing more than people dressing in a way the attacker is opposed to.

    Elam was talking about torture: “the practice or act of deliberately inflicting severe physical pain and possibly injury on a person” (wikipedia) “the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.” (dictionary definition). The “make them clean up the mess” could also be seen as slavery, forced labour, and false imprisonment. Just because he defines it as self-defence does not make it so, any more than talking about genocide as doing god’s work would make it less genocide.

    And he states that it should be commensurate with the level of violence you are receiving. He’s phrased it clumsily but this interpretation seems just as valid as yours.

    Are you willing to say the same about Schala’s insistence in post 201 (in response to post 193) that it was fair to categorise Mary Daly’s statement about “an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males” as advocating genocide of men, rather than just being bad at biology and believing the population of men will be reduced via evolution?

    You’re claim relies on not listening to what he says his opinion is, but rather what you believe his real opinion is.

    His real opinion is that it’s not wrong, and that millions of women deserve it, which is what he said. His first reason for why men shouldn’t do it is that it’s not worth the police charges. He does make a small throwaway comment that violence in self-defence should be “in some way” commensurate with the violence of the attack, but considering that he described cold-blooded and needless torture as ‘self-defence’, that’s not saying much (and even if his sense of proportion was working, using equal violence to subdue others is still illegal and wrong if it could have been done with less damage).

    Furthermore, he ends it by calling the men who say “Damn the consequences” heroes to the cause. Considering that the consequences he talked about was getting arrested and enduring anger management (the stuff that happens when you don’t act in self-defence), it’s hard to see how that’s not claiming the violence is justified.

    You may be right, but I don’t feel you have successfully shown that. It’s just as likely that he’s poor at expressing what he really means than he really means something despite saying the opposite.

    You give a rundown other examples of thing Elam has allegedly said, without references, but since I find your previous interpretation to be wrong, or at least one possible interpretation that hasn’t been shown to be the correct one, I must withhold accepting your subsequent characterisation of his position.

    The original article that Ally referred to is a reference (don’t tell me you haven’t read it). There was also the comment by Keith that Elam agreed with, which was brought up earlier, as well as Elam putting a girl in Register-her because of a crime she committed with her boyfriend when she was 12, but not caring the least bit about the boyfriend who was 23 at the time.

    Since you keep asking for references, I’ll post the links here. The post Ally responded to, which I assume you’ve read already:

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/mens-issues/if-you-see-jezebel-in-the-road-run-the-bitch-down/

    Keith’s article which Elam agrees with has been linked to earlier. That article was a response to Elam who wrote about how violence was women’s fault, and they should stop it by only having sex with non-violent men (which ironically would mean women should stay away from the kind of men Elam called heroes in his article about “self-defence”). You can find a link to that in the beginning of Keith’s post, which I’ve linked to (again) here:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20121114032428/http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/domestic-violence-a-long-winded-response-to-paul/

    Notice how the examples he gives are not about men being threatened by women’s violence, but rather of men being violent, or wanting to be violent, because women annoy them and don’t behave as men want (bolded by me):

    “Do you remember your sister driving you to the point of pummelling her when you were a kid? Running off to one of your parents to tell them you had hit her? In retrospect given the age and the circumstance I should have kicked the ever loving shit out of her, maybe it would have civilized her.”

    “The only reason men don’t randomly pound the shit out of women who can’t keep their mouths shut, is because they don’t mean anything to us and they have no power over or in our lives. They are not worth the trouble! That’s the only reason there isn’t bodies strewn all over the streets.”

    “I talked to a guy once who had been charged with assault. He told me of one occasion where he was working in his garage on a project using his router. His partner stuck her head in the door and started on him. He said he “lost it” and threw a hammer in her direction. I asked him why he didn’t throw the router. He said the hammer was cheaper and it wouldn’t break. So he didn’t “lose it”, he knew exactly what the fuck he was doing, end of story. His intent was to scare her into leaving him alone to finish his work. The part he didn’t think about was moving his shit out when the project was done.”

    You might argue that “driving” and “started on him” are synonyms for violence, but I doubt it, since they’re usually used for talking, and with the amount of complaints AVfM has with women who talk, I’m sure they know this. And “women who can’t keep their mouths shut” is pretty obvious.

    Also, here’s the article about the 12 year old murderer murderess:

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/women/murderess-jasmine-richardson-attends-mount-royal-university/

    And finally, trigger warning for those who need it, is Elam’s take on male-’on-female rape (spoilers: Women are asking for it):

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/challenging-the-etiology-of-rape/

    I have a lot of opinions about that piece too, but since this is getting long enough, I’ll wait for your opinion, so I can see where we disagree. I’d like to give you more links, but frankly, I’ve too much personal experience with sexual and domestic violence to want to read through more detailed descriptions of how people like me deserve it, so there’s a limit to how much I think it’s worth it.

  317. 317
    carnation

    @ Sid 314

    Thanks for your reply, but unfortunately it didnt relate to the simple questions that I am asking.

    Here they are again. Don’t dodge it, take it point by point and describe how you wold feel if I made the following statements, apropos of nothing.

    If I said the following, what would you think?

    I find you, as an MRA to be a loathsome, vile piece of human garbage. I find you so pernicious and repugnant that the idea of fucking your shit up arouses me…

    Or:

    our current gender zeitgeist is one that has promoted and enabled such a degree of male narcissism and entitlement that it has now produced two generations of men that are for the most part, shallow, self-serving wastes of human existence—parasites—semi-human black holes that suck resources and goodwill out of women and squander them”

    Or:

    “I don’t give a fuck if men are raped or falsely accused of rape, because of MRAs bringing it up”

  318. 318
    Sid

    Freja

    Why not take the article as the people that know how it was intended? Why bother trying to attache all these meanings to it that aren’t there?

    From the person that wrote the article

    “Three years ago I wrote a satirical, and somewhat belated response to an article on Jezebel.com in which the staff of that publication and their readers were having a grand old time bragging to each other and backslapping over who had been the most physically abusive with their male partners.

    It was the most disgusting display of domestic violence glorification I have seen, before or since.

    I wrote a particularly provocative response to it, in order to demonstrate how that sort of mentality might appear in a scenario where the perpetrator was male and the victim was female. In it, I made some overtly graphic references to the violence and proclaimed that we were declaring a “Bash a Violent Bitch Month.”

    From someone else that understands it.

    “I would like you to address the actual article Paul was satirizing. Yes, Paul’s piece had a great deal of anger but here’s the context:

    A group of people who are often legally and always socially exempt from being held accountable for their violence wrote a triumphalist piece celebrating their violence against the group of people who have few to no legal protections against said violence.

    The original article was beyond disgusting and entirely non-satircal.”

    Seems people here are going to a lot of trouble to misrepresent , smear and false accuse.

    Also because Elam basically said the equivalent of Jehovah, or drawing a cartoon of the prophet in feminist circles, and feminists are so willing to stereotype men in the worst possible ways, people here are having difficulty understanding it.

  319. 319
    Sid

    @carnation

    you ridiculous baboon, I answered that question already further up the thread. There was a long conversation after it about how it sounds like the sort of thing people are used to from feminists and feminists abusing and mocking male help seekers.

    And just like JTO is sick of feminists trying to use rape as a rhetorical bludgeon and cheap trick, I’m sick of your mudslinging, smear tactics and other baboonery.

  320. 320
    Sid

    Whats your goal here baboon carnation

    To convince people that feminists tend to be aggressive, dishonest, nasty, petty false accusers that try to smear people with accusations of misogny while retaining the right to behave in the worst possible ways?

    We all have that impression anyway.

  321. 321
    Jacob Schmidt

    I answered that question already further up the thread.

    No you didn’t. The question what would you say to a feminist that said those things? You’ve never answered that question. Your only response was that feminists do say those things, not what you think of them. Now, what do you think of such statements? More pertinently, what do you think of the fact that they’re rephrasings of MRA statements?

  322. 322
    carnation

    @ Sid 319, 320

    Your responses are again riddled with metaphors and literally make no sense. You haven’t answered the question. The question is simply how you would feel if I made the following statements, apropos of nothing, taking them af face value. Now, if you don’t complete this very simple task, the obvious inference is that you have different standards for men and women, MRAs and feminists. And if this is your starting point, then are you fit for debate?

    So, for at least the eight time, here are some statements, are they acceptable? What type of person would make these statements?

    I find you, as an MRA to be a loathsome, vile piece of human garbage. I find you so pernicious and repugnant that the idea of fucking your shit up arouses me…

    Or:

    our current gender zeitgeist is one that has promoted and enabled such a degree of male narcissism and entitlement that it has now produced two generations of men that are for the most part, shallow, self-serving wastes of human existence—parasites—semi-human black holes that suck resources and goodwill out of women and squander them”

    Or:

    “I don’t give a fuck if men are raped or falsely accused of rape, because of MRAs bringing it up”

  323. 323
    carnation

    @ Sid

    The pressure is growing, people are waiting…

  324. 324
    Schala

    In canada? I thought we recognized transgender people by their preferred gender.

    No, in Ontario sometimes, but not here. Pauline Marois (Quebec Premier) proposed to adopt it, but the opposition said they should examine it closely before (and Pauline only has a minority), so its postponed until Fall. So for now, and since 2005, I’m socially female and legally male.

    I couldn’t even count the number of TV shows I’ve watch with jokes based entirely on women being bitches. I watched one just recently where apparently every single women ever get’s irrationally angry. And they’re are tons of shows based on the premise of “feminists be crazy”.

    I’m sure those shows presume that being irrationally angry all the time is the default female norm. Not at all an outlier worthy of reality TV. /s

    While the buffoon dad is not only on TV, he’s considered incompetent in real life, too. And someone upthread said that the “men are sex-crazed idiots” stereotype was actually true or mostly true.

    If someone says “women are all crazy angry all the time”, he’ll be berated by sensible people as an asshole (which he would be). If someone said “Daddies aren’t able to put diapers on babies properly”, many would nod in agreement – sensible people would. Most little children (5-12) would too. There’s an add for Tide or something, you see two parents folding clothing for young children (who are not shown). Near the end of the ad, she says “let me do the folding, honey”, implying he’s not good at it – and you guessed why, because penis. He could be folding in his own way, but only her way is right.

    Have a look through Greta Christina’s archives. Shes had a few posts on the awesomeness of clothing expression, and often attacks the idea that men shouldn’t use it, or that it’s a women thing.

    I don’t think the real limitations on male clothing are shame and fear of embarrassment, as much as it’s real danger of social reputation becoming non-existent or ruined (some have been fired over it, too – for dressing in women’s clothing OUTSIDE their job), and a real and constant danger of physical assault. Also, no one will think you’re straight, so I hope you like non-traditional women (who think outside the box) or men, because most women will rule you out if they even KNOW about it. The One-Drop rule almost applies, as wearing such clothing counts as almost bedding one guy.

    I can’t understand the repulsion of women (romantically speaking) towards guys who wear more expressive clothing (as opposed to wearing the same old same old as every other guy). It seems almost a fear of being redundant, but that makes little sense.

    The repulsion of men (socially) is obviously explained by not only homophobia, but fear of reputation-damage-by-association – something even trans women experience between themselves (trans women who are seen as cissexual not wanting to associate with visibly gender variant trans women).

    For the record, I’m for the abolition, pure and simple, of all gendered dress codes. Make them non-gendered. There is no bona fide requirement to them in the vast majority of them – including but not limited to schools, prisons, the army, most warehouse jobs, most industrial jobs, most office jobs, most restaurant jobs, most other service jobs that don’t imply showing off one’s body (like a stripteaser, a prostitute, a topmodel).

    Requiring short back and side, no longer than the ear, for boys – makes no sense, ever, no reason, except to maintain norms.

    Requiring no jewelry, for boys, where it’s not a danger to the job (machinery) also makes no sense.

    Requiring high heels or make-up makes sense only in public jobs like waittress and barmaid (or jobs where you outright get a makeover for it, like theater and TV).

    Requiring long pants for men, but allowing knee-length skirts for women also makes no sense. It’s not “more casual to wear shorts” and it’s not “more feminine to wear skirts”.

    One standard to rule them all, please.

    Love how Lafayette in True Blood can go around and no one seems to care how he looks. Sure, he’s one of the least strange people around, but its still nice.

  325. 325
    Sid

    Baboons

    What type of person would make those statements?

    1) Someone who is tired of feminists behaviour and lying about domestic violence rates and men and is looking forward to exposing these lies in public.

    2) Someone who is sick of female entitlement and has some issues with women that they need to address, much like some of the individuals you find in feminism.

    3) Someone who is sick of feminists using rape and rape victims as a rhetorical bludgeon.

    What is the big deal?

  326. 326
    Schala

    The pressure is growing, people are waiting…

    I think Sid decided to do the sensible thing and skip your posts, the same as I do. So I don’t think there’ll be an answer to your non-questions.

  327. 327
    Sid

    Oh I get what the big deal is, same thing as the satirical article you think that feminists and women as sort of a special class and its a type of her heracy for men to speak back about feminists and women in a similar way that feminists have been treating mras and men.

    How misogynist of you.

  328. 328
    carnation

    @ Sid 325

    No, you’re answering the question you want to answer, which has no place in a mature discussion. Note the sex and political persuasion of the people in the statements.

    Once more, if I made the following statements, what would you think?

    I’ll break this down as simply as I can. I want you to imagine that the following statements are made, by me, in a discussion. React to them as you would normally. Comment on the language and tone, the bias of the person making the statement. Or, alternatively, admit that you can’t engage in mature discussion.

    Once again:

    I find you, as an MRA to be a loathsome, vile piece of human garbage. I find you so pernicious and repugnant that the idea of fucking your shit up arouses me…

    Or:

    our current gender zeitgeist is one that has promoted and enabled such a degree of male narcissism and entitlement that it has now produced two generations of men that are for the most part, shallow, self-serving wastes of human existence—parasites—semi-human black holes that suck resources and goodwill out of women and squander them”

    Or:

    “I don’t give a fuck if men are raped or falsely accused of rape, because of MRAs bringing it up”

  329. 329
    carnation

    @ Sid 327

    I didn’t say any of that. I made a series of derogatory statements about MRAs and men and invited you to inform everyone if they were acceptable or not.

    It’s really very simple.

    Or, condemn them?

    Or admit you have double standards?

  330. 330
    Sid

    Scala@326

    you’re right, carnations not the only fool, I am responding to their nonsense.

    Carnation, you really are pathetic, the lengths you to to feel better and morally superior to others. You are neither of these things, you are just a baboon flinging feces around an internet forum while acting like you are something important.

    Nobody is fooled but you and maybe a few of the other baboons who take your behavior as being normal.

  331. 331
    Jacob Schmidt

    Schala

    No, in Ontario sometimes, but not here.

    Go Ontario? That’s fucked up.

    I’m sure those shows presume that being irrationally angry all the time is the default female norm. Not at all an outlier worthy of reality TV.

    The show actually phrased it as a deliberate thing women do to manipulate men (Cougar Town, for those curious). They somehow also phrased it as women being too irrational to control their emotions if men didn’t carefully watch and judge their actions.

    I don’t think the real limitations on male clothing are shame and fear of embarrassment, as much as it’s real danger of social reputation becoming non-existent or ruined (some have been fired over it, too – for dressing in women’s clothing OUTSIDE their job), and a real and constant danger of physical assault. Also, no one will think you’re straight, so I hope you like non-traditional women (who think outside the box) or men, because most women will rule you out if they even KNOW about it. The One-Drop rule almost applies, as wearing such clothing counts as almost bedding one guy.

    All of which Greta attacks. I was being concise. And do you mean ‘One drop of colour”? I can’t count the number of times I’ve gone around in bright coloured clothing without issue (though I do wear a lot of black, since my jobs can be dirty (also, I’m not a fan of colour in the first place)).

    For the record, I’m for the abolition, pure and simple, of all gendered dress codes.

    I’m planning on going into work one of these days wearing a knee length skirt (we’re not allowed to wear shorts, but women get skirts; it can get really hot). I think it’ll be fun. Maybe I’ll actually enjoy it, and I’ll do more than prove a point.

    I’ve gone in with nail polish on (deep purple). One woman gathered the entire department to have a chat with me about why I was being ridiculous. The entire department thought she was being an idiot. I’d do it again (I like purple), but I suck at doing it myself, and it’s really a pain in the ass to do properly. I need to use a base, then I need two or three coats. Plus, the brush is tiny compared to my nails.

  332. 332
    Sid

    Carnation.

    I don’t have double standards.

    Its fine for mra’s to speak back to feminists the same way feminists see fit to speak to mra’s.

    You dont get that about satirical article, you think mra’s speaking back to feminists the way feminists have spoken to them is like saying Jehovah, that’s why you wave these quotes around as if they are proof of something.

    Whats blasphemy to a Muslim, is not blasphemy to a non Muslim, can you comprehend that you baboon?

  333. 333
    Jacob Schmidt

    What is the big deal?

    Sid’s major contribution to this thread summed up in 5 words.

  334. 334
    carnation

    @ Sid 330

    Sid, I’ve explained to you repeatedly that your use of metaphors are meaningless in debate. That is, you write words that don’t serve a purpose and that often don’t make sense.

    We’re at a stage now where your hypocrisy has been amply demonstrated. Describing me as a “baboon” doesn’t hide that, neither does the support of another MRA.

    @ Sid 332

    “I don’t have double standards.

    Its fine for mra’s to speak back to feminists the same way feminists see fit to speak to mra’s.”

    So it’s acceptable for someone to describe MRAs as “human garbage” and to experience sexual excitement by “fucking their shit up”? Is that what you’re saying?

    What satirical argument are you talking about? No satirical article informed the statements I made.

    Is it acceptable to describe “two generations of men that are for the most part, shallow, self-serving wastes of human existence—parasites—semi-human black holes that suck resources and goodwill out of women and squander them”

    If it’s acceptable not to give a fuck about male rape victims, or men who’ve been falsely accused of rape (because of MRA “promotion” of these causes), then why do you care?

    You’re digging yourself into a hole, Sid…

  335. 335
    Freja

    @ 279 Schala

    Girlwriteswhat makes a compelling case that being beholden to responsibilities means having rights to fulfill said responsibilities, while not having any responsibility, in bad times, means taking from those who have to fulfill their duty.

    You are acting as if the women in countries like Afghanistan have less responsibility than the men to make up for their lesser power, but for the most part, that’s simply not true, quite the contrary. One of the most obvious example is sex, where women are much more harshly condemned and punished for pre-marital sex, and often the only ones punished for infidelity. And they are held to far higher standards of modesty, which means they have to constantly be aware of their body, where it is, how it moves, etc., and put countless limitations on themselves which they are responsible for upholding.

