O HAI! Remember me? »« How to be a douchebag

Girls, boys and gangs: beyond villain and victim

Right wing thinktank the Centre for Social Justice is the latest body to turn a concerned gaze upon the issue of girls’ involvement with gangs. This is one of those stories that seems to surface every few months and is reported every time as a shocking, scandalous new exposé.

In truth there is little or nothing in the CSJ report that wasn’t reported in the Deputy Children’s Commissioner’s report in November last year, or by Channel 4′s investigation in 2012 or by Carlene Firmin of Race on the Agenda (ROTA) in 2011 and 2010.

It was Firmin whose work really deserved to be considered groundbreaking, and is still shocking today. She interviewed 350 girls who were directly involved in gang culture or gang-affected communities, who reported endemic sexual exploitation and rape alongside experiences as victims, perpetrators and conspirators in various violent and serious crimes.

Firmin’s work with ROTA was a milestone because, at least as far as the public and media narrative was concerned, it marked the end of a decade of textbook moral panic and folk devils about girls and gangs – gleeful tabloid tales of knife-wielding girl gangs roaming the streets like XX chromosome droogs. As the work of Susan Batchelor has convincingly shown, there is little evidence that girl gangs, in any meaningful sense, have ever existed in the UK. That is not to say that girls are not involved in gangs, but the nature of that involvement remains opaque.

The ROTA reports highlighted how a lack of serious research and investigation into the extent and nature of girls involvement with gangs was hampering provision of necessary support and exit services. Subsequent research has added nothing to this dearth of meaningful data, indeed the new report quotes Patrick Regan of charity XLP saying:

“The biggest issue with girls and gangs is that we simply don’t know the full extent of what is going on. Everything seems to be indicating that we are only looking at the tip of the iceberg and the current data fails to reflect the majority of the girls’ involvement.”

Into this vacuum has slipped a new narrative that risks taking on the character of a whole new moral panic. Over the past four years, discussion of girls in gangs has been strictly limited to the position of victim. Part of this is about social and economic victimisation, with reference to childhoods in care, or abusive families or social exclusion, slum housing and poverty. Overwhelmingly, however, the headlines have focussed on sexual exploitation.

There are many horrific accounts in these reports of gang rapes, punishment rapes, revenge rapes and more. The anecdotal evidence is plentiful enough that no one should doubt that youth gang culture is sheltering some appalling sexual violence, even if we really have no idea about the true extent of the problem. Alongside that, however, there is a rather salacious subtext that is exoticised by a glossary of street talk – “links”, “line-ups”, “wifeys” that pays scant interest to issues of consent, agency, motivation and intent. The assumption seems to be that a sexually active young woman from a poor background is, de facto, being exploited.

I spent the best part of a decade doing community media projects in a notoriously gang-affected area of South Manchester. I worked with and alongside young (and sometimes not so young) people who were inside, outside and exited from gangs, including work with convicted young offenders. I saw a lifestyle and culture that is entirely built on exploitation. The street gangs exploit the vulnerability, fear and hopelessness of brutalised and neglected young people just like themselves. Older drug dealers and thieves to manage their businesses by exploiting the aggression, anger and territorial habits of teenagers and their clawing, desperate desire for some kind of status, respect or validation.

Within that, it is all but impossible to untangle who is exploiting and who is exploited, who is the villain and who is the victim. The reality is that almost everyone involved meets either description from one day to the next, or at the same moment. People do horrible things, commit horrible crimes, as a way to avoid becoming victims of horrible crimes. All of this is true for boys just as much as it is for girls.

The perfect illustration of this is contained in the CSJ report. In the section on sexual exploitation, they provide testimony that on occasion, “female gang members in their late teens are being pressured to have sex with young boys in gangs, sometimes as young as 10, as part of the initiation process of those boys into the gang.”

Both in the report itself and the attendant media coverage, this anecdote was presented purely as an example of girls being exploited by gangs. It does not appear to have occurred to anyone that what is being described here is not just the sexual exploitation of a young woman but also a crime of serious child sex abuse against a young boy. In the reporting of this one piece of evidence we see the male victim of a serious, psychologically traumatising crime being entirely erased. Within the narrative the boys are instrumentalised to the point of irrelevance – they only feature as incidental objects. Am I the only one who finds this shocking? And am I the only one who thinks that our willingness to overlook the brutalisation of young boys might be a bloody big part of the problem?

As I see it, we have made significant progress in how we consider girls in gangs. Yes, at times the media can be patronising and romanticise away the agency of young women who willingly choose to exercise disturbing violence, brutality and cruelty, not least to other young women. It is, however, better that we err on the side of compassion and understanding of how they ended up behaving like this.

What I struggle with is our unwillingness to apply the same rational framework, the same degrees of empathy and sympathy to young boys who are similarly victimised, brutalised and vulnerable. A paradigm which holds all gang-involved young women to be innocent victims in need of rescuing and all gang-involved young men to be vicious, sexually exploitative criminals is not only infantile and inaccurate, it is actively obstructive to producing the shifts in policy and culture that could help to keep safer young women and young men alike.

Comments

  1. carnation says

    I have to say that when I heard the headlines about the CSJ report, I just shut off.  The figures appear suspeciously high and the lurid nature of some of the findings seem custom designed for Daily Mail hysteria “female members as young as eight are being used to transport weapons and drugs” and ” schoolgirls as young as eight are being used to conceal drugs” for example. The CSJ have done some interesting and valid work in the past (it goes against my political grain to say this), but I can’t help feeling that this particular report, as Ally pointed out, is re-hashing that which is already known.  And I have further suspicions that generating moral outrage about gangs and the their treatment of female members, particularly evoking sympathy for the schoolgirls, is a bit of media distraction from the social havoc being wreaked by CSJ founder IDS and his colleagues.

     Gangs are desperate institutions that will be found in times of plenty, but will abound in times of austerity. 

      A report should be done into what can be done to lessen the allure of pointless violence and a life of drudgery and crime.  If this is a gendered issue, it’s that males are being failed, largely, and that whilst it’s largely these same, and other males, that are victimised, it’s natural that females will be treated with equal disregard and exploitation. 

    Good piece Ally.

  2. johngreg says

    carnation said:

    A report should be done into what can be done to lessen the allure of pointless violence and a life of drudgery and crime.

    I was under the impression that myriad such reports have been done over the last several generations, almost always pointing out that one of the most successful methods of cleaning things up, so to speak, is to eradicate, or at least lessen, the gap between rich and poor.

    Perhaps that was all just deluded wishful thinking and fantasy on my part.

  3. mildlymagnificent says

    Perhaps that was all just deluded wishful thinking and fantasy on my part.

    ‘Fraid so.

    But that’s a very big club you’ve joined.

  4. mildlymagnificent says

    Back to Ally’s post, though. The constant transfer of bullying by public sexual humiliation from boys to girls to boys to girls to boys ad infinitum looks like one of those horrible tangles that provokes helpless handwringing and disgusting prurient fascination by people who aren’t involved.

    Even if somebody came up with a workable approach to break the cycle, do any of the “club” members think there’d ever be any chance of putting in the resources, better known as money, needed to do so effectively?

  5. says

    It does not appear to have occurred to anyone that what is being described here is not just the sexual exploitation of a young woman but also a crime of serious child sex abuse against a young boy. In the reporting of this one piece of evidence we see the male victim of a serious, psychologically traumatising crime being entirely erased. Within the narrative the boys are instrumentalised to the point of irrelevance – they only feature as incidental objects. Am I the only one who finds this shocking? And am I the only one who thinks that our willingness to overlook the brutalisation of young boys might be a bloody big part of the problem?

    To answer your questions: no and no. As shocking as it is I found it utterly unsurprisingly that the exploited boys were erased. There is a clear parallell to the Chris Brown article you wrote – boys cannot be victims of women/girls and when they are they are either portrayed as perpetrators or just simply erased.

  6. Danny Gibbs says

    Yes, at times the media can be patronising and romanticise away the agency of young women who willingly choose to exercise disturbing violence, brutality and cruelty, not least to other young women. It is, however, better that we err on the side of compassion and understanding of how they ended up behaving like this.
    But there is only so much erring that can be (or should be) done. Its one thing to include how a perp has been a victim. Its quite another to build an entire narrative around someone being a victim that even when their own perpetrations comes to light they are still extended a level understanding and care that down plays those perpetrations. And it really doesn’t help when that understanding and care reaches a level that others are very often denied or is called “privilege” when they are not denied it.

    Am I the only one who finds this shocking?
    No this is something I’ve noticed for a very long time.

    And am I the only one who thinks that our willingness to overlook the brutalisation of young boys might be a bloody big part of the problem?
    No its just that pointing this out can very easily get you accused of hating someone (usually girls/women). For some odd reason there is a belief that directly helping boys is a bad thing. Weird I know but apparently the best way to get young boys to stop hurting others is to throw slogans and hip lingo at them while refusing to address what’s actually going on with them.

  7. Jacob Schmidt says

    Within that, it is all but impossible to untangle who is exploiting and who is exploited, who is the villain and who is the victim.

    It seems intuitive to me* that this is very often a false dichotomy. I think that when you end up in that sort of situation, villains and victims can often be one and the same.