    They also have a responsibility of defending themselves against men who would have sex with them, but they often aren’t allowed to use violence. In one case, I think in Saudi Arabia, an 18 year old girl was sentenced to death for killing a man, even though the judge acknowledged that he was attempting to rape her. But if he had succeeded in raping her, without four male witnesses, she could have been stoned to death for promiscuity. In Pakistan, the family of a girl who spoke up about being gang raped have recently been told to kill her for it. Not only do these women have a responsibility to stop men from raping them, they also have a responsibility for protecting the rapists while doing it.

    These women also work a lot, since most of Afghanistan is on a technological level where there is still plenty of work to do in the house, they’re just not paid for it or recognised as contributing anything by people like you. In countries where they have slightly fewer restrictions (but still very little power) they often work more than men. Furthermore, their lives are not less dangerous than men’s just because they’re directly killed less. Because they’re usually prevented from becoming doctors, and at the same time prevented from seeing male doctors because of modesty issues, it means they die in situations where men in a similar condition are likely to survive.

    If you add that food shortages often result in women, and especially girls, being feed less, the containment in the home (not healthy), and that girls/women have a whole bunch of sex-specific issues which makes the lack of medical care even more disastrous, especially when coupled with a lack of birth control and the right to refuse sex, it all adds up to women dying before their time because of the gender roles in their culture, but getting ignored in the debate because they don’t count as having been killed.

    And finally, when people have more power, they also have more power to make bad decisions. This includes joining the Taliban. While some men are forced, plenty also choose that risk. They’re not victims of their freedom because of it, anymore than women join the US army and get hurt are victims of their newfound freedom. They (with their male comrades) are often plenty of victim to the bad decisions of their superiors, but the freedom itself is not the issue.

    In short, if someone who doesn’t need to work (because they don’t need to sustain themselves, according to law itself – it’s ALL disposable income), them being allowed and able to work is secondary to people who MUST support their family or be judged as responsible for their very deaths by starvation

    But women do need to sustain themselves. They need to eat just like men do, and food don’t just pop into existence for them. The only difference is that they’re mostly limited to prostitution (which they can get killed for) and doing unpaid work for male masters in the hopes of getting food from them.

    And in addition to the domestic labour part of this unpaid work often being a much bigger burden than you give it credit for, the work also effectively includes being a 24 hour prostitute for him, voluntarily or not, since prosecuting marital rape is next to impossible. If they were paid for that work, they’d mostly earn more than their masters. And the thing is, when the masters starve, so do the servants. It’s not like being dependant on someone else’s income prevents their losses from affecting you, it just prevents you from doing anything about it.

    Though I still think that it means that, on the balance, women tend to have it worse than men – over there (I value freedom more than protection if I have to choose JUST one).

    How is it safe to be married away at 10 (50% of Afghan girls are married or engaged at that age) to a man who may consummate the marriage before your body is ready, risk being killed if you offend his imaginary honour, be forced into a less healthy lifestyle and then not be given the same medical aid as a man, and then having to give birth to child after child, with a 1/62.5 chance of it killing you? Does safety from sexual and domestic violence just not count? Or safety in the form of medical aid?

    Do something egalitarian for children. And then there’ll be no block or resentment towards women working, or getting education. They’ll have equal rights and burdens with the men.

    That’s the problem, they wont. If women who’re mostly secluded in the house can already be blamed for everything from earthquakes, the Fall of Man, and their own rapes, I doubt involving them in more aspects of society will result in less blame. They’ll keep their specifically female responsibilities, such as modesty, children, housework, and all the other stuff you conveniently forget when you talk about women not having to work and having no responsibilities, and because the gender biases will not disappear by themselves, women will also be less likely to get jobs that pay enough to provide for themselves, forcing them to still rely on men, while simultaneously being told that they’re just being lazy.

    Seriously, I’m all for allowing women greater participation, but in several heavily patriarchal countries with fewer restrictions on women, where women toil in the fields even longer than men (and do all the other unpaid work that Afghan women do too), they’re still held to impossible standards of modesty, still denied reproductive rights and medial care, still financially dependant on the men who own it all, still have very little say in their own lives, and are still told it’s all their fault.

  336. 336
    Sid

    Can you answer that question thought JS, without the baboon snark or some other bullshit.

    Why do you see it as a big deal if mra’s speak the same to feminists, that feminists have been speaking to mras for a long time now?

    Is there a correct way to speak to the ladies, are their ears delicate, are men invulnerable and women ineffective and weak so when feminists do it it doesn’t count, is that whats underlying your position, are you even aware thats underlying your positon?

    Why is treating feminists the way they treat mras blasphemy in your eyes?

  337. 337
    carnation

    @ 326 Schala

    There have been several weak, avoiding answers.

  338. 338
    Ally Fogg

    Let’s try an easy one then, Sid

    “Its fine for mra’s to speak back to feminists the same way feminists see fit to speak to mra’s.”

    Question: Is it fine for feminists to speak back to MRAs the same way MRAs see fit to speak to feminists?

  339. 339
    Schala

    And do you mean ‘One drop of colour”? I can’t count the number of times I’ve gone around in bright coloured clothing without issue (though I do wear a lot of black, since my jobs can be dirty (also, I’m not a fan of colour in the first place)).

    I mean one-drop as in those men are often considered the same as any man who has EVER slept with a man – branded gay for life, if only socially.

    Women can experiment, call this lesbian-until-graduation, and then claim they are straight as an arrow later, even if their experimentation gets known. A man, well, he must be secretly gay. He tried it once, he’ll obviously do so again. And gay men are stereotyped as hypersexual even more than straight men (trans women are the most hypersexual of them all, according to very prevalent stereotypes – and even a theory called autogynephilia).

    I also prefer black to colors.

    I’m planning on going into work one of these days wearing a knee length skirt (we’re not allowed to wear shorts, but women get skirts; it can get really hot). I think it’ll be fun. Maybe I’ll actually enjoy it, and I’ll do more than prove a point.

    It can be fun, and it’s less hot in the crotch this way. Skirted garments (wether tunics, sarongs, robes, or just skirted armors) have been the unisex norm for millenia. Pants are a recent invention (well medieval) to facilitate horseback riding. It’s only recently become a female-only garment, and only in some parts of the world. I have a picture of Roosevelt as a child, wearing a pretty dress…a unisex dress. Until ‘breeching’ every kid wore dresses.

  340. 340
    Freja

    @ 324 Schala

    And someone upthread said that the “men are sex-crazed idiots” stereotype was actually true or mostly true.

    A specific reference would be nice. Also, I recently posted some of Elam’s articles (and one he agreed with), where he’s being extremely gender deterministic. But so far, you have not criticised him or any part of the MRA. Since I have seen you on a lot of feminist blogs criticising feminism (and on anti-feminist blog criticising feminism), so I’m curious to know if you have ever levelled any criticism at any part of the MRM?

  341. 341
    carnation

    @ Sid 336

    Who mentioned blasphemy? And if you read the statements that I asked you to comment on, you’ll note that they were directed against men and MRAs.

    It’s really very simple, your avoidance very obvious.

    Sid, you surely do realise that the reason you aren’t answering directly is because you’re uncomfortable with the hypocrisy? That’s called cognitive dissonance. It’s a feeling of discomfort caused by having two opposing points if view.

    Point one: It’s acceptable for MRAs today those things about women and feminists

    Point two: It’s UNACCEPTABLE for anyone to make equivalent statements against MRAs and men.

    It’s simply impossible to have both points of view, unless you value women less than men.

  342. 342
    Jacob Schmidt

    Why do you see it as a big deal if mra’s speak the same to feminists, that feminists have been speaking to mras for a long time now?

    Find me 1 quote of a feminist saying “fucking up your shit arouses me”, or anything similar. I will condemn it on the spot.

    Is there a correct way to speak to the ladies, are their ears delicate, are men invulnerable and women ineffective and weak so when feminists do it it doesn’t count, is that whats underlying your position, are you even aware thats underlying your positon?

    Your punctuation escaped you there.

    Yes, there is a correct way to speak to women, insofar as women are people. Unprovoked threats of fucking their shit up is out of line. Is this really that difficult? (yes, for you it is)

    And honestly, I’ve condemned every bit of misandry in this thread. What the bloody fuck are you talking about?

  343. 343
    Freja

    Add me to the people who would like to see Sid address any of the points that have been brought up and provide some concrete evidence for his own.

  344. 344
    Sid

    Hi Ally, don’t try to patronize me please.

    Is it find for feminists to speak back to mra’s the way mra’s see fit to speak to feminists.

    I think that would be an improvement in the gender debate. I’ve seen many feminist visit mra areas, when the come like they are are here, which is most of the time, assuming superiority and talking down their nose its a shit fight, the ones that have come being genuine are treated with respect.

    While the other side of the coin, being an mra, male help seeker or advocate for male victims has pretty much guaranteed abusive treatment in feminist areas.

    I said further up, one of the roots to being an mra is going to feminists for help with abuse, and being abused and mocked and accused of derailing and so on.

    It was this brick wall of mockery and abuse that lead the mens movement to decide to radicalize.

  345. 345
    Jacob Schmidt

    Freja

    That would be unfamilar, who said this: “Not being a male, you obviously don’t get this joke. It’s because unlike women, men are fertile and ready to inseminate something always, biologically-speaking, so imagine what a guy’s internal hardware must be. Those old cliches about guys thinking about sex all the time are because in puberty, that’s exactly what happens. That’s why its such a popular trope, because it makes every man laugh at himself and his own inner demons he’s conquered for the sake of civilization.

  346. 346
    carnation

    @ Sid, Jacob, Ally, Freja, Schala

    I find it hopeful that Sid has such difficulty with this. Like I have said, it suggests very strongly that he disagrees with the statements against men and MRAs, seeing the hypocrisy in this can only be a positive step.

  347. 347
    Schala

    so I’m curious to know if you have ever levelled any criticism at any part of the MRM?

    Yes, I disavow membership with them because some extreme elements make me uncomfortable. I don’t know (or care) if they’re as bad as radical feminists in their ideas. They obviously have less influence on politics. When extreme MRAs have influence on politics I’ll criticize them specifically.

    I also tend to avoid radical feminists. At least the TERF ones. It was a bit masochistic to want to argue with them on MWMF board. But it was specifically about trans stuff.

    I have no specific problem with even extreme MRAs. Those that are transphobic (like the Spearhead) are rehashing traditional arguments, from a right-wing conservative perspective. Which is only a tiny bit different than TERF arguments which are rehashing traditional arguments, from a left-wing anarchist perspective. The fun thing is – they’re the same arguments, they just don’t use the same terms. I can argue with a leftist, telling them they’re doing leftism wrong. But the right-wing guy? He’s doing right-wing stuff right: being an asshole. I was just expecting more from the left. I gave up on the right when I was 10 years old.

    I criticize feminism because it has power, it has influence, it has driven if not outright written policies around DV, around rape, around a plethora of other issues. And it has written many of them wrongly. Since I believe SOME of it is salvageable, I criticize. Men’s rights are only starting out. Traditionalists? Won’t even listen to me – lost cause.

  348. 348
    Sid

    Hi freja.

    I asked you further up why not consider what the satirical meaning of the article is from people that actual know and wrote it instead of attaching all these meaning to it that aren’t there and you ignored it.

    Next thing you are down here, projecting.

  349. 349
    AndrewV69, Visiting MRA, Purveyor of Piffle & Woo

    #331, Jacob Schmidt

    “I’m planning on going into work one of these days wearing a knee length skirt (we’re not allowed to wear shorts, but women get skirts; it can get really hot).”

    You could wear a kilt like I do. I am wearing one right now as a matter of fact.

  350. 350
    Schala

    “A specific reference would be nice.”

    Post 301 near the bottom.

  351. 351
    carnation

    @ Sid

    You’re very quick to take offence, think people are “patronising” you or “taking down their nose at you” or “acting morally superior”.

    The quickest way to confound these alleged feelings is to robustly defend your points of view. You have a platform right now to do just that.

    You have thus far avoided answering a very straightforward set of questions, which will lead people to conclude that you are unable, or unwilling, to think critically.

    You’re very much on your own, other MRA sympathisers have distanced themselves. You yourself noted that many of Paul Elam’s comments are rejected by Reddit men’s rights. So, with this in mind, is it so difficult to condemn as unacceptable, sexist, misandrist and hateful the following comments, made against men and MRAs:
    I find you, as an MRA to be a loathsome, vile piece of human garbage. I find you so pernicious and repugnant that the idea of fucking your shit up arouses me…

    Or:

    our current gender zeitgeist is one that has promoted and enabled such a degree of male narcissism and entitlement that it has now produced two generations of men that are for the most part, shallow, self-serving wastes of human existence—parasites—semi-human black holes that suck resources and goodwill out of women and squander them”

    Or:

    “I don’t give a fuck if men are raped or falsely accused of rape, because of MRAs bringing it up”

    For the record, I don’t find any MRAs to be “human garbage”, I find them misguided. I don’t view men as largely “parasites” – the vast majority of men are warm, compassionate human beings. And I care if anyone is sexually assaulted or falsely accused of a crime.

  352. 352
    Sid

    So Ally etc.

    Why are you insisting that there are all these other, hidden meanings to the satirical article instead of addressing what what was actually meant by the article according to the author and people that actually know what its about?

    Also , why shouldn’t mra’s speak back (satirically) in the same way that feminists are speaking non satirically?

    Why is this blasphemy?

  353. 353
    Ally Fogg

    Sid

    I think that would be an improvement in the gender debate.

    So then you think it would be an improvement if feminists wrote things like these?

    I find you, as an MRA to be a loathsome, vile piece of human garbage. I find you so pernicious and repugnant that the idea of fucking your shit up arouses me…

    our current gender zeitgeist is one that has promoted and enabled such a degree of male narcissism and entitlement that it has now produced two generations of men that are for the most part, shallow, self-serving wastes of human existence—parasites—semi-human black holes that suck resources and goodwill out of women and squander them”

    “I don’t give a fuck if men are raped or falsely accused of rape, because of MRAs bringing it up”

    Really? You sure about that?

  354. 354
    Jacob Schmidt

    Why are you insisting that there are all these other, hidden meanings to the satirical article instead of addressing what what was actually meant by the article according to the author and people that actually know what its about?

    And we’re back to post 158. Congragulations, Sid. You’re 200 posts behind.

  355. 355
    carnation

    @ Sid

    Nobody is talking about blasphemy, nobody is mentioning, using or comparing satirical articles. You’re either very confused, out of your depth, or hoping you can bamboozle readers with random reasons not to answer.

    The comments I put to you were not inspired by satirical articles.

    The only person talking about blasphemy is you.

    Nobody is talking about how women need special attention paid to them, except you. You are fantasising.

    Go,and read #351

    Trust me, everyone on this blog, including MRAs (I am sure) would be impressed if you were rigorously honest in answering the points.

  356. 356
    Sid

    Ally, feminists have been saying things like that for decades, and worse.

    How do you think the gender debate go so balkinized in the first place?

  357. 357
    Sid

    Look at this Ally, I’ve been relentlessly mobbed here, now you are getting in on the act.

    Do you know what mobbing is, its bullying. There has been an unwritten rule in feminist areas that being a mens advocate and male help seeker means free pass on abuse and bullying.

    So Ally, why not address the actual meaning of the satirical article instead of making up things about it?

    Are you the English manboobz? Its the same thing there, misrepresentation, mobbing, bullying ….

  358. 358
    Freja

    @ 347 Schala

    Yes, I disavow membership with them because some extreme elements make me uncomfortable.

    That wasn’t what I was asking. I asked if you ever criticised them.

    I don’t know (or care) if they’re as bad as radical feminists in their ideas.

    So you don’t actually know what the MRM stands for, but you’re still in favour of giving it a free pass? What about religious conservatism? Do you have any examples of you criticising that?

    @ 348 Sid

    I asked you further up why not consider what the satirical meaning of the article is from people that actual know and wrote it instead of attaching all these meaning to it that aren’t there and you ignored it.

    Next thing you are down here, projecting.

    I didn’t reply to you because I was busy replying to others, and because you already had enough to see to, with having avoided to address the points of any single post in this whole debate. Here’s a reply:

    You didn’t write it, and so your opinion on it is no more authoritative than mine.

  359. 359
    carnation

    Sid, several people wanting clarification isn’t bullying.

    That said, I’m off for a G and T

  360. 360
    Ally Fogg

    Sid (352)

    Why are you insisting that there are all these other, hidden meanings to the satirical article instead of addressing what what was actually meant by the article according to the author and people that actually know what its about?

    The meanings I ascribed to it weren’t hidden. They are overt. As plain as the nose on my face. As I said in the OP, Elam was revelling in a fantasy of violence against women. You don’t need to textual analysis to see that, it is right there in the words on the page. To deny that is to argue that up is down, black is white.

    Now what Elam believes, and you seem to agree, is that he was justified in revelling in a fantasy of violent revenge. He had reasons. The piece he was responding to was so horrific that any written response would be justified.

    And I am arguing that this is moral, ethical and political horseshit. I am arguing that writing hatespeech of this nature is never acceptable as a response to anything. it’s the moral philosophy of the kindergarten playground, FFS.

    Why is this blasphemy?

    It’s not blasphemy. Fantasising about smashing people’s faces in for revenge is not blasphemy. Joking about running people down with a car or throttling them against a wall is not blasphemy.

    It is not blasphemy. It is sheer undisguised hatred, it is guaranteed to alienate and repulse anyone who isn’t as immersed in the same hatred as you. It is also politically idiotic for anyone with pretensions to serious social change.

    And, for the record, it is not measurably better or worse than the similarly ironic and satirical hateful fantasies of Valerie Solanas, Femitheist Divine or Vliet Tiptree on the other side.

    The only difference is there is nobody on this thread attempting to defend Valerie Solanas et al.

  361. 361
    Schala

    @358

    Reread my post, you probably missed things. Your questions will answer themselves.

  362. 362
    Ally Fogg

    Sid

    Look at this Ally, I’ve been relentlessly mobbed here, now you are getting in on the act.

    Sid, you must have posted more comments on this blog than any other commenter. You’ve made a whole bunch of sweeping claims, including accusing me of being a sexist hypocrite, calling other people baboons and worse. You’ve engaged people in conversations and then when they’ve replied to you and asked you perfectly reasonable questions in response you have evaded them and changed the subject and called them more names.

    You are very welcome to make your points here, if ever any comment aimed at you breaches any of my guidelines then you are very welcome to ask me to delete it and I’ll give it a fair decision.

    But you are not going to play the bully card. That’s just a fucking joke.

  363. 363
    Schala

    Yes, I disavow membership with them because some extreme elements make me uncomfortable. I don’t know (or care) if they’re as bad as radical feminists in their ideas. They obviously have less influence on politics. When extreme MRAs have influence on politics I’ll criticize them specifically.