    There is a clear parallell to the Chris Brown article you wrote – boys cannot be victims of women/girls and when they are they are either portrayed as perpetrators or just simply erased.

    Thanks Tamen. I was scratching my head trying to remember where I had seen this before. On that note:

    What I struggle with is our unwillingness to apply the same rational framework, the same degrees of empathy and sympathy to young boys who are similarly victimised, brutalised and vulnerable.

    My memory today is extremely poor. I remember there being some local initiative to help with this problem, targeted specifically at young men (perhaps more aptly called teenage boys), but the details escape me.

    *The limitations of intuition are duly noted.

  8. carnation says

    @ Tamen

    ” boys cannot be victims of women/girls and when they are they are either portrayed as perpetrators or just simply erased”

    In very specific circumstances, namely when sex/sexual activity takes place. This is due in no small part to the continuing belief, now happy becoming outdated, that sex is something males constantly want from females, a belief shared enthusiastically by some of your ideological fellow travellers.

  9. Cor O'Lary says

    It’s a shame, but any attempt to help young boys instead of young girls is likely to be met with cries of “misogynist.” Attempts to help young boys are frequently derailed by people claiming that girls suffer more, and boys shouldn’t receive assistance of any sort as long as there are girls somewhere who suffer.

    The “poverty-to-prison” pipeline is largely male. The crafting of the victim narrative around women who choose to commit crimes is highly sexist, but you see the female victim narrative (“your honor, consider her poor children! So what if she dealt drugs, stole cars and stabbed a gang rival-she’s a victim of circumstance and a poor widdle woman!”) offered by both the left and right wing as justification for awarding women lighter sentences for the same crimes. Young men, often minority and poor, are usually not given any such leeway. The media is particularly sexist in how it presents reports on male criminals vs female criminals.

    A young boy coerced into a gang by poverty, addiction, a feeling of powerlessness, etc, is as much or as little a victim as a young woman in the same situation. The tendency to view males as exploiters and predators (an outdated, sexist belief) and females as victims in all circumstances (also outdated and sexist) has contributed to the problems you speak of.

  10. Ally Fogg says

    Jacob (8)

    My memory today is extremely poor. I remember there being some local initiative to help with this problem, targeted specifically at young men (perhaps more aptly called teenage boys), but the details escape me.

    Oh of course down on the ground there are many very good projects working with boys / young men in relation to gang-related offending. I’ve worked with some myself here in Manchester, but there are excellent ones elsewhere too, some of which are very focused on male gender-specific issues.

    But you wouldn’t know that from listening to media, thinktanks and politicians, who have strictly rationed limits to their concern, it would seem.

  11. carnation says

    @ Cor O’Lary

    “It’s a shame, but any attempt to help young boys instead of young girls is likely to be met with cries of “misogynist.” Attempts to help young boys are frequently derailed by people claiming that girls suffer more, and boys shouldn’t receive assistance of any sort as long as there are girls somewhere who suffer.”

    I think that this is cliched and inaccurate.

    “any attempt to help young boys instead of young girls is likely to be met with cries of “misogynist””

    Do you have examples of this? I know of several projects that help young males, nobody has cried misogynist. Nor have I heard about, or read about, a project aimed at young boys resulting in meaningful (not online commentariat) cries of misogynist.

    “Attempts to help young boys are frequently derailed by people claiming that girls suffer more, and boys shouldn’t receive assistance of any sort as long as there are girls somewhere who suffer.”

    Some example of the derailment? And please cite those who believes that boys shouldn’t receive assist.ance of any sort as long as there are girls suffering somewhere?

    You make a couple of valid points, but they’re lost in the “hysterical hyperbole” of lurid fantasy that constructs the majority of your comment.

  12. mildlymagnificent says

    any attempt to help young boys instead of young girls is likely to be met with cries of “misogynist.”

    Well. If helping boys is presented as instead of helping girls, then the misogynist accusation might have some merit.

    Any approach has to be directed at both girls and boys because the attitudes that drive the bullying, humiliation and exploitation of both boys and girls are all entangled and mutually reinforcing. Though you might use different strategies within the two groups if it’s been determined that it needs to be done that way. In the end, you can’t have one without the other.

    It’s always been pointless to tell girls that they should “just say no” to sex when they’re in an environment where that’s going to get you beaten up or raped or ostracised or all three. It’s also pointless to try getting boys to behave differently if much the same will happen to them. And the shunning and ridicule will come from both the boys and the girls when these weirdly distorted, violent notions about how you assert yourself or get any kind of social approval are held and expressed by nearly everyone around you.

  13. Lucy says

    This is a confused article. And once again (this is the third time in recent months) you are implicating females in male violence on spurious grounds.

    You admit that understanding of female involvement in gangs remains opaque and the data anecdotal and unreflective of the current situation and then go on to construct a narrative about female involvement in gangs.

    Next, you use report data that girls are being “pressured” by violent gang members (who dole out punishment rapes) to have sex with children, to construct a bizarre narrative around supposed female sexual agency in gangs and exploitation of males.

    You then conflate this invented narrative with press indifference to male exploitation/salaciousness about teenage girls’ sexual behaviour.

    To top it all you talk about taking a compassionate approach to gang members while spreading what seems at this stage to be the pernicious idea that girls don’t always need rescuing from gangs and aren’t always being exploited.

  14. says

    Lucy:

    Next, you use report data that girls are being “pressured” by violent gang members (who dole out punishment rapes) to have sex with children, to construct a bizarre narrative around supposed female sexual agency in gangs and exploitation of males.

    Nowhere did I see Ally suggest that those girls were exercising their sexual agency when they were pressured to have sex with male children. Here’s what he wrote:

    Both in the report itself and the attendant media coverage, this anecdote was presented purely as an example of girls being exploited by gangs. It does not appear to have occurred to anyone that what is being described here is not just the sexual exploitation of a young woman but also a crime of serious child sex abuse against a young boy.

    So Ally in clear text identified what these girls in this particular situation experienced is sexual exploitation. Now, you on the other hand come very close to state that these 10 year old boys are not exploited when you say “a bizarre narrative around supposed female sexual agency in gangs and exploitation of males.-

    mildlymagnificent:

    Any approach has to be directed at both girls and boys because the attitudes that drive the bullying, humiliation and exploitation of both boys and girls are all entangled and mutually reinforcing.

    Quoted for truth.

  15. Ally Fogg says

    Lucy

    And once again (this is the third time in recent months) you are implicating females in male violence on spurious grounds.

    No, I am implicating females in female violence. I’m suggesting that people like this or this should not necessarily be considered entirely innocent victims when we attempt to understand this type of phenomena.

    Next, you use report data that girls are being “pressured” by violent gang members (who dole out punishment rapes) to have sex with children, to construct a bizarre narrative around supposed female sexual agency in gangs and exploitation of males.

    No I don’t. Either you’re not reading very carefully, not thinking very carefully or (and I think this is most likely) being deliberately obtuse. I’m suggesting that conflating sexual violence, exploitation and coercion (all of which happens and should be a serious concern) with consensual relationships and consensual sex is problematic – both intellectually and (more importantly) politically.

    To top it all you talk about taking a compassionate approach to gang members while spreading what seems at this stage to be the pernicious idea that girls don’t always need rescuing from gangs and aren’t always being exploited.

    As I say very clearly in the piece, everyone involved in gangs is being exploited. Gang culture is entirely built around exploitation. As I hope would be clear from the article, I despise gang culture, I despise what it does to young people and communities. I’ve sat and looked in the eyes of the mothers and fathers of children and young men who have been gunned down in cold blood.

    Everyone involved in gangs needs ‘rescuing’ but I’m not naive or ignorant enough to believe that talking about ‘rescuing’ people is any kind of solution. What I am not prepared to do is talk about ‘rescuing’ the girls who are being exploited while implying the boys can be thrown to the wolves.

  16. says

    carnation:

    In very specific circumstances, namely when sex/sexual activity takes place.

    I think the same dynamic is also evident in female-on-male bullying (here’s one victim’s account) and female-on-male intimate partner violence (aka dating violence). Despite several studies finding that boys are also victims of teen dating violence as well the campaigns I’ve seen exclusively or almost exclusively focus on male-on-female teen dating violence.

    This is due in no small part to the continuing belief, now happy becoming outdated, that sex is something males constantly want from females,

    Yes, but the ignorance of the problem also stems from the false beliefs (or rather denial) that women don’t want sex, that women don’t initiate sex and that women can’t be aggressive about sex and the women are wonderful effect in general. The fact that we see little acknowledgement of female on female sexual violence as well signals that there is more at play than the stereotype of men/boys always wanting sex.

    a belief shared enthusiastically by some of your ideological fellow travellers.

    Did that make you feel better?

  17. WM says

    Hi Ally, tried to comment earlier but got lots of ‘guru meditation’ messages. But now the guru has hopefully stopped meditating: This is a really excellent piece, IMHO. I wonder if anyone truly understands the psychology and the mechanisms whereby these views come to be held by establishment figures and institutions across the board? That is the question I often ask myself when this kind of thing comes up and so far I haven’t seen any convincing answers from anywhere.