    <- Here talking about extreme MRAs, JUST extreme MRAs, not regular MRAs,

    So you don’t actually know what the MRM stands for, but you’re still in favour of giving it a free pass? What about religious conservatism? Do you have any examples of you criticising that?

    I don’t go to blogs about it. I don’t even know blogs about it. There is not even a possibility of *talking* to them, wether in real life, or online. I’m agnostic, and oppose all religious impositions on secular society. I will criticize any such opposition. And I’ll criticize Canadian bills against abortions, if there is ever one (highly unlikely).

  364. 364
    Schala

    “I will criticize any such opposition” -> imposition

    I give a pass to moderate MRAs, because they don’t rely on flawed failed dogma, so there isn’t anything to criticize about it.

  365. 365
    Sid

    Ally

    Why don’t you address the real meaning and context of the satirical article, why did you feel the need to misrepresent and attach meanings to it that were not there?

    Why is it blasphemy when mras (satirically) speak back to feminists the way they were speaking non satirically?

    Why is it (bizarrely) on a par with the systemic erasure and exclusion of millions of abuse victims and protection of millions of abusers?

    Why are you ignoring the context?

    “A group of people who are often legally and always socially exempt from being held accountable for their violence wrote a triumphalist piece celebrating their violence against the group of people who have few to no legal protections against said violence.

    The original article was beyond disgusting and entirely non-satircal.”

    “I wrote a particularly provocative response to it, in order to demonstrate how that sort of mentality might appear in a scenario where the perpetrator was male and the victim was female. In it, I made some overtly graphic references to the violence and proclaimed that we were declaring a “Bash a Violent Bitch Month.”

    Now, I knew at the time the possible reaction to this kind of satire. And as the fumbling Fogg has just linked to it again, three years later, it seems my call on the reaction was not far off the mark. So, when I wrote it, I was sure to include a few words which were completely accurate, if not wholly traditional in satire. I said, in reference to the proposed violence and the “Bash a Violent Bitch Month,” the following:”

    To everyone else that’s mobbing, get lost. I’ve no time for people that think internet bullying is good sport – baboons.

  366. 366
    Freja

    @ Schala

    <- Here talking about extreme MRAs, JUST extreme MRAs, not regular MRAs,

    So you have never criticised MRAs?

    I don’t go to blogs about it. I don’t even know blogs about it. There is not even a possibility of *talking* to them, wether in real life, or online.

    You don’t know any extreme MRA blogs? You think AVfM and the Spearhead are moderate?

    “I will criticize any such opposition” -> imposition

    So again, you have never actually criticised an MRA?

    I give a pass to moderate MRAs, because they don’t rely on flawed failed dogma, so there isn’t anything to criticize about it.

    How can you know about their dogma if you don’t read their works? You don’t think Elam’s gender essentialist notions are flawed? Warren Farrell’s ideas of bodily autonomy? Anything?

  367. 367
    Ally Fogg

    Why don’t you address the real meaning and context of the satirical article, why did you feel the need to misrepresent and attach meanings to it that were not there?

    If by the real meaning and the context of the satirical article – I presume you mean the point that the Jezebel piece was loathsome, repugnant and unjustifiable? That it reflected widespread indifference to violence against men?

    There’s nothing else to say about it! It’s true, I’ve said it myself repeatedly and unreservedly. I’ve condemned the specific article repeatedly and I’ve written about the broader issue repeatedly. What else do you want me to say about it? That is done and dusted and as far as I can see, not even up for debate, at least at this blog.

    this discussion is not about the Jezebel article. Nobody is defending the Jezebel article. This discussion is down to the fact that one person in particular is defending the AVfM article.

  368. 368
    Jacob Schmidt

    Just so we’re clear, as no one has commented on it, Tamen’s response (217) to our requests of feminists dismissing actual discussion of male rape victims seems to be pretty accurate.

  369. 369
    Ally Fogg

    Thanks for that Jacob [368]

    I didn’t get sucked into that part of the discussion, but what Tamen was saying does tally with my experience.

    Whenever I write about men’s issues, on their own terms, in their own space, I can guarantee that I will get one or two snarky messages over one or other medium that is along the lines of WATM.

    I’ve even had sneers on topics like men’s mental health and suicide, which is pretty fucking gross.

    It’s not the most endearing streak within feminism.

  370. 370
    Jacob Schmidt

    I didn’t get sucked into that part of the discussion, but what Tamen was saying does tally with my experience.

    Truth be told, I don’t doubt it happens (though I can’t attest to seeing it before today; maybe I need to get out more?). I doubt Sid’s characterization of it (that all uses of WATM are dismissals of victims). It’s a problem with slogans, particularly; people take them to simplistically, and they get misused.

    I’ve even had sneers on topics like men’s mental health and suicide, which is pretty fucking gross.

    It’s not the most endearing streak within feminism.

    Indeed.

  371. 371
    Sid

    No Ally,

    you presented that satirical article here without context, tried to lead people here that are already primed to buy into neanderthal wife beater stereotypes that it was an actual call for violence and bizarrely said it is was on a par with the systematic erasure of millions of abuse victims and protection of millions of abusers, you also tried the sell the old feminist smear tactic of some inexplicable and irrational agenda to obstruct services for female abuse victims.

    And then you wonder why the men’s movement radicalized against feminism.

    Look at the way you misrepresent, look at the way the baboons think mra means white card for disrespect and abuse.

    This is nothing new, its normal. Going right back to the intimidation of Erin Pizzey and her family, and the public abuse of of Neil Lyndon to the casual mockery and abuse of male help seekers on feminist forum to the behaviour the the baboons here, that’s decades of abuse, disrespect and mockery.

    Its decades of that sort of abuse, and that eventually lead to the decision to radicalize, decades of dealing with people like the baboons here. That’s why you get people like Paul getting excited about the prospect of publicly exposing this story and the anti-male narrative coming apart.

  372. 372
    Schala

    Freja, you obviously can’t comprehend the basic English in my posts, so I won’t reply.

    I talk about religious conservatives and you think it’s MRAs, wow.

  373. 373
    Sid

    actually Ally, it might be real to you – that the systematic erasure of millions of male abuse victims and protection of millions of female abusers and the decades of anit-male DV propaganda is on a par with that satirical article.

    If that is the case, that’s male disposibility, the compassion gap, a permissive attitude for female on male abuse and pedestalizing women right there. You are part of the problem we are trying to weed out.

  374. 374
    Sid

    @Freja

    “I didn’t reply to you because I was busy replying to others, and because you already had enough to see to, with having avoided to address the points of any single post in this whole debate”

    Don’t be so hypocritical as to paint me in a bad light because I don’t have the time to answer several mobbing freethough baboons flinging their feces at me at once while reserving the right to be too busy answering other peoples questions to answer mine as soon as I asked it.

    Thanks.

  375. 375
    Jacob Schmidt

    Sid

    You responded multiple times; you were just unwilling to condemn despicable statements as such. Two separate things.

  376. 376
    Freja

    @ 372 Schala

    Freja, you obviously can’t comprehend the basic English in my posts, so I won’t reply.

    I talk about religious conservatives and you think it’s MRAs, wow.

    English is not my first language, so you might be right about that. The conversation had until that point been about MRAs, so I figured that was what you were talking about, especially because you did not quote the question about religious conservatism seperately. It’s fine if you don’t want to continue, but I’d appreciate if you responded to my earlier reply in post 335 to your implications about women in Afghanistan being safer, having no responsibilities, and not needing to work.

  377. 377
    johngreg

    Jacob Schmidt, at 370, http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013/07/03/dear-paul-elam/#comment-4859 said:

    Truth be told, I don’t doubt it happens (though I can’t attest to seeing it before today; maybe I need to get out more?)

    If you spend a few weeks reading at Skepchick.org (not that you’d want to, particularily), you will see the WAtM comment quite frequently, especially from commenter marilove who seems to use it to shut people up on an almost weekly basis.

    I’ve seen it used as a derailer or convo-stopper on a few FfTB blogs, but not all that often. But it does indeed show up at Skepchick a lot.

  378. 378
    Jacob Schmidt

    I’ve seen it used at Skepchick, always on people derailing though. I don’t object to such uses, as that is exactly what it was meant for. I only read Skepchick spuriously, though, so maybe it’s just slipping through the cracks.

  379. 379
    municipalis

    Adiabat: If you are wanting to discuss the issue of allowing this evidence in court then I don’t think the extreme ends of the spectrum are useful. We can both think up extreme examples. That’s why I’ve suggested discussing situations where reasonable doubt is only just established.

    In Canada, disclosure of previous wrongdoing in criminal trials is generally not permitted; it’s known as “similar-fact” evidence in legal jargon. As you can read in the wiki link above, the case which set this precedent, R. v. Handy, at issue was whether the fact that the defendant had had seven past charges for sexual assault filed against him should be allowed into evidence in a trial for – you guessed it – sexual assault. I assume that similar rules exist, to different extents, in both the UK and US.

    In Handy, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that this evidence was inadmissible, but laid out stringent criteria on which such evidence would be permitted.

    In essence, the danger with same-fact evidence is that it hugely prejudicial to the defendant. The defendant is on trial for a specific instance of a crime, and what you want to avoid is a finding of guilt based on his/her previous history. The fact that Mr. Handy had seven previous charges for sexual assault against him would make many people automatically assume he’s guilty the eighth time. With such a disclosure, the onus has changed from “innocent unless proven guilty”, to “guilty until proven innocent”.

    For obvious reasons, the same standard is frequently applied to witness and victim testimony. The fact that a victim had previously alleged rape unsuccessfully against a person will likely be extremely prejudicial to the judge’s/jury’s opinion of whether or not she (or he) was actually raped in the case at hand. Justice is blind, in more ways than one.

    Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer, so don’t rely on this as legal advice.

  380. 380
    Sid

    JS

    Why would I concede something to people that I know only too well have no intention of conceding anything themselves? You’re baboons, internet bullies. I know exactly how you operate.

    Why would I help people that are only interested in condemnation, judging and pretending they are morally superior when they are anything but?

    Besides, as I think I have already said to that pretentious fool carnation.

    No2 was the only one that’s problematic and with the genders reversed is sounds like the sort of thing that is wide spread among a certain type feminist, and I reserve the same freedom of speech for mras that feminists have for themselves.

    No3, who isn’t sick the back teeth of feminists using rape and rape victims as a bludgeon, shaming tactic and cheap rhetorical trick. John is right, the constant rape mongering of feminists is going to wear down peoples will to care, which is what he was actually saying, (of course that baboon carnation didnt include that important context).

    No1, so what if Elam said the thought of feminist lies and bullying being exposed in the public arouses him?

    You’re like a muslim expecting a danish cartoonist to condemn cartoons of the prophet. These things aren’t the great sins that you seem to think they are.

    If you want to look at bad behavior in the gender debate, look at threats and intimidation against DV researchers, or the way feminists typically think mra means free pass on bullying and abuse or feminists bullying male help seekers.

    If you were not typically such nasty pieces of work, while thinking your hate and bullying is right and just, or covering up abuse and excluding men … there wouldn’t have been a decision made to radicalize and take down feminism in the first place.

    Feminist misandry, imagined superiority, smear tactics, unwillingness to concede, and bullying is its own worst enemy.

  381. 381
    Freja

    Sid, I was just wondering, if you and Elam thinks it’s OK to preach hate, as long as the person saying it don’t really mean it and it was just for fun, what’s the problem with Katherine Heigl? She was put on Register-Her as a ‘bigot’ because she jokingly talked about her hatred of testicles and her desire to castrate men. Why is that not OK, when it was clearly a joke, while Elam’s ‘satire’, which is pretty close in both tone and content to his regular pieces, is just fine? When is humour OK?

  382. 382
    Schala

    It’s fine if you don’t want to continue, but I’d appreciate if you responded to my earlier reply in post 335 to your implications about women in Afghanistan being safer, having no responsibilities, and not needing to work.

    I was citing Girlwriteswhat, who claimed it was a combination of enforcement of obligations on men – and only men – to support their families, with pretty bad country conditions (leading to shitty employment), due to conflicts, internal and external. Whereas women didn’t even have to support themselves, or their children, the men had to (support their entire family), or be imprisoned for neglect or worse.

    So, while I think it’s worse for women in this instance (because their freedom is completely restricted), it’s not an example of men having it good. It’s an example of women being confined to the caregiver role with no out, and men being confined to the breadwinner role with no out.

    Women in this context have it safer, don’t need to work or provide for their children, but also cannot realize their ambition if they do have any (not everyone does – my ambition is not very professionally inclined for example).

    Men in this context have to take more risk (as outside is more risky to start with), get to work and realize their ambition, if they have some. But yet, they have no choice in the matter anyways.

    I’d say it’s a shitty situation with both being slaves to roles they never had the option of choosing or rejecting. Their restrictiveness might be comforting to some who like square things and a largely closed framework (and I bet there are many of those), but it’s restrictive to anyone who wants to try their options, explore, or be an outlier etc (and I bet there are many of those, too).

  383. 383
    Freja

    @ 382 Schala

    I was citing Girlwriteswhat, who claimed it was a combination of enforcement of obligations on men – and only men – to support their families, with pretty bad country conditions (leading to shitty employment), due to conflicts, internal and external. Whereas women didn’t even have to support themselves, or their children, the men had to (support their entire family), or be imprisoned for neglect or worse.

    According to Sharia Law, women are also completely entitled to a divorce should they want one. How do you think that works out in actual islamist countries? If men are required by law to support their families, can you please link me to some articles about the huge number of male inmates serving time for failing to do so, in Afghanistan or other parts of the islamist world? They should be possible to find, since I’m pretty sure the same MRAs who believe the biggest problem in India is misandry would have dug them up and flaunted them repeatedly before.

    Besides, what I was most baffled about was how dismissive you were about the duties and responsibilities of women, speaking as if they didn’t even exist, and as if women just reclined on silk cushions in the home never needing to lift a finger. Women do work there, and have huge responsibilities that are not put on men. What do you think most instances of stoning and beatings of women are about, if not their failure to live up to an ideal of modesty and chastity not imposed on men?

    Women in this context have it safer, don’t need to work or provide for their children, but also cannot realize their ambition if they do have any (not everyone does – my ambition is not very professionally inclined for example).

    I would be very curious about that. Do you have any actual numbers to back that up? And not just the ones about who gets killed, the ones about whose lives are cut short because of circumstances related to culture. The average life expectancy for men and women in Afghanistan is actually closer than in most other countries (both less than 50), with some figures even putting women behind men. Since women don’t have access to the tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs often speculated to be the reason male and female life expectancy rates are nearing each other in more egalitarian countries, I wonder what’s cutting their lives short, if they’re all so safe and protected.

  384. 384
    Sid

    Hi freja

    You know what,I have a difficult time with?

    The attitude, why should the mens movement have to justify itself to feminists,of all people?

    Open the abuse services to all, stop lying about abuse rates, stop bullying male help seekers, stop covering for female abusers, stop bullying mras on your forums, get rid of the radfem hub types that are talking about mass murder and eugenics, stop preaching the hateful patriarchy conspiracy theory …. then perhaps you might be in a position to judge the men’s movement.

    If you want AVMs postion on the Heidi/satire thing, which is a good point you should ask them, so long as you behave like you are among equals, you will be treated well there, its not like feminist forums where bullying is the norm.

  385. 385
    Schala

    Women do work there, and have huge responsibilities that are not put on men. What do you think most instances of stoning and beatings of women are about, if not their failure to live up to an ideal of modesty and chastity not imposed on men?

    Living up to an ideal of modesty and chastity takes actual physical work, like a mover, or a construction worker?

    I won’t reply to the rest, because I don’t even know why you want to talk about it – refer to the article. I’m not an expert on Afghanistan.

  386. 386
    Freja

    @385 Schala

    Living up to an ideal of modesty and chastity takes actual physical work, like a mover, or a construction worker?

    You just chose to completely ignore what I wrote about work in the home? I’m not an expert on Afghanistan either, and I don’t know the specifics about Afghan households, but I have tried to live under primitive conditions, and “housework” ended up being the biggest burden by far. And since when is “responsibility” limited to work in construction? And again, even if women aren’t required to take risks in Afghanistan, it’s only because the risks are already imposed on them, considering their mortality rate, and you haven’t addressed that either.

    I won’t reply to the rest, because I don’t even know why you want to talk about it – refer to the article. I’m not an expert on Afghanistan.

    I want to talk about it because you brought it up. If you make a point, that means it’s up to debate. And if you refer to an article to make that point, it doesn’t mean your opinions stop being up for debate, or that you aren’t required to provide documentation. Just because someone is an MRA should not give them permission to lie. Although GWW isn’t so much lying as just ignoring reality and logic.

    First off, how many Christians do you see today advocating slavery, polygamy, monarchy, rape, stoning as punishment for not wearing the right clothes, giving everything to the poor, and not praying in public? My guess is not a lot. How many of them do you see advocating gender essentialism, heteronormativity, various kinds of modesty, etc., and speaking out against homosexuality, pre-marital sex, etc.? My guess is quite a lot. The difference is not in what’s in the bible, but rather which parts the believers choose to adhere to.

    Islam is, believe it or not, no different. For instance, some muslim legal scholars have argued that chopping off the hands of thieves is wrong if those thieves were poor and stole to provide for themselves, because in a true Sharia nation, enough alms should be given to the poor that no one would even be in such a situation, and therefore, Sharia law can’t apply. But I hope you wouldn’t argue that every thief who gets their hand chopped off in Islamist countries must have been stealing nothing but unnecessary luxuries.

    GWW’s argument is basically that because Islamic law considers it a duty for a man to provide, this means men are legally held to that standard. And yet, she doesn’t offer evidence, and neither do you. There are actually a few cases where women in Islamic countries get some privileges from the courts (albeit not in Afghanistan). In one instance I heard about, a man was ordered to give his wife a certain number of roses because he’s been neglecting her. But that isn’t the norm, and unless you can actually provide some form of documentation that Afghan men are actually punished like you suggest they are in real life, I see no reason to believe it.

    Furthermore, her logic is bordering to non-existent: “In Afghanistan today, a woman with a job (a job she doesn’t’t need because under Islamic law she has an entitlement to be supported by her husband, father or son) is not just taking that job from a man, she’s taking food out of the mouths of that man’s family.”

    How can the woman take food out of the mouth of the man’s family if that family is so entitled to being provided for that his wife would never need a job because she’s automatically provided for by virtue of being a woman? The scenario suggested assumes that all women are married or under the care of a male guardian, and that all those male guardians have jobs that can provide for the family.

    But what happens in this scenario if the woman has no guardian, is abused by her guardian, or if woman’s husband can’t get a job, not because of some feminazi conspiracy, but because there are no jobs for him to get? Do the state provide for the woman? I had no idea Afghanistan was a welfare society. Is the husband arrested and forced to have his kidneys removed to sell on the black market? I doubt it. So where does the money the woman is allegedly entitled to come from? Or is it perhaps that she gets to starve too? And she starves, why is it morally wrong for her to try to get a job?

    “If she takes a safe, easy job (as women are wont to do), then the man she displaces will have to take a more dangerous one. If he’s killed, she’s taken the provider away from the woman and children who depended on him.”

    So women are actually not guaranteed to be supported. They’re dependent on being lucky enough to have a male guardian who can support them. And if they die, he can still make a living, but if he dies, they will starve. It’s funny how, when GWW talks about the women who will supposedly suffer if other women get jobs, they’re all poor widows or wives with no one to provide for them, but when she talks about women who get jobs, they’re suddenly spoilt brats who never needed work to begin with. And she doesn’t even mention all those alms poor men are supposed to receive either.

    Her logic is so incoherent that you shouldn’t need to know anything about Afghanistan to realise that either “women don’t need jobs because they’re guaranteed to be provided for” is blatantly false, or the whole sob-story about men’s families having the food taken out of their mouths doesn’t actually happen.

  387. 387
    Jacob Schmidt

    Sid

    Why would I concede something to people that I know only too well have no intention of conceding anything themselves? You’re baboons, internet bullies. I know exactly how you operate.

    Interesting. The implication here is that what we’re talking about should be condemned, but you feel we wouldn’t reciprocate (which is odd, because I did; look at 342, among other comments).

    Why would I help people that are only interested in condemnation, judging and pretending they are morally superior when they are anything but?

    I dunno. I had assumed you’d like to take the high road, but your only argument seems to be “you do it too”; “tu quoque” is a wonderfully telling fallacy.

    No2 was the only one that’s problematic and with the genders reversed is sounds like the sort of thing that is wide spread among a certain type feminist, and I reserve the same freedom of speech for mras that feminists have for themselves.

    Wholly shit, we’ve got an admission. A tepid one, but one none the less. That only took, what, 250 comments? 300?

    No3, who isn’t sick the back teeth of feminists using rape and rape victims as a bludgeon, shaming tactic and cheap rhetorical trick. John is right, the constant rape mongering of feminists is going to wear down peoples will to care, which is what he was actually saying, (of course that baboon carnation didnt include that important context).

    So because feminists supposedly use rape victims as a bludgeon, they don’t matter. Gotcha.

    No1, so what if Elam said the thought of feminist lies and bullying being exposed in the public arouses him?

    “Fucking your shit up” isn’t “exposing lies and bullying”.

    You’re like a muslim expecting a danish cartoonist to condemn cartoons of the prophet. These things aren’t the great sins that you seem to think they are.

    Jesus fuck, man. You just spent a massive amount of time telling us that such things are horrible when feminists do it, and now you’re defending the same actions. Do you realize how ridiculous you look? No they’re not sins; such things don’t exist. They’re despicable and immoral actions under nearly all circumstances, no matter the identity of the perpetrator. Is that really lost on you? Do you not see the problem with such violent rhetoric, or sweeping victims (who have nothing to do with your opponent, or their actions, btw) under the rug?

    If you want to look at bad behavior in the gender debate, look at threats and intimidation against DV researchers, or the way feminists typically think mra means free pass on bullying and abuse or feminists bullying male help seekers.

    And when such things are demonstrated to me, I will condemn them. It doesn’t excuse despicable behaviour on the MRA side.

    If you were not typically such nasty pieces of work, while thinking your hate and bullying is right and just, or covering up abuse and excluding men … there wouldn’t have been a decision made to radicalize and take down feminism in the first place.

    Clearly us nasty pieces of work are the hateful ones here.

  388. 388
    Schala

    “And yet, she doesn’t offer evidence, and neither do you.”

    This is why I can’t discuss it. No access or even a desire to access court cases about stuff happening in Afghanistan. I said it was a compelling case, not necessarily the truth. I bet patriarchy theory is compelling to some too, even if it’s not the truth.

  389. 389
    Gjenganger

    @Ally Fogg 360

    Elam was revelling in a fantasy of violence against women.

    Indeed he was. Now ‘revelling in fantasies of violence’ does have its place – it is just that the place is alt.sex.stories, or maybe some violence-porn site. The writer gets relief for his frustration and rage, and fellow sufferers can share and sympathize and maybe have a nice wank. Meanwhile it is clear to the author and eveyone else that this is just a compensatory fantasy, and the general public never even sees it. But when this kind of thing escapes into a general blog, let alone a political one, it gets scary and must be strongly condemned.

  390. 390
    Freja

    @ 388 Schala

    This is why I can’t discuss it. No access or even a desire to access court cases about stuff happening in Afghanistan. I said it was a compelling case, not necessarily the truth. I bet patriarchy theory is compelling to some too, even if it’s not the truth.

    You think it’s a compelling argument that women’s situation in Afghanistan is an example of female privilege backfiring, you want to bring it up here so we can all hear oppression of women being dismissed, and now you wont discuss it because there is absolutely nothing supporting it, and yet you still find the non-existent reasons compelling?

    Listen, something in that article must have made it compelling to you. There must have been some actual arguments and reasoning behind it. The article, as it stands, offers none. It doesn’t even claim men are actually punished for not providing for their family. GWW never talks about the fate of these men, beyond how they can’t get work if selfish women who don’t need it take it away from them. Do you think it’s reasonable to assume she knew of such punishments and yet chose to deliberately not mention them? I’ve never seen an MRA do that before.

    And regardless, as I pointed out, the article agrees with me that women are by no means guaranteed to be provided for, which makes the claim that they don’t need to work ridiculous. And it ignores unpaid work and divorce. Not to mention that I already gave you information about the life-expectancy on Afghan men and women, which completely contradicts the baseless assertion that women are safer than men there, something you have systematically ignored in favour of talking about construction workers and what not.

    Would you accept people here linking to articles about how trans people are just homosexuals faking it, how gays are oppressing straits, how atheists are hateful bigots towards christians, or how the real problem is that non-white minorities are voting? If not, then why do you think we should all mindlessly condone an article saying that the real problem with one of the most patriarchally oppressive countries in the world is that women are too privileged, and criticising them for taking men’s jobs?

    Speaking of that, how does it even work? It’s wrong that only men are expected to work outside the house (and for women do all the work inside, but we’ll just conveniently forget that again), but women who want to defy those expectations and contribute outside the home too shouldn’t do it because it’s taking away jobs from men? So if an Afghan woman tries to provide for her family, it’s wrong of her, but if she doesn’t, she’s spoilt and privileged? Is there anything Afghan women can actually do right? Is the man who works 2 jobs even though he could technically scrape by on 1 also taking away food from the mouth of other men’s families? Or does the whole “stealing jobs” rhetoric only apply to immigrants and women?

    You don’t get a pass on bigotry just because you know absolutely nothing of what you’re talking about, especially not if you wont even admit your claims are baseless and just stick to vaguely refer to it as “compelling”. It’s not compelling, it’s bereft of logic and reason. Even accepting the fictional premises of the article, it doesn’t even add up within its own twisted parody of circular logic. And as a bonus, it manages to make light of the suffering of millions of Afghan women while simultaneously using said suffering as a rhetoric bludgeoning tool shaming those very same women for doing exactly what the article claims they should be required to do anyway.

  391. 391
    Ally Fogg

    Gjenganger [389]

    Yes, precisely. Thank you.

  392. 392
    Sid

    @JS

    “Clearly us nasty pieces of work are the hateful ones here.”

    Right,

    in the Jezebelle / satirical retort story, who are the nastier of the two, the feminists actually bragging about real DV, or the person changing the genders to highlight how wrong they are?

    In the comments section here, who sees sneering, disrespect, taking down their noses, mobbing, bully tactics, dishonesty as just what you do to people that identify as mra’s.

    Who has been protecting millions of abusers and erasing millions of abuse victims and promoting anti-male DV propaganda for decades.

    And so on.

    Its sexist and superior attitudes that are leading you to fail to recognise who is being nastier.

    When the westbro church are being nasty they don’t realise that they are, they think its just and correct and if people react strongly to them, they probably imagine its them that are being persecuted by bad people.

  393. 393
    Gjenganger

    @Sid 392

    Its sexist and superior attitudes that are leading you to fail to recognise who is being nastier.

    Does it matter who is nastier? Would it not be better if we concentrated on being nice, ourselves? That would really show the other side up for the scumbags they are.

  394. 394
    Sid

    Gjenganger

    “Does it matter who is nastier? Would it not be better if we concentrated on being nice, ourselves? That would really show the other side up for the scumbags they are.”

    Well, I think that’s whats happening here on this thread and what’s slowly happen out in the mainstream. The fact that feminists cannot really see their own bad behaviour, and think its correct while holding men and people that represent them to a far higher standard than they do women and people that are representing women is ultimately a weakness. It only works for them in closed areas where there is moderation or news paper articles where the comments sections are closed.

    I also think that a time will come when feminism has changed to the point it won’t need such strong opposition. For example, when we get feminism to stop covering up for abusers and erasing abuse victims and thinking abuse services should be discriminatory, there will be no need for harsh criticism of feminism on this point.

  395. 395
    unfamiliar w/ your ways

    @Sid

    don’t forget mate, when everyone goes for ‘an eye for an eye’, the whole world is blind

  396. 396
    Tamen

    @Jacob Schmidt 368:

    The cynical part of me are prone to think that a non-response to a direct answer to a query for examples is an act of willfully closing one’s eyes. Having the cynic in me proven wrong brightens my day a tiny bit, so thank you for that.

    Unfortunately this doesn’t just happen in comment threads on blogs, but also in “real life” by influential women/feminists. I did provide an example of this in a comment on Ally’s post about AMIS – I’ll repeat the pertinent part of that comment here:

    …the two letters penned by Sandra Horley (Chief Executive of Refuge) and Polly Neate (Chief Executive of Women’s Aid) as responses to an article in the Independent about a male victim of domestic abuse.

    And then we full articles like this article in The Good Men Project by Soraya Chemaly written partly in response to Jacob Taylor’s (aka toysoldiers) Women Rape, Too article published earlier on TGMP.
    In the article Chemaly acknowledges the existence on women-on-boys rape and sexual assault. She assures us that she isn’t dismissing boys’ abuse or adult male victimization. She then goes on to say:

    There is a qualitative difference between saying men rape women and women rape men and that difference gets eliminated when you tell individual stories without context.

    What context does she think is missing from these stories from male victims? An obligatory ‘women have it worse’ statement?
    She’s not the only feminist to think this, here is a quote from M.K. Hajdin (the blog-post it occurred in has since been deleted, but it’s referenced at Toysoldier and James Landrith) which she wrote after reading a man’s story about his rape:

    I confess I was feeling apprehensive when I began to read. I was waiting for the inevitable “What About The Menz?” moment. Thankfully, this guy gets it. He tells his story while acknowledging that the vast majority of rape is male-on-female, and doesn’t try to persuade us that his experience was worse than those of female victims.

    Heaven forbid that there would be a “What About The Menz?” moment in a man’s story of his own rape.

    Back again to Chemaly’s article in rape culture:

    Boys and men don’t have to think about being the victims of rape on a regular basis.

    Well, except perhaps of the 1 in 6 who have been sexually abused as children? Except the 4.8% who have been made to penetrate someone?

    Raising the specter of women raping boys implies a false equivalence and doesn’t help us understand and change a culture where rape—the power, the crime, the threat, and the jokes—is acceptable.

    The specter of women raping boys? As in ghost, as in doesn’t really exist? And false equivalence? Heaven forbid that we should consider the rape of a man in any way equal as a rape of a woman.

    And finally she produced this zinger:

    Only men can stop rape.

    Where does that leave me, a victim of a female rapist?
    So much for her assurances that she isn’t dismissive of boys’ and adult mens’ victimization.

    As I read the article I kept wondering if there would be a “this article is written as an example of how rape culture minimize and erase male victims and female perpetrators” at the end, but alas…

    Oh, and there’s this comment on the “Women Rape, Too” article.

    And this example is also poignant: A commenter (Hi Schala) is banned for “what about the menz”-ing by citing male victimization statics on a post about a woman who to her horror had this thought when she looked at her sleeping boyfriend: “Oh I am so gonna rape you– wait, what!?”

    Mike D’Amaro wrote about a woman who very violently attempted to rape him, forcing him to protect himself by physical violence. One commenter w817 wrote:

    The sad part is, no one will ever ask you what you were wearing and how much you had to drink.

    That’s the sad part? The mind boggles.
    Here’s another comment advising Mike to let his attacker gloss over the incident.

    Here is a comment by Lupita on James Landrith’s post about his rape on The Good Men Project. My response to that particular comment by Lupita.

    On the other hand I have to put forth an argument where derailing by adding male rape (and female perpetrators) to the discussion of rape is in many cases are NOT derailing, it’s putting the train back on the tracks when the original discussion were discussing rape without any qualifiers in a way that strongly suggests that there is no other rape than male on female rape.

    I’ll quote James Landrith here:

    For instance, a conversation that claims to be about rape culture or sexual violence, but is really ONLY about how the same affect women is misleading. If it is only to be about how those topics affect women, then that needs to be spelled out. If a conversation is identified as meant to discuss rape, then people will rightfully expect it to be about rape in general without exclusions. If it is only about how women are affected by rape than that caveat must be clear and spelled out in plain language. To do otherwise, a discussion/organization runs the risk of appearing to be engaging in minimization or erasure of survivors who don’t fit that narrowly defined criteria.

    If male rape was discussed in a manner that suggested that rape is male rape and nothing else I wouldn’t mind people bringing up female rape.

  397. 397
    Jacob Schmidt

    Tamen

    ’tis too early here in Ontario to read that comment now (my supervisor is leaving for a funeral; gotta go in early to set up the tests). I’ll read it, and respond if I can.

  398. 398
    inappropriate

    …the Jezebel piece was loathsome, repugnant and unjustifiable? That it reflected widespread indifference to violence against men? There’s nothing else to say about it! It’s true, I’ve said it myself repeatedly and unreservedly…”

    You did it in a way that feminists are comfortable with. Elam did it in a way that feminists (and a lot of other people) are uncomfortable with. Both approaches are pretty fucking problematic, innit.

  399. 399
    Tamen

    JS @397:
    I messed up the blockquotes and forgot to close the first one (or more likely misspelled the closing tag). I hope the comment is still somewhat readable and I’ll try to improve by actually using the “preview” button the next time.
    There really shouldn’t be much to reply as it’s just a non-exhasutive list of “what about teh womenz”-ery I’ve encountered.

    Well, except for the thoughts on when “what about the X”-ery might be appropriate.

  400. 400
    Ally Fogg

    inappropriate (398)

    Why do you find my approach problematic?

  401. 401
    Sid

    @unfamiliar w/ your ways

    “don’t forget mate, when everyone goes for ‘an eye for an eye’, the whole world is blind”

    Keep turning the other cheek and you have no cheeks left.

    Do I take it were you in a corner with a dominant and abusive force, or a business negotiation with a unyielding opponent you would heeding your own advice and lying down like a doormat?

    I’m pretty sure Malcom X was given similar advice by idealistic people and people that had an interest in silencing him back in the day.

  402. 402
    Sid

    Inappropriate

    Do you not think that if a social movement is not making the statue quo uncomfortable that its not working?

    If the status quo is comfortable, nothing is going to change.

  403. 403
    Adiabat

    Jacob (315):

    I like the name. I thought it was interesting, but now I just straight up want to steal it.”

    Hands off, it’s mine! :)

    “You’d need to construct a narrow set of scenarios where such evidence would even matter. I’m convinced that those scenarios wouldn’t reach reasonable doubt in the first place.”

    I’d say that, theoretically at least, such scenarios are possible. There’s been a recent case in the UK where a woman lied about a university Janitor raping her, it has been shown that she actually lied, because, as the accuser says, she wanted an extension on her university work. If she was the accuser in another case, and it could be shown that it happened again just as another deadline came up, or something similar, as a Juror I would want to know about the previous time. Her past case under similar circumstances should be taken into consideration under these circumstances.

    I could get behind a compromise similar to what municipalis pointed out in #379 where he says:

    “In Handy, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that this evidence was inadmissible, but laid out stringent criteria on which such evidence would be permitted.”

    If this allowance was made for previous false rape accusations, that there are particular circumstances where the evidence is allowed, but in general is not, as a juror I could be more confidant that I am being presented with all relevant evidence necessary to make a decision. If it’s never allowed, then I can’t be confident that that is a case. This would mean that I would need a higher standard of evidence to reach ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ than if any doubts about ‘restricted’ evidence were unaddressed. Doing this would, in theory, increase convictions as people would be more confident in deciding ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

    “If my reaction is commendable, why didn’t you use it? You jumped right to accusing him of jumping off the deep end, rather than a gentle correction regarding a bad assumption.

    That’s not accurate. I unfairly made the same assumption about you both which I apologised for. Your reaction was to accept the apology. His reaction was to say he made a similar assumption about me but then blamed me entirely for him making his bad assumption. Then he accused me of trying to blame him entirely. Due to this I get the impression his aim here is more about oneupmanship and discrediting those he disagrees with than having a genuine discussion. Which, ironically, makes the original assumption I apologised for correct.

  404. 404
    Adiabat

    Freja (316): You’ve just quoted the parody bit of his post again, the bit which is intended to mirror the horrible Jezebel piece. I’m still unconvinced that it reflects his “real” opinion. And I disagree with Ally that parodying another article is “revelling” in a view he secretly holds, but of course you all can mind-read when I can’t. I think such an assessment is ridiculous, especially when Elam says that that is not what he is doing. It’s possible he’s just covering himself, but just assuming that, as you and others seem to be doing, is the definition of approaching in bad faith.

    I think he makes it relatively clear that what he thinks is not wrong is the idea of defending yourself from an abuser, not the manner he described in his parody.

    “His real opinion is that it’s not wrong, and that millions of women deserve it, which is what he said. His first reason for why men shouldn’t do it is that it’s not worth the police charges…”

    He thinks millions of women abuse their partners, and also thinks that if a man defends himself against an abusive partner he is likely to be the one who is punished, and the punishment isn’t worth defending yourself; It’s better to just leave. But he thinks that men who do defend themselves regardless of the sexist consequences are noble for sticking up for their rights not to be a victim against an oppressive system. That’s a fair reading of what he actually says, for those of us without mindreading powers.

    I think you are reading him in the worst possible way. This is either intentional or due to bias. Either way I’m afraid because of this I don’t consider you a reliable source for judging him and have no interest in following up what are likely to be further misrepresentations of him. If you can get this one so wrong then I’m not wasting my time checking every link you throw my way to pettily snipe at someone who, at the end of the day, is rather unimportant and uninfluential.

    Oh and I think the treatment Sid is receiving is bullying. Especially the troll’s reposting of the same ridiculous challenge when it’s been shown in other threads that when you do answer her(?) “challenges” she’ll just ignore any examples you give and post more abuse.

  405. 405
    Jessie

    Adiabat
    In court, you are usually instructed to consider the case on the basis of the evidence alone. Trying to guess whether there is additional information does not satisfy that requirement. For a start, why assume that an accuser might have made a false allegation before, rather than assume that a defendant might have raped before? Even if someone had a previous history, that would not mean they were not telling the truth now. Isn’t it safer to consider the evidence alone?

  406. 406
    Aerik

    the sad part: it took a very, very long time for somebody to write about Elam’s “bash a violent bitch month” and then, only after that, did he tack on the part on the end that he meant it to be satire. Clearly he didn’t it. He meant it. It was not satire.

  407. 407
    Adiabat

    Jessie: “In court, you are usually instructed to consider the case on the basis of the evidence alone.”

    Yes, we covered that upthread. If the court system has a policy of witholding relevant evidence, then it becomes a moral responisibility of a juror to protest that.

    Kangaroo courts routinely prevent the defense from presenting evidence. Do you think that any jurors in a kangaroo court should find the defendent guilty just because ‘them’s the rules’?

  408. 408
    Sid

    Hi Aerik

    Why would Paul Elam stoop to the level of the Jezebele feminists and write a non satirical domestic violence article?

    What is leading you believe that is whats really going on and how do you have access to another persons inner thoughts?

  409. 409
    leni

    Adiabat:

    If she was the accuser in another case, and it could be shown that it happened again just as another deadline came up, or something similar, as a Juror I would want to know about the previous time. Her past case under similar circumstances should be taken into consideration under these circumstances.

    Your reasoning here seems circular to me.

    “… and it could be shown that it happened again just as another deadline came up” implies that you don’t need knowledge of past false accusations at all.

    If you can demonstrate current lying without knowledge of past lying, then why risk poisoning the well for the accuser? If you can’t demonstrate current lying, then bringing up past lying is little more than character assassination. Since bad people and liars can be victims, it really isn’t relevant.

    I probably don’t need to remind you that victim character assassination is already a staple in rape trials. Do you really want to risk adding to that? Particularly because you know you can’t make any conclusions based on past behavior, but also because you probably know how easy it is to conflate unproven allegations with false ones.

    I’m not a lawyer, but it just sounds like a bad idea in principle. There may be exceptions (there always are, I suppose), but as a general rule it just seems unnecessary and potentially prejudicial. And while it may be an opportunity for the defense, it’s also an opportunity for the accuser (For example: “Yes I lied and I was a target for this attack because of it.”)

    Bringing it up isn’t going to help you assess the fact of the current case and may even backfire on the defense.

  410. 410
    Sid

    edit ”

    non satirical PRO domestic violence”

  411. 411
    Ace of Sevens

    If Paul Elam had written a satirical article to make a point, that would be one thing, but he seems to be trying to have it both ways

  412. 412
    Adiabat

    Leni: You’ve bolded part of my sentence to make it seem like it says something else. Let me re-phrase it for you in-case it’s a genuine misreading:

    If it has been shown that someone has lied before to achieve a particular result, then knowledge of this occurrence is relevant if another claim is made which will achieve the same result.

    I’ve argued already that this isn’t hard evidence that the person has lied the second time, but that it is at least relevant to the jury in making their decision.

    “I probably don’t need to remind you that victim character assassination is already a staple in rape trials. Do you really want to risk adding to that?”

    Please read the posts above, I pointed out the difficulties for the accuser that this would cause myself. I also pointed out that not having it can cause difficulties for the accused and it makes it a difficult situation. I’ve also recommended a solution that you may be happy with. I can lookup the comment refs if you can’t find it. Let me know.

    It’s generally a good idea to read the whole discussion instead of jumping in at the end. It’s one thing that is quite common in threads and can derail an interesting conversation that is in progress.

  413. 413
    Jessie

    Adiabat
    I read that upthread but since you raised it again, it seems worth addressing again.

    In the case you mentioned, the student’s previous false rape allegation was not information which was withheld from the court in a case against the man she (falsely) accused, since the CPS did not put him on trial. The police and CPS would have considered the previous false allegation when deciding to prosecute her and not him. That’s their job, not the jury’s. It’s also the judge’s job to consider it when sentencing.

    Are you only talking about sexual cases or does your desire for full disclosure of previous false accusations extend to other cases, such as burglary or GBH?

    Does this extend to proven cases of false accusations or any previous accusations which failed to result in conviction?

    Do you also want to ensure that previous convictions and/or accusations against the defendant are taken into account by juries?

  414. 414
    doublereed

    @Adiabat

    If this allowance was made for previous false rape accusations, that there are particular circumstances where the evidence is allowed, but in general is not, as a juror I could be more confidant that I am being presented with all relevant evidence necessary to make a decision. If it’s never allowed, then I can’t be confident that that is a case. This would mean that I would need a higher standard of evidence to reach ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ than if any doubts about ‘restricted’ evidence were unaddressed. Doing this would, in theory, increase convictions as people would be more confident in deciding ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

    Wait what? Can we bring up other cases where the accused has been previously charged and not convicted with rape then? Otherwise this is a double standard against the accuser.

  415. 415
    Sid

    Ace of sevens.

    He wrote a satirical article to make a point. However, you have people here that are primed to believe the most ridiculous of sinister man / damsel in distress story lines that they will readily believe bizarre and unlikely interpretations of it.

    Three years ago I wrote a satirical, and somewhat belated response to an article on Jezebel.com in which the staff of that publication and their readers were having a grand old time bragging to each other and backslapping over who had been the most physically abusive with their male partners.

    It was the most disgusting display of domestic violence glorification I have seen, before or since.

    I wrote a particularly provocative response to it, in order to demonstrate how that sort of mentality might appear in a scenario where the perpetrator was male and the victim was female. In it, I made some overtly graphic references to the violence and proclaimed that we were declaring a “Bash a Violent Bitch Month.”

    Now, I knew at the time the possible reaction to this kind of satire. And as the fumbling Fogg has just linked to it again, three years later, it seems my call on the reaction was not far off the mark. So, when I wrote it, I was sure to include a few words which were completely accurate, if not wholly traditional in satire. I said, in reference to the proposed violence and the “Bash a Violent Bitch Month,” the following:

    Now, am I serious about this?

    No.

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/ally-foggs-pants-are-on-fire/

  416. 416
    leni

    Leni: You’ve bolded part of my sentence to make it seem like it says something else. Let me re-phrase it for you in-case it’s a genuine misreading:

    If it has been shown that someone has lied before to achieve a particular result, then knowledge of this occurrence is relevant if another claim is made which will achieve the same result.

    It was a misreading. Apologies. The way i read it it sounded like you meant if it could be shown in the current case, not was shown in the past.

    But I also said shortly after that, that if you can’t demonstrate that the current case is a false accusation, then bringing up past allegations isn’t going to help you do that. If you can demonstrate the current case is a false accusation, then you don’t even need to bring it up.

    So why even do it then? It won’t help you assess current evidence and stands a good chance of causing prejudice.

    I’ve argued already that this isn’t hard evidence that the person has lied the second time, but that it is at least relevant to the jury in making their decision.

    I know. That’s why I said that you knew it couldn’t be used to reach a conclusion. I wasn’t assuming that, I was referencing your comments on it. I could have been clearer, sorry. But I disagree that it is relevant. (Though I did say there may be exceptions, I just don’t think they were worth the risk of introducing more opportunities for victim character assassination, given how much of an impediment for victims it already is.)

    Please read the posts above, I pointed out the difficulties for the accuser that this would cause myself. I also pointed out that not having it can cause difficulties for the accused and it makes it a difficult situation. I’ve also recommended a solution that you may be happy with. I can lookup the comment refs if you can’t find it. Let me know.

    To be clear, I wasn’t accusing you of supporting victim/accuser character assassination. I think we probably agree more than disagree. I just disagree with you about the benefits of introducing largely unusable, prejudicial information into already very complex, difficult trials.

  417. 417
    Jacob Schmidt

    Adiabat

    If she was the accuser in another case, and it could be shown that it happened again just as another deadline came up, or something similar, as a Juror I would want to know about the previous time. Her past case under similar circumstances should be taken into consideration under these circumstances.

    Ok, first of all, as a juror, it’s not your job to decide whats shown to you. I don’t care what you want to know; you need to demonstrate that such knowledge should be given to you. Jurors also like to know what the victim was wearing, and how much of a slut she is. Neither is relevant; relevancy must be demonstrated. Also, your scenario is very vague. She’s a student with a deadline? Once you hit 3rd year, that’s almost always. Exams, projects, papers, etc.

    Now how does a past false accuastion way against evidence convincing enough to reach reasonable doubt? Such evidence has little to do with her testimony.

    Jessie brings up a good point which you ignored. Why are you assuming that the victim might be lying, while not considering whether or not the pepratrator has a past conviction? Neither is admissable, and rapist have actually been shown to generally repeat their actions.

    You’ve just quoted the parody bit of his post again, the bit which is intended to mirror the horrible Jezebel piece.

    How does advocations for retaliatory violence mirror making light of violence? Even if that’s what Elam meant, his satire is screwed.

    I think he makes it relatively clear that what he thinks is not wrong is the idea of defending yourself from an abuser, not the manner he described in his parody.

    Where does he make this clear? The only bit about self defence you’ve quoted is when Elam is refering to violent retaliation as self defense. That’s hardly clear. He also said later on that it’s better (than violenly retaliating) to just kick her to the curb, and that violence in self defense should be proportional to violence recieved, anyways. When he says “it’s not wrong”, he’s not talking about self defense. He’s talking about violent retaliation.

    That’s not accurate. I unfairly made the same assumption about you both which I apologised for.

    This conversation is too friggen’ long. I’m probably belabouring the point too much, but I’ll show you what I mean:

    86: Dan L makes a false assumption.

    94: You accuse him of going off the deep end.

    97: You accuse me of going off the deep end.

    101: Dan rebukes your accusation

    106: You accept that you may have been wrong about Dan, and say, essentially “fair enough”. You also admitted to making tribalistic assumptions (to the effect of “I’m used to getting such responses from feminists”)

    107: I point out that your accusation (of me) is better aimed at you, and explain what I originally meant.

    115: Dan explains the reason for his assumption

    121: You commend me on my reaction to your false assumption, saying that at least I wasn’t making tribalistic assumptions.

    So why are you making such assumptions when you know they are wrong?

    Oh and I think the treatment Sid is receiving is bullying.

    The guy that’s called us hateful baboons for the past 300 comments, and continued to do so in an unrelated thread, is the victim here? Keep in mind, he’s literally accused us all of hating all men

  418. 418
    Sid

    Jacob

    I called you baboons *because* of the bullying behaviour

    That’s how the freethought people got the nickname baboons – mobbing, bullying, vilification …

    As for hating men, I think that most people hate men, we are being programmed by the culture to hate men, and hate men that object to it and stand up for their rights.

  419. 419
    Jessie

    Sid
    Most people do not hate men.

  420. 420
    maxdevlin

    I didn’t get very far at all in this thread before I noticed how similar the arguments that Sid and the MRAs use to discount their misogyny are the same ones the racists use to somehow make themselves the victims of the “anti-racists”. Frequent claims in the absence of evidence that any affirmative actions taken to overcome historical oppression is itself oppression, with the still-privileged as the most grievously insulted victims possible. I’m wondering about Sid’s use of “Jailbroke the Patriarchy” as if it were some kind of code. For some reason it reminds me of the frequent reference by racists to ‘Chicago violence’, somehow not sufficiently condemned every time anyone inconveniently white is charged with a murder spree.

  421. 421
    municipalis

    If this allowance was made for previous false rape accusations, that there are particular circumstances where the evidence is allowed, but in general is not, as a juror I could be more confidant that I am being presented with all relevant evidence necessary to make a decision.

    Going by this and other comments you have made here, you seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding the role of the juror in the justice system. It is not up to you to judge – or, indeed, even consider – whether you have been presented with “all relevant evidence necessary to make a decision”. Questions of relevancy are to be determined by the judge (thus the title!). As a juror you are, by definition, shown everything that is relevant to make a decision, and you make your decision only on the basis of what you have been shown. To do anything else is not only fundamentally misinterpreting your role as a juror, but actually doing damage to the very core principles of the justice system.

  422. 422
    municipalis

    Sorry, the above comment was directed at Adiabat. The blockquote “cite” function seemed to have misfired.

  423. 423
    Sid

    Jesse@419

    Most people do men. Even men hate men. they just don’t realise it because it permeates the culture.

    Can you imagine of the fathers rights issues was reversed and it fathers were talking children from the mothers and withholding access in order to hurt and abuse the mother? There would be outcry but fathers, nobody cares, they probably;y deserve it!

    Look at Warren Farrel, a really good man turned into a hate figure with all sorts of horrible accusations about sex criminality made against him, his crime? Advocacy and compassion for men.

    There are lots and lots of examples.

  424. 424
    Sid

    edit

    do HATE men

  425. 425
    Jessie

    No Sid, really, most people do NOT hate men. As long as you have this attitude that others do, including some faceless entity called ‘feminism’, you won’t be able to start doing anything constructive to bring about social change. We need to work together. EVERY FEMINIST I KNOW wants to see men and women able to be what they want to be, without rigid stereotypes forced upon us. The ills facing men and boys need to be addressed but that doesn’t need to happen at the expense of change for women, because women do not need to lose so that men can win (and vice versa) and there are enough of us that we can campaign on more than one front. The real enemy we face is those who want to maintain the status quo, because it works fine for them.

  426. 426
    Jacob Schmidt

    Tamen

    I meant to write a long post responding to different issues touched on in your post, but I think it would just distract from the issue. I’ll answer your question instead.

    So, thoughts on when “what about the X”-ery might be appropriate.

    You touched on it earlier. “What about teh mens” and similar (what about cis, what about whites, etc) are accusations of derails. In many a social justice discussion, you get people whining about a certain group when another is the focus of the discussion. Such derails are annoying, presumptuous, and harmful to discussion. Privileges must be recognized and focus must be recognized; if one of the two isn’t there, you have a derail. Really, you’re likely to be missing both when you get someone whining in the comments.

    In general, if such a scenario is in play, I happily support WATM or similar. And honestly? I’ve seen less and less such derails over the years, and more and more attempts to be inclusive.

    .

  427. 427
    Schala

    The ills facing men and boys need to be addressed but that doesn’t need to happen at the expense of change for women, because women do not need to lose so that men can win (and vice versa)

    Giving equal custody to fathers will be done at the expense of mothers, who overwhelmingly get sole custody if they want it. The saying that it’s a burden is nonsense. If it was mostly/only a burden, no one would want even joint custody.

    Giving DV and rape relief services to men will be done at the expense of women, but to the benefit of trans, intersex and non-binary people. Because there is only so much funding to go around. Yet it will be a net plus for society as a whle – now tackling 100% of the problem, hopefully using a comprehensive individually tailored approach – instead of only 50% (and forgetting trans and non-binary people) and using ideologically flawed approach and campaigns.

    Equality has its costs, on both sides.

  428. 428
    carnation

    @ Schala 427


    Giving equal custody to fathers will be done at the expense of mothers, who overwhelmingly get sole custody if they want it”

    Where’s the proof that, in disputed cases, women “overwhelmingly” get sole custody if the want it?

    “Giving DV and rape relief services to men will be done at the expense of women, but to the benefit of trans, intersex and non-binary people. Because there is only so much funding to go around.”

    Any proof of this? This is one of the stupidest MRA arguments I have ever heard.

    There are multiple budgets, multiple agencies, multiple departments that deal with different aspects of DV. Your comments relating to this prove your nativity and complete lack of understanding of real politics.

    Quick example, services for trans people have increased in the last, say, 25 years, no? Anyone lost out because of that?

    Anyone dying of cancer becaus he budgets been cut and reallocated to those with heart disease? It’s puerile revenge fantasy to think DV funding is going to be taken off one group and given tomanother.

  429. 429
    Schala

    Where’s the proof that, in disputed cases, women “overwhelmingly” get sole custody if the want it?

    That’s the thing, the bias is so strong that most fathers don’t even bother TRYING to get sole custody, or joint custody. Because 1) court battles are costly 2) the bias is strong, you need proof that the mother is unfit, the father could be #1 father in the world that it wouldn’t matter.

  430. 430
    Schala

    Quick example, services for trans people have increased in the last, say, 25 years, no? Anyone lost out because of that?

    Oh you mean, shelters that serve ONLY women have no problem with serving trans women? Got a proof of that? I got proof of the opposite.

  431. 431
    carnation

    @ Schala

    #429 So, no, you have no evidence and made that claim with no way of justifying it. There’s another word for that.

    #430 Why are MRAs so obsessed with shelters? Who’s talking about shelters? *Services* for trans people, information/advocacy, media people lobbying for acceptance, the addition of T into LGBT. That a relatively recent thing. It didnt come out of the “gay” budget, because such a thing doesn’t exist.

    You’re full of nonsense and I’m drunk.

    Goodnight, Schala.

  432. 432
    leni

    Oh you mean, shelters that serve ONLY women have no problem with serving trans women? Got a proof of that? I got proof of the opposite.

    Yes. There are shelters that serve both cis and trans people. Not enough, but if you want evidence I can certainly google it for you.

    Not that you care, because this is more about you shifting the goalposts than it is about what an injustice womens’ shelters are.

  433. 433
    M. A. Melby

    “or what feminists think – misogyny barely fucking exists anywhere in the world”

    I just want to point out where the shark was jumped.

    Also, interesting how a post about vivid descriptions of extreme violence and degradation, even in the guise of parody or “joke”, is not okay tuned into a discussion about false rape claims against straight men.

  434. 434
    M. A. Melby

    I wonder what would happen if I went on a men’s rights forum and every time they brought up something about men’s experiences, I chimed in with a bunch of stuff about unrelated women’s issues.

    Constantly – I mean – ALL THE TIME.

    “Hey, I know you were talking about how men are more likely to take-on high-risk careers and how that ties into the idea that a man is disposable while a woman’s life is more valuable; but ABORTION RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!”

  435. 435
    M. A. Melby

    Oh -but since you mentioned it – quick question; if the person was actually convicted of making a false police report concerning a similar crime – would that be admissible?

    Cause using the fact that a person made an allegation of rape that was “unfounded” as evidence of lying is extremely problematic; because it confuses (as MANY people do) an “unfounded” claim with a “false” claim.

    Then again, one of the very few AVfM articles I have read used someone’s suicide attempt as evidence that she was a *crazy* liar. So, not really expecting nuance here.

    So – yeah – men and boys – and the rest of humanity deserve better.

  436. 436
  437. 437
    Sid

    @Malby

    I wonder what would happen if I went on a men’s rights forum and every time they brought up something about men’s experiences, I chimed in with a bunch of stuff about unrelated women’s issues.

    There are a few differences.

    Mens forums generally aren’t misrepresenting reality by using history, ideology and stats that omit half the story generating a need for corrections.

    Feminism has traditionally billed itself as about gender equality leading people to believe its the right place for mens and womens issues, and then bullied and mocked men that try to table the part of the men’s story.

    Also, I’m not aware of any stats that or people that conflate unfounded with false.

    The categories are unfounded, found false before prosecution and prosecuted, and each category contains false accusations, how many nobody really knows. The two of three studies that have tried to find that number came to around 40% none of these studies are large enough to be considered nationally representative.

  438. 438
    Sid

    Jessie @425

    ’No Sid, really, most people do NOT hate men. As long as you have this attitude that others do, including some faceless entity called ‘feminism’, you won’t be able to start doing anything constructive to bring about social change. We need to work together. EVERY FEMINIST I KNOW wants to see men and women able to be what they want to be, without rigid stereotypes forced upon us. The ills facing men and boys need to be addressed but that doesn’t need to happen at the expense of change for women, because women do not need to lose so that men can win (and vice versa) and there are enough of us that we can campaign on more than one front. The real enemy we face is those who want to maintain the status quo, because it works fine for them.

    Jesse, you didn’t deal with either of the points I brought up. People like Warren Farrell, who advocate compassion for men, are turned it hate figures. When mens issues are brought up in the so called gender equality movement, there is bullying and “what about teh menz lol”.

    As for what every feminists you know think.

    Firstly, most feminists you know have little to no idea what feminism is doing in the legal system or that feminist jurisprudence is a significant influence in the legal system (ie. feminism is part of the status quo) , or that the information that they are giving about abuse being gendered they they believe to be true, is hate propaganda generated by omitting and manipulating data on female perpetration and male victimization. This is the deliberate cultivation of hate, suspicion and fear of men.

    This is an authoritative, well sourced and well regarded book on the deliberate cultivation of misandry and misandric legislation in the culture.

    http://www.amazon.com/Legalizing-Misandry-Systemic-Discrimination-Against/dp/0773528628

  439. 439
    Sid

    Ally

    I think that you see yourself as a sort of MLK of mens issues. If that’s the case you don’t try to defame Malcolm X by misrepresenting him. That’s not how social movements are supposed to work.

    What you should do is say “while I don’t agree with the methods, Paul is actually making an important and interesting point by changing the genders in the story” then go on to explain what that point is.

    That’s how the system is supposed to work, that’s Pauls role as a controversial figure.

    That’s a lot more productive than intermale aggression and knee jerk female protectionism just because some traditionalist / feminist social convention has been broken.

  440. 440
    Jessie

    Sid (438)
    Really, there is no reasoning with you. You just keep parroting the same thing about ‘feminism’. Your goal in life seems to be resentment: good luck with that.

    Schala (427 and 429)
    Equal custody is difficult in practice. Parents may not live within easy reach of the same school, there may not be enough money for two homes large enough to accommodate them and living a nomadic existence between two different places can be unsettling. Of course, if you don’t try to get access (because of cost or another reason), it’s not surprising if you don’t get it. Funding for family disputes has been heavily hit, which is a serious mistake. Unless there is a compelling reason otherwise, children should maintain relationships with both parents.

    Mothers do not ‘get sole custody if they want it’. It’s generally given to the parent most involved in day-to-day family routine before the split. Main breadwinners often play little part in that, even at weekends. I think we need a change in working practices to make it possible for such parents to play a greater role in family life. We should be encouraging the sharing of responsibilities.

    With regards to your point about funding for services for rape and DV, there is hardly anything available, in spite of politicians claiming it is important. Donations and volunteers keep the system going but there is never enough. There are also constant problems finding men who are willing to volunteer to provide services for men. I’d like to see men’s rights’ organisations addressing that.

  441. 441
    Schala

    there may not be enough money for two homes large enough to accommodate them </blockquote

    This will still be a problem with 90/10 custody, as long as they sleep there at least once in an eternity.

    and living a nomadic existence between two different places can be unsettling

    Having no or very little contact with one parent can be more unsettling.

    Of course, if you don’t try to get access (because of cost or another reason), it’s not surprising if you don’t get it.

    Would you invest in lottery tickets? Would you do so if someone told you that not only is it costly, but your chances of winning are abyssal? What if they were referring to existing bias, and their own experience, rather than just making it up and wanting to sway their client?

    Mothers do not ‘get sole custody if they want it’. It’s generally given to the parent most involved in day-to-day family routine before the split. Main breadwinners often play little part in that, even at weekends.

    This is not a neutral standard. And most stay-at-home parents often play little part in that, even at weekends – even if they’re “there”. Because presence in-case-something-goes-wrong is the very minimum. It’s what I expect from a babysitter.

    A neutral standard would be assessing the fitness of the parents, and then deciding based on that, with a presumption starting at 50/50% custody, barring stuff which would make it problematic or undesirable (like proven abuse).

    You can’t decide “we continue the arrangement of SAHP + breadwinner” when the arrangement is broken from the very start. There won’t be a SAHP normally, post-divorce (my mother managed to not work post-divorce by having boyfriends and some other money from being a carer for the youngest, who has had issues following accidents, plus alimony for herself). So we can’t decide that the best interest of kids is having two households and acting as if nothing changed. Even less that now they have one household with mom, and dad foots the bill and never sees them.

  442. 442
    Schala

    If being the main caregiver is a neutral standard, then telling little girls to play with dolls, playing house and such, is giving them a privilege. Not “forcing them into housewifery”, but “ensuring they have future custody”.

  443. 443
    Sid

    Jessis @ 440

    Really, there is no reasoning with you. You just keep parroting the same thing about ‘feminism’. Your goal in life seems to be resentment: good luck with that.

    Actually no Jessie. You are being irrational – making claims that you are not backing up, while I supported my claims with various examples and a very well regarded source. Instead of consider the the evidence, you then projected your characteristics – being unreasonable, on to me.

    If you are not being consciously dishonest, try to question the process that is making you believe that my that contradicting what you* feel* is right and providing examples, legitimate sources and evidence is being unreasonable.

    Is it arrogance, you believe your feeling trump evidence. Is it ideology, your ideological view trump evidence? etc.

    And Jessie, don’t gaslight me again. MRA does not mean ok to abuse, I hope that’s clear.

  444. 444
    Sid

    Ill try again, with some edits too :)

    Jessis @440

    Really, there is no reasoning with you. You just keep parroting the same thing about ‘feminism’. Your goal in life seems to be resentment: good luck with that.

    Actually no Jessie. You are being irrational – making claims that you are not backing up, while I supported my claims with various examples and a very well regarded source. Instead of considering the evidence, you then projected your characteristics – being unreasonable, on to me.

    If you are not being consciously dishonest, try to question the process that is making you believe that my contradicting what you* feel* is right and my providing examples, legitimate sources and evidence is my being unreasonable.

    Is it arrogance, you believe your feelings trump evidence? Is it ideology, your ideological views trump evidence? etc.

    And Jessie, don’t gaslight me. MRA does not mean ok to abuse, I hope that’s clear.

  445. 445
    Jacob Schmidt

    If you are not being consciously dishonest, try to question the process that is making you believe that my contradicting what you* feel* is right and my providing examples, legitimate sources and evidence is my being unreasonable.

    Is it arrogance, you believe your feelings trump evidence? Is it ideology, your ideological views trump evidence? etc.

    And you wonder why we’re rude to you.

  446. 446
    Jessie

    Sid
    You are rude, incoherent and so set in your views that discussion with you is futile.

    There are plenty of people writing here with whom I do not agree but who express their views well and politely.

  447. 447
    Freja

    @ 404 Adiabat

    Freja (316): You’ve just quoted the parody bit of his post again, the bit which is intended to mirror the horrible Jezebel piece. I’m still unconvinced that it reflects his “real” opinion. And I disagree with Ally that parodying another article is “revelling” in a view he secretly holds, but of course you all can mind-read when I can’t.

    He doesn’t exactly hold it secretly. Ally has already quoted his opinion on women, which he is very open with, and I gave you multiple links to check up on too.

    I think he makes it relatively clear that what he thinks is not wrong is the idea of defending yourself from an abuser, not the manner he described in his parody.

    Where does he say that? He describes retaliation not done in self-defence, describes no acts of self-defence, and then says that “it” is not wrong because self-defence is not wrong. The only “it” he describes was the disproportionate retribution that most definitely wasn’t self-defence.

    He thinks millions of women abuse their partners, and also thinks that if a man defends himself against an abusive partner he is likely to be the one who is punished, and the punishment isn’t worth defending yourself; It’s better to just leave. But he thinks that men who do defend themselves regardless of the sexist consequences are noble for sticking up for their rights not to be a victim against an oppressive system. That’s a fair reading of what he actually says, for those of us without mindreading powers.

    How? Where do you get this stuff from? He describes violence (not self-defence), and then says:

    “Now, am I serious about this?

    No. Not because it’s wrong. It’s not wrong. Every one should have the right to defend themselves.”

    Doesn’t that make it pretty clear that he considers the actions he described above to belong in the category “self-defence”?

    I think you are reading him in the worst possible way. This is either intentional or due to bias. Either way I’m afraid because of this I don’t consider you a reliable source for judging him and have no interest in following up what are likely to be further misrepresentations of him.If you can get this one so wrong then I’m not wasting my time checking every link you throw my way to pettily snipe at someone who, at the end of the day, is rather unimportant and uninfluential.

    You spend I don’t know how long complaining that people are taking things out of context and wont give you any evidence, because you can’t be bothered to actually check up on the context of an attack before you defend it, and the moment I give it to you is the moment you decide that it’s not worth it? But I guess that despite deciding you don’t have time to actually read what Elam writes in context, you’re still going to be spending time defending him, or am I wrong?

    Oh and I think the treatment Sid is receiving is bullying.

    Sure. Making (false) accusations about feminists not criticising Jezebel enough while systematically ignoring Sasha’s posts in the comments himself, calling much everyone who disagrees with him names (which makes his acceptance of Sasha’s “ I couldn’t give a flying fuck about misogyny” all the more jarring), and then being asked to actually address the points made to him is totally the same as being bullied. Just as “beat[ing] the living shit out of them. I don’t mean subdue them, or deliver an open handed pop on the face to get them to settle down. I mean literally to grab them by the hair and smack their face against the wall till the smugness of beating on someone because you know they won’t fight back drains from their nose with a few million red corpuscles.” is totally self-defence /sarcasm.

  448. 448
    Sid

    Jessie@ 446

    Sid
    You are rude, incoherent and so set in your views that discussion with you is futile.

    There are plenty of people writing here with whom I do not agree but who express their views well and politely.

    Don’t project the characteristics of the way you are choosing to behave to me, on to me.

    I backed up my claims, you made the choice to become abusive because the evidence contradicts your feelings. That not reasonable, its not polite, its not coherent.

    MRA does not mean ok to abuse, have you got that?

  449. 449
    Sid

    @freja

    Firstly, I am not responsible for other peoples decisions to bully, the bullying is a long time characteristic of FreeThought Blogs and feminist areas, I am not responsible for it, it preexists my arrival.

    Those are some very serious allegations you are making against that man, have you any evidence to back up that’s what his actually thoughts are and he is hiding them behind a facade of satire?

    Do you have any evidence to base this on other than some misandrist fantasy that men actually do things like that?

  450. 450
    Sid

    Whoops I going to try 448 again

    Jessie@ 446

    Sid
    You are rude, incoherent and so set in your views that discussion with you is futile.

    There are plenty of people writing here with whom I do not agree but who express their views well and politely.

    Don’t project the characteristics of the way you are choosing to behave to me, on to me.

    I backed up my claims, you made the choice to become abusive because the evidence contradicts your feelings. That not reasonable, its not polite, its not coherent.

    MRA does not mean ok to abuse, have you got that?

  451. 451
    Freja

    @449 Sid

    Firstly, I am not responsible for other peoples decisions to bully, the bullying is a long time characteristic of FreeThought Blogs and feminist areas, I am not responsible for it, it preexists my arrival.

    You’re not bullied, people just aren’t friendly to you, and you have given them plenty of reasons not to be.

    Those are some very serious allegations you are making against that man, have you any evidence to back up that’s what his actually thoughts are and he is hiding them behind a facade of satire?

    Which man, Elam?

    Do you have any evidence to base this on other than some misandrist fantasy that men actually do things like that?

    Is this a new man or are you just asking me twice?

  452. 452
    Sid

    Sure Freja

    Mobbing people and being rude and nasty to them for being different isn’t bullying at all, and I brought it on myself, oh a bulling isn’t the order of the day and the free thought baboons have no reputation or track record of it.

    Yes. Elam. You are making serious and implausible claims, do you have any evidence to back your bizarre claims about this mans inner thoughts?

  453. 453
    Sid

    Same thing with Warren Farrell – his words are twisted to make all sorts of smears and false accusations relating to sex criminality against him.

  454. 454
  455. 455
    Sid

    Freja

    Are you above providing evidence for the serious accusations you are making about sinister agendas masquerading as satire against that man?

  456. 456
    Freja

    I’ve already explained it multiple times. Elam describes acts of violence that are definitely not self-defence. He even specifies that the violence shouldn’t just be to subdue the victim, but to inflict serious damage. He then says he doesn’t mean it (“it” here would refer to the violence), but not because it’s wrong, because it isn’t wrong. So in other words, he doesn’t think severe violence against women is wrong, he just doesn’t think it’s worth it.

    This is completely in line with him agreeing, in all seriousness and with no “Oh btw., it was totally satire” that “The only reason men don’t randomly pound the shit out of women who can’t keep their mouths shut, is because they don’t mean anything to us and they have no power over or in our lives. They are not worth the trouble! That’s the only reason there isn’t bodies strewn all over the streets.”. Again, not because it’s wrong, just because it’s not worth it.

    It also fits fine with him believing that most women aren’t fully human, but are “for the most part, shallow, self-serving wastes of human existence—parasites—semi-human black holes that suck resources and goodwill out of men and squander them on the mindless pursuit of vanity.”.

    Finally, he defines his description of violence in the first post mentioned as “self-defence”, even though he, as mentioned above, specifically clarified that it didn’t need to just be enough to subdue the offending woman, and he then lauds the men who commit this “self-defence” as heroes. Sure, you can choose to claim that it wasn’t just the call for men to commit violence against that was satire, but the whole article, including all the stuff he said after he claimed he wasn’t serious about the above (such as it not being wrong and the men doing it being heroes). But if the whole article is satire, that would mean his claim that he wasn’t serious was also satire, in which case he and you shouldn’t use it as proof that he didn’t mean anything in the article.

    Now, will you tell me if you agree that most women are semi-human black holes and parasites, that the Steubenville rape victim and the girls Jimmy Savile abused where whores who deserved it, that male violence against women is caused by men valuing women too much, and that women in Afghanistan are privileged and should not go to school or hold paying jobs?

  457. 457
    Jessie

    Freja (456)
    Thank you for stating that so well.

  458. 458
    Schala

    . But if the whole article is satire, that would mean his claim that he wasn’t serious was also satire, in which case he and you shouldn’t use it as proof that he didn’t mean anything in the article.

    Is today Opposite day?

    Resolve this.

  459. 459
    Jacob Schmidt

    Resolve this.

    What’s to resolve?

  460. 460
    Freja

    @436 M. A. Melby

    @ 457 Jessie

    No problem. A few corrections on my last post:

    “you can choose to claim that it wasn’t just the call for men to commit violence against women that was satire, but the whole article,”

    “the girls Jimmy Savile abused were whores who deserved it ”

    Sorry, I’m a perfectionist.

  461. 461
    Schala

    “What’s to resolve?”

    What if they said no in an article that is not supposed to be real, this must mean that the no was actually a yes! – Opposite day reference.

    If I say “This is opposite day today”, and someone says no. It means that it is opposite day. If they say yes, it means that it is opposite day. It cannot not be opposite day. Just ask Homer.

  462. 462
    Adiabat

    Jessie (413): Do you have any idea how it looks to someone trying to have a discussion when you swoop in at the end of a discussion, misunderstand/misrepresent what he says, and then ask a series of questions that have already been answered upthread, indicating that you haven’t even bothered to read it to gauge their actual views before demanding answers?

    It looks like you aren’t interested in having a discussion, and more interested in “challenging” someone ‘from the other side’.

    Leni (416 but which has grown into answering several other people as well): Thanks for saying it was a misreading and providing a reasonable response. It started seeming like we suddenly had a bunch of feminists who suddenly arrived and wanted to ‘shutdown the MRA’ by making arguments that had already been answered, not that I’m an MRA.

    I know. That’s why I said that you knew it couldn’t be used to reach a conclusion. I wasn’t assuming that, I was referencing your comments on it. I could have been clearer, sorry. But I disagree that it is relevant.

    I think that this is just something we are going to disagree on. Neither side can really convince the other I think. I have specified upthread that I would only allow it in specific circumstances, particularly where the new claim has many parallels to the previous false claim.

    In post 119 I also specified that I’m generally against restrictions in other cases as well. If the new claim falls under a rapists “MO” (to use a term I’ve only ever heard TV cops say) then I think the rapists “MO” is relevant to the case. Exceptions may be if it can be shown that the accuser knows the MO and may be using to make a false claim. This works both ways.

    I’d like the circumstances in both cases to be laid out in legislation and the judge apply that to it to decide whether it is relevant. This means that any arguments about the ‘jurors role’ are missing the mark. The very thing I am arguing is that the system is wrong. It does become a moral issue if the system is so wrong that jurors are enabling miscarriages of justice because “that’s their role”. The whole point of being judged by your peers is that they can go by their conscience and don’t have to follow their role, it’s what prevents kangaroo courts and why they are the backbone of a fair and just legal system. Though I agree the establishment have tried to erode this principle of the jury in recent years, convincing people that they are just fulfilling a role a judge could do. Saying that that’s not the jurors role is not adding to the conversation.

    (This can stand as a reply to others such as municapolis who’ve made these points as well to save on typing)

    Jacob (417): I’ve answered some of the points you raise above, so I’ll reply to the rest.

    How does advocations for retaliatory violence mirror making light of violence? Even if that’s what Elam meant, his satire is screwed.

    You’ve yet to show that he was advocating for retaliatory violence. As it stands all he’s done in his satire is made light of violence with the genders reversed, the intention being to mirror the Jezebel view that it’s okay to revel in violence against the other gender. At least he states that it’s a satire.

    When he says “it’s not wrong”, he’s not talking about self defense. He’s talking about violent retaliation.

    That’s just your interpretation. I’m saying that an equally, if not more, valid interpretation is that he is referring to defending yourself when he says that it’s not wrong.

    I suppose that reply covers Freja as well. Note that just restating your interpretations are unlikely to just as unconvincing the third (fourth?) time as it was the first time.

    Freja:

    You spend I don’t know how long complaining that people are taking things out of context and wont give you any evidence, because you can’t be bothered to actually check up on the context of an attack before you defend it, and the moment I give it to you is the moment you decide that it’s not worth it?

    No, I haven’t complained about evidence. I’ve stated that the interpretation that Ally, yourself and others are using isn’t justified by a reading of Elam’s post. Considering that you seem to be grossly misrepresenting him here on the main article we’re discussing, please explain to me why I should waste my time reading other articles where he is likely to be misrepresented as well? And explain why I should read the additional ones you’ll inevitably bring up when I disagree about those? And the next ones. Also, I stated waaay upthread in my first post to you that I’ve no interest in being sent on a wild-link-chase if your original claim turns out to be bogus.

    Jacob:

    115: Dan explains the reason for his assumption

    Yeah, his reason being that it’s all my fault.

    M.A Melby:

    Oh -but since you mentioned it – quick question; if the person was actually convicted of making a false police report concerning a similar crime – would that be admissible?

    Committing insurance fraud would prevent someone from ever getting insurance again, at least at any decent rates. Also:

    The Criminal Justice Act 2003 of the United Kingdom (UK) implemented fundamental changes to the admissibility of evidence relating to character, in respect to defendants and others. The Act is far-reaching, providing for the admissibility of previous convictions in support of a propensity to commit like-offences and untruthfulness.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_character_evidence

    I don’t know if that covers the accuser as well as the defendant.

  463. 463
    Sid

    So Freja

    We are all know that Elam deliberately described a controversial situation in a satirical way and “Jail broke the Patriarchy”, to highlight how the Jezebele feminists are apparently free to celebrate and advocate violence against men in the mainstream, ultimately to make an anti violence statement.

    The accusations that you are being asked to support is your assertion that it is something more than that and has a hidden agenda to be like the Jezebele article, ie. truly a celebration or avocation of violence against the other gender.

    Best you can honestly say is that while you don’t agree with his methods, it is anti violence advocacy, and the misandrist stereotypes that are being tagged onto here are false accusations and mischaracterizations.

  464. 464
    Stacy

    So the issues that men face and which MRAs are concerned with are big, serious, meaty REAL issues

    And the self-parody of the AVfM crowd continues apace.

    Ah, MRAs. Embracing patriarchal attitudes that benefit them, blaming feminism and whining about the aspects that bite them in the ass.

  465. 465
    Sid

    Stacey.

    The position is more like this – the dominant strain of the gender equality movement erases male suffering from the story sometimes even deliberately covering it up, and exaggerates female suffering, which makes various preexisting problems – or what feminists call patriarchy, worse for men.

    And issues like male disposibility and female abuse of men and children being covered up, women using the courts as a weapon of abuse, mens civil rights being eroded, the demonization of men are more meaty than many of the issues that modern western feminists are concerned with.

  466. 466
    casus fortuitus

    Sid:

    We are all know that Elam deliberately described a controversial situation in a satirical way and “Jail broke the Patriarchy”, to highlight how the Jezebele feminists are apparently free to celebrate and advocate violence against men in the mainstream, ultimately to make an anti violence statement.

    The thing about satire is that it’s supposed to be obvious that the person delivering it is adopting a position with which they don’t agree in order to illustrate the flaws in that position (otherwise, it’s just trolling). Elam’s problem, here, is that the position he adopted for this “satire” is indistinguishable from his usual bile-filled, misogynist ranting. It’s exactly the sort of thing we might expect from him; it fails as satire because it’s so easy to confuse this purported position with Elam’s genuine sentiments.

    So, OK, let’s (in a spirit of exuberant charity) assume it was a ham-fisted attempt at satire. If its effect (because it was poorly executed) was to cause its (reasonable) audience to believe that Elam was endorsing male-on-female domestic violence, then it doesn’t matter what Elam intended. He made a statement that gave aid and comfort to abusers, and made it more likely that there would be more abuse in the future. That means that Elam’s “satire” is open to the criticism that Fogg and others have levelled at it.

    It isn’t an answer to that criticism to say that Jezebel did the same thing, because a) no, they didn’t, b) tu quoque is a fallacy for a reason, and c) everyone here condemns the article anyway.

    TL;DR: Elam is open to criticism for his bile, even if he genuinely intended it as satire.

  467. 467
    Raging Bee

    Shorter Sid: Thief! Thief! Thief! Feminism! We hates it! We hates it!! We hates it forever!!!

    So the issues that men face and which MRAs are concerned with are big, serious, meaty REAL issues.

    Far meatier issues than most of the MRAs can even handle. Not all feminists care about these issues, but those who do speak of them far more intelligently and maturely than the MRAs who hate them so much.

  468. 468
    Stacy

    @Sid –

    The notion that anything that men do, say, or concern themselves with is “big, serious, meaty, and real” (while women’s concerns are correspondingly small, trivial, frivolous, and imagined) is a very old trope. I’ll go further: I think it’s a cognitive bias.

    issues like male disposibility and female abuse of men and children being covered up, women using the courts as a weapon of abuse, mens civil rights being eroded, the demonization of men are more meaty than many of the issues that modern western feminists are concerned with

    This is bollocks, Sid. Women are no more liable to use the courts as a weapon of abuse than men are. And while here in the U.S. everyone’s rights are being eroded, it is women who are in danger of losing the right to bodily and reproductive autonomy.

    The majority of people living in poverty–in the United States and worldwide–are women. Still.

    “Male disposability” describes something real (and tragic,) but it’s complicated by the fact that the “disposable” men are predominantly poor and working class, and it’s elite men who’ve historically had the power to make the “rules” pertaining to social roles. And while it’s true that most of society’s most dangerous jobs are held by men, the men holding those jobs haven’t exactly been friendly to women who’ve tried to join their ranks. Feminists have fought for equality in the Armed Forces, for example, for decades, and the evidence is clear that women soldiers have not been treated in a comradely way by their brothers-in-arms.

    And the fact that men are in some circumstances seen as somehow more disposable than women does not mean that they are seen as less important than women. On the contrary, they are seen as more responsible and authoritative than women (or to put it another way: their lives and their problems are perceived as bigger, seriouser, meatier, and realer, than women’s.)

    I agree that men are often horribly exploited. I do not agree that their exploitation is worse than women’s, or that their suffering is taken less seriously. And, just to be very very clear, it is absurd to claim, as some MRAs do, that feminism is somehow responsible for that exploitation.

  469. 469
    Freja

    Adiabat and Sid, correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be suggesting two different things. Sid insists that the whole article was satire, while Adiabat insists that Elam simply stopped talking about the disproportionate retribution he started out by suggesting, and switched to talking about legitimate self-defence midway. Which one is it, satire or self-defence?

  470. 470
    Schala

    @468

    Not even worth replying to. I’ll just say this, if you think the suffering of men is taken seriously, wow, in what world have you been living? I mean, it’s probably the one big issue men have – their suffering even being acknowledged by anyone, even themselves.

  471. 471
    Sid

    casus fortuitus

    The only people that are having trouble distinguishing it as satire, are people like those here that have already painted misandric stereotypes all over him and don’t know much about the mens movement at all.

    Elam’s problem, here, is that the position he adopted for this “satire” is indistinguishable from his usual bile-filled, misogynist ranting. It’s exactly the sort of thing we might expect from him

    Exactly, you believe things that aren’t true in the first place, therefore you believe the implausible story that it isn’t an anti violence statement done in bad taste.

    You probably believe its really dangerous because you believe false and misandrist stories about the mens movement being populated by violent thugs that have an irrational hatred of women.

    If you want to make serious accusations you should back them up, this isn’t an unmoderated feminist forum where you can just make any sort of false accusations you want.

    You have to back up your ridiculous narratives with facts.

  472. 472
    Raging Bee

    Aren’t these little boys cute when they’re lecturing us about rules they’re not grown up enough to understand or follow themselves?

  473. 473
    Sid

    Stacey

    This is bollocks, Sid. Women are no more liable to use the courts as a weapon of abuse than men are.

    Perhaps, but women have more opportunity and seem to be using divorce, access to children and false accusations to abuse more than men are.

    And while here in the U.S. everyone’s rights are being eroded, it is women who are in danger of losing the right to bodily and reproductive autonomy.

    Women in the US have reproductive autonomy and privileges that men do not have. As it stands, a woman can rape or tamper with B/C and if there is a pregnancy she can take control of a mans body and labour for 21 years under the treat of violence, kidnapping and incarceration for non compliance. When it comes to reproductive rights and privileges, women have it relatively good.

    their lives and their problems are perceived as bigger, seriouser, meatier, and realer, than women’s.)

    Nope, it means they are seen as utilities, that should be stoic and not complain about their problems.

    Look at feminism and the gender debate, where its supposedly more ok for men to have problems and the punishment and mockery men have to deal with before getting anything on the table.

  474. 474
    Sid

    473 redux, this one is clearer.

    Stacey

    This is bollocks, Sid. Women are no more liable to use the courts as a weapon of abuse than men are.

    Perhaps, but women have more opportunity and seem to be using divorce, access to children and false accusations to abuse more than men are.

    And while here in the U.S. everyone’s rights are being eroded, it is women who are in danger of losing the right to bodily and reproductive autonomy.

    Women in the US have reproductive autonomy and privileges that men do not have. As it stands, a woman can rape or tamper with B/C and if there is a pregnancy she can take control of a mans body and labour for 21 years under the treat of violence, kidnapping and incarceration for non compliance. When it comes to reproductive rights and privileges, women have it relatively good.

    their lives and their problems are perceived as bigger, seriouser, meatier, and realer, than women’s.)

    Nope, it means they are seen as utilities, that should be stoic and not complain about their problems.

    Look at feminism and the gender debate, where its supposedly more ok for men to have problems and the punishment , abuse and mockery men have to deal with before getting anything on the table. Men have had to literally start taking feminism apart to even get a foot in the door.

    Ragingfool

    You have huge penis and are the best at saving the women through intramale aggression.

  475. 475
    Stacy

    This:

    Not even worth replying to. I’ll just say this, if you think the suffering of men is taken seriously, wow, in what world have you been living? I mean, it’s probably the one big issue men have – their suffering even being acknowledged by anyone, even themselves

    is a petulant admission that you’re unable to offer a substantive response to what I said.

    I have news for you, Schala: most human beings, female as well as male, feel their suffering isn’t taken seriously. And many, many people, female as well as male, have difficulty acknowledging the depths of their own suffering.

    They also have an unfortunate tendency to mistake the cause of their suffering, and to blame it instead on some convenient target.

    It’s important to watch out for that.

    Sometimes they get bogged down in self-pity. It’s easy to do, when one feels powerless.

    It’s important to watch out for that, too.

    I live in the world you do. I’ve suffered and I’ve seen suffering, including the suffering of people I loved, both male and female.

    If you want to address men’s suffering, address it. But address it substantively and honestly, not with misogyny and hyperbolic self-pity. And don’t pretend that men’s suffering is bigger and realer than women’s.

  476. 476
    Schala

    @475

    Not gonna reply, not because “I don’t have an argument”, but because your claim is so out there, it would take Reality 101 to reply. And I forgot my lecturing glasses.

  477. 477
    Raging Bee

    Not gonna reply, not because “I don’t have an argument”, but because your claim is so out there…

    Yeah, Stacy @475 is all the way out HERE in the real world, where the rest of us can easily see the truth of it. Not sure what you mean by “out there,” except maybe “outside your own infantile fantasies.”

  478. 478
    Schala

    Yawn, did a troll pass?

  479. 479
    Jacob Schmidt

    Adiabat

    You’ve yet to show that he was advocating for retaliatory violence.

    Oh please. Look:

    I’d like to make it the objective for the remainder of this month, and all the Octobers that follow, for men who are being attacked and physically abused by women – to beat the living shit out of them. I don’t mean subdue them, or deliver an open handed pop on the face to get them to settle down. I mean literally to grab them by the hair and smack their face against the wall till the smugness of beating on someone because you know they won’t fight back drains from their nose with a few million red corpuscles.
    And then make them clean up the mess.

    Those are Elam’s words. They’re explicit advocation for violence. You’d like to claim they’re satire. Satire of what? Jezebel didn’t advocate anything, they didn’t encourage others to be violent, and they certainly didn’t make light of anything as serious as Elam proposed. How the fuck is that satire? Is Elam really that incompetent?

    That’s just your interpretation. I’m saying that an equally, if not more, valid interpretation is that he is referring to defending yourself when he says that it’s not wrong.

    Oh, you’re saying, but you’re not justifying.

    Look: “Now, am I serious about this? No. Not because it’s wrong. It’s not wrong. One should have the right to defend themselves.

    What is ‘this’? To what is he referring? He claims he’s talking about self defense, but is that an accurate description of beating someone’s head into the wall, given that he explicitly states that the purpose is not merely defending oneself?

    The better option[1] is to kick her to the curb, figuratively speaking, and hopefully move on to some better choices. Besides, violence in self defense should be in some way commensurate with the violence of the attack[2].

    1) Better than what, I wonder?
    2) We know it’s not proportional violence, at least, since Elam holds that in a separate category.

  480. 480
    casus fortuitus

    Sid:

    Exactly, you believe things that aren’t true in the first place, therefore you believe the implausible story that it isn’t an anti violence statement done in bad taste.

    This reveals just how detached from reality you’ve become. Here’s just one other example of Elam expressing his dismissive and abusive attitudes towards women (trigger warning for victim blaming, rape, violence):

    there are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.

    Tell me, Sid, is this satire, too? If so, is your definition of satire “anything Elam says that, if sincere, demonstrates he’s as straightforwardly misogynist as his critics claim”? I’m sure that manboobz isn’t a source you consider particularly credible, but there’s more on how laughable it is to characterise Elam’s vomit as “satire”.

    You probably believe its really dangerous because you believe false and misandrist stories about the mens movement being populated by violent thugs that have an irrational hatred of women.

    No, Sid. I don’t have to read stories. I just have to watch while EVERY SINGLE FUCKING CONVERSATION about feminism or women’s issues is hijacked by victim-blaming apologists for silencing and marginalisation. I just have to see, with my own eyes, self-identified MRAs complain when their own derailing is called out, and then to characterise this failure to tolerate derailing as male oppression. I don’t believe that the MRM is populated (heavily, if not exclusively) by misogynist thugs because I’m told stories; I know it is because MRAs have demonstrated it beyond doubt. Just like you’re doing, here and now.

    If you want to make serious accusations you should back them up, this isn’t an unmoderated feminist forum where you can just make any sort of false accusations you want.

    You have to back up your ridiculous narratives with facts.

    Thanks for the laugh, buddy.

  481. 481
    Sid

    casus fortuitus

    Your second example is also deliberately in bad taste, deliberately controversial and trying to draw attention to something else. Your accusation that Elam usually writes this sort of article, but all you have done is produce two like that out of 1000s that aren’t. Your argument is that we cannot take these examples as anything but literal because they are what he usually writes.

    I’m asking you to back up your claim that he usually writes in that style, 2 or 3 deliberately controversial articles out of thousands isn’t a pattern.

  482. 482
    Sid

    Anyhow, the mrm is perfectly entitled to have a Germaine Greer, in fact it needs one.

    Feminists and societies delicate sensibilities about how women are spoken about, and the double standards when it comes to women speaking about men needs the be challenged and poked at.

  483. 483
    casus fortuitus

    Sid:

    Your second example is also deliberately in bad taste, deliberately controversial and trying to draw attention to something else. Your accusation that Elam usually writes this sort of article, but all you have done is produce two like that out of 1000s that aren’t. Your argument is that we cannot take these examples as anything but literal because they are what he usually writes.

    How many statements and comments endorsing the abuse of women must Paul Elam make before we’re entitled to conclude that his endorsement of abuse is characteristic of him, and not some rhetorical cloak he dons only to make a point? How many times can you shift these goalposts before even you gag on your own dishonesty, and on Elam’s hypocrisy?

    Posts that don’t contain glorification of abuse aren’t evidence that Elam doesn’t hold those views – broadly speaking, absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. So unless he’s made posts expressly condemning violence against women (and not weaksauce “don’t do it ’cause bitches ain’t worth it, but they definitely deserve it”) I only need a few examples to establish Elam’s endorsement of abuse, even if he’s written thousands of pieces that are neutral on the topic (and Elam’s writing has a pretty strong undercurrent of being dismissive of and antagonistic towards women, even where he’s not explicitly endorsing abuse).

    Here’s a third example for you, Sid, in this exciting game of Satire or Sincere? Here’s the scene: a collection of feminist groups had signed a letter to Facebook calling for a ban on “groups, pages and images that explicitly condone or encourage rape or domestic violence or suggest that they are something to laugh or boast about”. Here’s Elam’s response to this initiative to address the public glorification of domestic abuse:

    feminist ideologues are co-opting Facebook, and they will root out any and all opposition to their worldview

    He calls this “the greatest challenge to the M(H)RM”, and he implores his readers to head to Facebook and make their opinions (presumably, their opinions opposing the glorification of domestic abuse) known. So, Sid, is this a satirical call to action, or is it a sincere characterisation of a call to ban the glorification of domestic abuse as a subversive feminist plot that undermines the MRM?

    Feminists and societies delicate sensibilities about how women are spoken about, and the double standards when it comes to women speaking about men needs the be challenged and poked at.

    Haha, thanks for telling us what society, feminists and women need. You’re a riot.

  484. 484
    oolon

    @johngreg #377

    If you spend a few weeks reading at Skepchick.org (not that you’d want to, particularily), you will see the WAtM comment quite frequently, especially from commenter marilove who seems to use it to shut people up on an almost weekly basis.

    I’ve seen it used as a derailer or convo-stopper on a few FfTB blogs, but not all that often. But it does indeed show up at Skepchick a lot.

    I’m sure you evidence other than your butthurt about being banned there (I assume you’ve been banned)?

    From my google search it seems she usually uses it as a joke or way to ridicule sexism
    http://skepchick.org/2008/12/a-peek-into-the-hate-mailbag#comment-42146
    Maybe an argument here – but it shut no one up any more than the many other words in her comments.
    http://skepchick.org/2012/04/rmensrights-hate-group-trolled#comment-147231

    Personally I have used it on FTBs!
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2013/03/22/the-slymepitters-might-benefit-from-this-one/#comment-92101
    There’s even been a post on it on this network, oh the humanity!
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/taslima/2013/07/02/what-about-teh-menz/

    Personally to me its a clear bit of ridicule aimed at the tendency of idiots like PitchGuest to pitch up in any thread that is on a post about violence or rape against women and rail against the evilz feminists denying violence or rape against men. Or teh menz … He very nicely puts the non-sequitur here ->

    Why should this be advice explictly to men, exactly? Do you mean to imply that women don’t ever rape, that women don’t ever abuse?

    No, it implies nothing of the sort and as “sceptics” the Slymepitters such as you/PG/Renee should be able to grasp such a simple concept. Even the average MRA should be able to get this. It literally “does not follow…” so is a great example of a non-sequitur worthy of ridicule given how often it occurs.

    So where are your examples of it shutting down legitimate discourse on Skepchick and not being used to shut up derailing bumblefucks like PG? Or is that your real beef, it stops you and pals from derailing every conversation to the topic you want to discuss and away from any uncomfortable discussions about violence against women?

    [Observation: I've never seen women pop up in threads about violence or rape against men pulling the same tactic, which given the prevalence and relative proportions you may argue would be more justified.]
    [Disclaimer: I use the word women juxtaposed to violence and rape a few times in this comment. This does not mean I am denying violence and rape happen to men as well, they do and are equally deplorable.]

  485. 485
    Gjenganger

    @casus fortius 483
    I have never looked much at Mens Rights web sites, and I do not like their tone. But the example you give here is very different from the ‘beat the bitch’ stuff we have been talking about so far. It is strange that you choose to put them in the same pot.

    The problem is what this is going to mean in practice:

    groups, pages and images that explicitly condone or encourage rape or domestic violence or suggest that they are something to laugh or boast about

    I do not doubt that the people making the petition sincerely think that anything they want banned really is increasing the amount of rape and violence in the world. But as you know there are lots of (feminist) voices that are against jokes about rape, ‘outdated’ stereotypes, violent / hard / all pornography, disrespectful talk about women, …, all on the grounds that they are ‘anti-woman’ and promote rape and bad things. Maybe the people are not consciously using the fight against rape and violence as a cover to force out any speech they do not like. But whatever their motives, their initiative has the potential to ban a very broad range of speech from Facebook, all according to principles and norms that belong to a limited, feminist group. In effect this group want to make their own ideology dominant and squeeze disagreeing voices off the main distribution channels. The ban would certainly hit Paul Elam himself. So Paul Elam makes the quite reasonable point that this threatens to force political groups such as his own off the ether, as it were, and that non-feminist groups surely have a right to be involved in setting the standard, if we have to impose sexual politics standards on Facebook.

    Why is that violent or hateful – unless you think that you are so right that any opposition to your views is hateful by definition?

  486. 486
    Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened

    No, Sid. I don’t have to read stories. I just have to watch while EVERY SINGLE FUCKING CONVERSATION about feminism or women’s issues is hijacked by victim-blaming apologists for silencing and marginalisation. I just have to see, with my own eyes, self-identified MRAs complain when their own derailing is called out, and then to characterise this failure to tolerate derailing as male oppression. I don’t believe that the MRM is populated (heavily, if not exclusively) by misogynist thugs because I’m told stories; I know it is because MRAs have demonstrated it beyond doubt.

    QFT.

  487. 487
    carnation

    @ GJenganger

    The most widespread, and the most appallingly accepted, rape jokes and imagery seem to be about rape within prisons.

    This is tangible and real and, along with the fact that most of the victims are convicts, undoubtedly created a scenario where this horror wasn’t treated as seriously as it should have been.

    Try this thought experiment. What is wrong with this statement:

    “groups, pages and images that explicitly condone or encourage raping or violently abusing a teenage man on remand in jail or suggest that they are something to laugh or boast about”

    You seem an intelligent person, I struggle to see how on earth you could possibly object to the proposals.

  488. 488
    casus fortuitus

    Gjenganger:

    the example you give here is very different from the ‘beat the bitch’ stuff we have been talking about so far. It is strange that you choose to put them in the same pot.

    First, let me explain my reasoning here.

    This is my claim: Elam says things that would give the impression to reasonable people that he endorses domestic abuse.

    This is why the claim is relevant: if true, it means that it is difficult to sell his “beat the abusive bitches” tirade as satire, because for that to work we would have to understand that Elam does not, in fact, endorse beating bitches. If it is not satire (notwithstanding Elam’s insistence that he was only joking), then the screed can legitimately be criticised by Fogg etc, and Sid and the other Elam apologists in this thread are defending an advocate of domestic abuse.

    This is why the third example supports the claim: Elam is explicitly defending the dissemination of material that depicts or endorses domestic abuse (although he claims to be defending something else).

    The objection that you share with Elam is that the feminists are lying – they don’t, apparently, want Facebook to ban content that glorifies or endorses abuse. Using his mind-reading powers, Elam has discovered that these feminists actually want a wide ban on any content they find objectionable at all. There are, of course, some problems with this incredibly uncharitable and paranoid assessment:

    1) Facebook will still be the moderator. The feminists who lobbied for the change aren’t setting up a Star Chamber where they can try anyone who looks at a woman funny.

    2) We can tell the difference between content that glorifies or endorses domestic abuse and… well, whatever it is aside from such content that you and Elam are afraid will be caught by the ban. He doesn’t say what other content is in danger of being caught by the ban, exactly, which I find quite telling.

    3) Facebook already bans lots of categories of things. Including pornographic images, by the way. Do you object to these bans on the basis that they’re a slippery slope and part of the covert feminist agenda to subvert all social media?

    This is obvious stuff. The gap between “ban content that glorifies domestic abuse” and “ban content that challenges mainstream feminism (or maybe even just the prejudices of any fringe feminist)” is fucking chasmic. In conflating the two, Elam is either making an honest mistake of epic proportions (which you seem also to have made), or he is knowingly setting up a pretext so he can defend the dissemination of material that glorifies or endorses abuse.

    I don’t claim to know whether Elam is mistaken or dishonest on this (although I have my suspicions, given his other statements). All I’m doing is presenting evidence to support my claim; you’re free to find it more or less convincing.

  489. 489
    inappropriate

    Ally – that Jezebel article didn’t appear out of nowhere. Any meaningful critique of the piece would have to make feminists uncomfortable, because the entitled attitude on display comes directly from their gender theories (that as a member of an ‘oppressed’ group, your selfishness can be turned into altruism via the philosopher’s stone of Empowerment).

    Sid – because it’s asinine. I get that he’s trying to point out a double standard (M->F violence is taken more seriously than F->M violence) but he did so in the worst possible way, a way that makes him look like a psycho to an uninformed observer, and doesn’t hurt (maybe even reinforces, q.v. Ally’s white knighting) the double standard.

  490. 490
    casus fortuitus

    inappropriate:

    as a member of an ‘oppressed’ group, your selfishness can be turned into altruism via the philosopher’s stone of Empowerment

    This is a fascinating theory. Can you point to some substantiation of it?

  491. 491
    inappropriate

    I’m sorry. Your glittering sarcasm has shown me the way, and I now accept that my narrative is wholly fantastical, and no woman has ever expressed the opinion that it’s ok to hit her boyfriend or grope hot men in a crowded bar because ‘guys do it more’, not once, not even on Jezebel or Tumblr. I just imagined it because I probably have a small dick or something.

    (I’m new here. Is this more the kind of tone we’re meant to use?)

  492. 492
    casus fortuitus

    I’ll take that as a “no”, then.

    (I don’t know, this is the first thread I’ve posted in myself (I think). I suspect it’s usual not to smear entire fields of inquiry by claiming they justify physical abuse, though.)

  493. 493
    inappropriate

    I’m at work, where my books aren’t.

    If you want me to cite a self-described feminist author saying “go out and kill men now” then you’re right, I can’t – but it looks like you’re narrowing the definition as a defensive measure.

    At the lowbrow, grassroots internet level, it comes down to the “power + prejudice” meme. Feminists generally assert that women don’t have systemic power and men do, therefore male sexism against females is more serious than female sexism against males (or that sexism against males isn’t really sexism, or some variation).

    Given that pretty much any ideology (it’s really not a “field of inquiry”) can be used to justify some terrible shit, it doesn’t take a genius to realize that some of the undergrads being taught this theory will get the idea that “if I act abusively towards my partner, it’s not really abuse because Patriarchy”.

    I really can’t tell if you’re seriously saying there’s no subtext of revenge in feminism whatsoever or just being disingenuous.

  494. 494
    Freja

    @485 Gjenganger

    I do not doubt that the people making the petition sincerely think that anything they want banned really is increasing the amount of rape and violence in the world

    It’s not about getting to dictate exactly what is damaging, it’s asking Facebook to uphold its own standards of hate speech and bullying. Before, there was an exception so that MRA types enjoyed a greater freedom to push for their hateful views than anyone else. You couldn’t post an image of a black man getting lynched or beaten up with a caption about how this is how real Americans deal with uppity niggers without it getting erased, but you could post an imaged of an injured woman with a caption about how this is what happens when uppity bitches don’t stay in the kitchen without consequences.

    What the people in question (feminist or not) petitioned for was not a special restriction in regards to speech about women, it was to remove the special protection afforded hateful speech when said speech was directed at women and/or was about rape. MRA types are predictably upset about this because it means they’ll be held to the same standards as everyone else. And others are against it because MRA propaganda will have them believe that the restrictions against hate speech about women and rape are the only restrictions there are (and that similar restrictions didn’t exist before), meaning that my hypothetical example about uppity niggers would still be OK, or that condoning violence against uppity bitches is somehow inherently less serious and threatening than condoning violence against uppity niggers.

  495. 495
    Schala

    [Observation: I've never seen women pop up in threads about violence or rape against men pulling the same tactic, which given the prevalence and relative proportions you may argue would be more justified.]

    ALL threads against male rape within a neutral or feminist context (ie not on MRA blogs, but this includes Guardian, Salon, Huffingtonpost, Feministe, Feministing, Alas, a blog and more) are derailed, sometimes in the original post itself, with a “it’s men doing it to men” and a “male victim numbers are small”.

    At the lowbrow, grassroots internet level, it comes down to the “power + prejudice” meme. Feminists generally assert that women don’t have systemic power and men do, therefore male sexism against females is more serious than female sexism against males (or that sexism against males isn’t really sexism, or some variation).

    Don’t forget the “male sexism against males doesn’t count, because it’s men oppressing themselves, so who cares”.

    Or the insinuation that misandry cannot exist because it HAS to be women hating men – as if men cannot hate men.

    Newsflash: Most oppression in your daily lives comes from people of the same sex as you, for the average person (who tends to associate with more person of their sex socially). The government-type discrimination ie laws and such) and oppression comes from apexuals, not people who care about sex membership, or sexuality, or cis-ness, or whiteness. They care about the super rich – because it’s their one demographic helping them the most.

    When you get a government who isn’t pissing their pants at the idea of augmenting taxes on the rich, then I might change my mind.

  496. 496
    Gjenganger

    @ casus fortuitus 488 (and Carnation 487)
    As far as I am concerned the ‘beat the bitches‘ stuff is obviously not satire, but I would be against it regardless because it is nasty. It is revenge fantasy, and it belongs in private, or on a porn story site (see my 389 above).

    The objection that you share with Elam is that the feminists are lying – they don’t, apparently, want Facebook to ban content that glorifies or endorses abuse.

    It is not a question of mind-reading, or lying. Some of the feminist definitions of what ‘glorifies or endorses‘ abuse are quite broad – that net can catch a hell of a lot of fish, even where the fisherwomen are sincere. And it will be temptingly easy to misuse it. Anyway, it is unclear exactly what could be banned. The original had ‘condone or encourage‘. You added ‘depict‘ – which could ban every film or photo that shows anybody being abused. Of course we both know it would be very selectively applied – but by whom? Then there is the ‘suggest that they are something to laugh or boast about‘. The only way I can interpret that is that anything that shows an inappropriate attitude towards violence, rape etc. could be banned. That lands us where we are banning opinions and attitudes, besides leaving it totally up to the implementors where the limit will be.

    The bigger problem is who gets to determine what ‘glorifies or endorses‘ abuse. Imagine for a moment that you get your ban – and that Sid and Paul Elam get to make the committee that decides what is and is not bannable. Does not bear thinking about, does it? That is what Paul Elam is looking at, from the other side of the mirror.

    The gap between “ban content that glorifies domestic abuse” and “ban content that challenges mainstream feminism (or maybe even just the prejudices of any fringe feminist)” is fucking chasmic

    What ‘glorifies and endorses abuse‘ is not a neutral fact. It is a political opinion. I take your comment to mean that you would apply this ban where it made sense, and not where it does not make sense. The thing is that non-feminists do not agree to your judgements. Many of the things you see as ‘glorifying abuse‘ they see as merely ‘challenging mainstream feminism‘, and they do not accept your right to decide for everybody.

    Besides, even where we two agree that something ‘glorifies an endorses‘ abuse – in the abstract – it is still very problematical to censor people’s opinions. Even where it serves a worthy end. Deciding what opinions can be said in polite society is a tool for social control – and a very effective one too. And the rules tend to take on a life of their own. A mere accusation of being sexist / racist / etc. hits fairly hard in many contexts, and a combination of eager debaters and people being uncertain about the limits serve to extend them. For historical examples, see how pronouns ‘he’ and ‘she’ are gradually disapppearing from public texts. The ‘PC gone mad’ examples like people being challenged for using racist words like ‘black’ and ‘white’ when ordering coffee are not exceptions, as much as part of the normal process of mission creep. I find it understandable but very problematical that people want to ‘solve’ gender problems by setting a norm that bans sexist opinions. As for an official ban on Facebook that really is going too far.

  497. 497
    carnation

    @ GJenganger

    I can see where you’re coming from, but as has been pointed out, if wont be Elam or Sid, or their equivalents, deciding: it will be Facebook.

    And it is, in essence, a business opting to clamp down on the endorsement or promotion of nasty interpersonal crime.

    Now I understand where you’re coming from, but this isn’t a freedom of speech issue, it’s a public space, good taste and common sense issue.

  498. 498
    Gjenganger

    @494 Freja.
    It depends how you look at it. Certain groups like blacks (African-Americans?) and jews have special protections against insults and aggressive speech, that Lithuanians and cricket players do not have. No objection to the principle (though we could discuss the details), some groups have a greater need, as well as a horrific history that is conjured up every time. You want women as a group to get the same special protections, and claim that this is equality. The thing is, that if you include women, well over half of humanity is a member of a specially protected group. Does that not sound a bit strange? If you really want equality, why not remove all the special protections and make it illegal to say nasty things about anybody, whatever group they belong to? White men included?

  499. 499
    Gjenganger

    @497 Carnation.
    I think you are shirking your moral responsibilities here. If you can agitate for a ban, surely you can take responsibility for the consequences. Consider some paralle examples:
    In an ethnically divide country, the maojrity organises a boycott of any company that hires or promotes members of a despised minority (gypsies, for instance). Or, in a country with highly concentrated company ownership the big advertisers organise a boycott of any media outlet that gives space to some group they do not like – be it communists, feminists, or gays. And when challenged on it, they claim it has nothing to do with them. After all

    it is, in essence, a business opting to clamp down on the endorsement or promotion of nasty interpersonal crime.
    [it] isn’t a freedom of speech issue, it’s a public space, good taste and common sense issue.

  500. 500
    Gjenganger

    @497 Carnation 2

    Now I understand where you’re coming from, but this isn’t a freedom of speech issue, it’s a public space, good taste and common sense issue.

    I should add that for the classic media I would agree with you. Papers, radio and TV, advertising, society is entitled to make norms for what can be put there, to protect people from being forced to see things that most people in a given society would rather avoid. It is harder with the internet, for one thing because it is international and cuts across cultural communities, for another because it is both pervasive, unavoidable, and in many ways private. Facebook is private communication quite as much as it is public.

  501. 501
    Freja

    @498 Gjenganger

    The Facebook regulations does not mention special groups, so you’re either misinformed or making stuff up. Facebook’s own policy says:

    “Content that attacks people based on their actual or perceived race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or disease is not allowed.”

    http://www.facebook.com/help/135402139904490/

    The issue was that every time someone posted about how women deserved to be raped, beaten, or killed specifically because of their sex, or their failure to adhere to a gender role based solely on their sex, the Facebook moderators claimed that it was humour, even when it precisely mimicked what misogynists have said in all seriousness, something which didn’t happen to similar forms of hate speech against other groups. And in addition, as some have pointed out, Facebook is not above removing images which women posted of themselves topless (such as an image of a breast cancer survivor), and it’s pretty obscene to suggest that endorsements of rape are somehow less offensive or potentially traumatising.

    The protesters have never advocated that women should be given special protection, they advocated the viewpoint that endorsing violence, torture, and murder of people based on the demographic they belong to is wrong, period, and it doesn’t magically become less serious and more humorous when that demographic is women, or when the violence and torture described is rape. They did so by making the hypocrisy obvious, drawing public attention to the kind of endorsements of violence and hate which Facebook moderators labelled humour, and as a result, got a lot of signatures, as well as companies telling Facebook they didn’t want ads for their products placed next to “The bitch deserved it”. That seems pretty fair to me.

  502. 502
    Gjenganger

    @501 Freja
    Fair enough. Facebook was not living up to the letter of their own regulations. Pretty obvious target for a campaign. My preference would still be either to remove sex, gender and nationality from the list, so that it really was a limited number of protected categories (that may well be what they were doing in practice), or to change it to “Content that contains severe personal attacks is not allowed”.

  503. 503
    Ally Fogg

    ‘scuse me butting in on the Facebook conversation, but seems to me all the hypotheticals are rather unnecessary.

    The rules Facebook now use on misogynistic images and pages have exact parallels with policies on racist and homophobic content. If you post an image making a joke about a KKK lynching, for example, it might be removed and if you keep posting it to Facebook you will be banned.

    Facebook has had those policies for ever. Has it stifled legitimate free speech on Facebook? I don’t see it. Plenty of (pretty much) overtly far-right and racist groups have public Facebook pages. EDL and BNP have Facebook pages and post their own political propaganda there. I wouldn’t be surprised if the KKK themselves have Facebook pages.

    Meanwhile the idea that ordinary users can’t speke duhr brANez about immigration or Muslims or whatever else is laughable. Facebook is awash with casual racism, as indeed is society awash with casual racism.

    The AVfM paranoia about MRAs being banished from Facebook is one of their more entertaining little delusions of late

  504. 504
    FloraPoste

    My preference would still be either to remove sex, gender and nationality from the list, so that it really was a limited number of protected categories (that may well be what they were doing in practice)”.

    So, in the policy you advocate, an image depicting a hacked, burned body would be bannable if captioned “the n***** deserved it” but OK if captioned “the bitch deserved it” ?

  505. 505
    Sid

    These are the demands that were made in May, presumably we have seen what the censorship will look like yet.

    Recognize speech that trivializes or glorifies violence against girls and women as hate speech and make a commitment that you will not tolerate this content.

    Effectively train moderators to recognize and remove gender-based hate speech.

    Effectively train moderators to understand how online harassment differently affects women and men, in part due to the real-world pandemic of violence against women.

    I would imagine that correct information pertaining to domestic violence and similar things that offend feminists will be targeted.

  506. 506