  18. johngreg says

    I think gang culture represents a fascinating and frightening (and discouraging) insight into, for lack of a better term, our simiam background and the amazing power of peer pressure and the need to find community and fit in — and of course the need that so-called alpha people have to dominate and control others at any cost.

    I first became aware of gang culture back in the 60s when I first saw West Side Story. As a kid, I thought it was all just exaggerated make-believe. Of course, as it turns out, West Side Story is about as lightweight in its representation of real gang culture as Captain Kangaroo.

    There has been a lot of study of gang culture over the last few generations, but I don’t know if anyone has come close to a meaningful, constructive, effective appraisal that holds any hope for irradicating, or at least reducing its prevalence. Perhaps politics, especially such socio-political movements as the social justice warrior brand of social politcs, is just a white collar variation on gang culture. I suspect it is.

    I also wonder how much our outrageously extremist and socially destructive capitalistic wealth gap has to do with fomenting gang culture? Probably a lot.

  19. drken says

    Sadly, the rationalization behind forcing young boys to engage in sex is to “make a man of them”. With any boy who objects being ridiculed (to put it lightly) as less than masculine (again, to put it lightly). This, of course feeds into the myth that boys who are forced to penetrate aren’t being raped. You can see this in popular culture with reports of female teachers having sex with young male students and the media essentially acting like he’s the luckiest guy in the world. Contrast this to what happens when the offender is male regardless of the gender of the victim. Of course, it’s interesting that those who claim “it’s different when the student is a guy” don’t seem to have the same opinion when the offender is male.

  20. ResearcherOU says

    A rare instance of balance from today’s Independent:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-real-bad-girls–extraordinary-insight-into-londons-female-gang-culture-8748938.html

    The exception proving the rule?

    despite all this, there should be a wariness about the total victimisation of the girls who move in these circles. Many I spoke to, both in the present and retrospectively, find something deeply appealing not to mention profitable about that way of life.

  21. Danny Gibbs says

    mildlymagnificent:
    Well. If helping boys is presented as instead of helping girls, then the misogynist accusation might have some merit.
    Well as you say that’s an “if”. Unfortunately even when helping boys is presented as something to be done in addition to helping girls there is still a chance that it will be taken as misogyny.

    There are plenty of boys (or men now) with experiences of how telling their stories of being bullied, harrassed, teased, assaulted, attacked…etc… by girls/women has been met with claims that they hate girls. When merely telling your story (and reaching out for help) is construed as hating girls/women then I think that is a sign that there is more going on than, “well the accusations of misogyny might have merit” because quite frankly there are times when such accusations have zero merit.

    Its going to take more than making sure helping boys isn’t presented as instead of girls. Its going to take people questioning the biases that lead them to read/hear attempts at helping boys as something to do instead of helping girls.

    Any approach has to be directed at both girls and boys because the attitudes that drive the bullying, humiliation and exploitation of both boys and girls are all entangled and mutually reinforcing.
    Exactly. You have to focus on both boys and girls in terms of who is bullied and who is doing the bullying. If you start with the premise that “bullying is something that boys do to girls” and then disregard anything that doesn’t fall in that premise its no wonder you might think trying to help boys is an attempt at hating girls. (BTW that’s a hypothetical “you” not specific you.)

  22. Ally Fogg says

    ResearcherOU

    That is a really good piece, although it is from last August, not today. I think it gets the balance about right and the descriptions of the girls involved rings very true to my experience.

    Thanks for posting it.

  23. Danny Gibbs says

    You can see this in popular culture with reports of female teachers having sex with young male students and the media essentially acting like he’s the luckiest guy in the world. Contrast this to what happens when the offender is male regardless of the gender of the victim. Of course, it’s interesting that those who claim “it’s different when the student is a guy” don’t seem to have the same opinion when the offender is male.
    It goes without saying the despite claims to the contrary about “the radical notion that women are people” and that “everyeone should be treated the same regardless of gender” males and female are treated very differently when it comes to rape.

    When its case of women/boy sex you’re lucky to find any coverage calling it rape but when its man/girl there’s a good chance rape is going to be in the headline.

    When the rapist is male we are aware all sorts of tools at his disposal that he can use to attack his targets ranging from drugs, alcohol, blackmail, physical force, etc….but when the rapist is female all of a sudden all those tools go out the window and it becomes, “A woman can’t for a man to have sex against his will.” Are we to really believe that men have a veritable tool box to pull from when it comes to rape but women can only use physical force?

  24. Wine.E.M. says

    Erm, Ally, this is slightly off-topic, but you know when you introduced the ‘Hetpat First Directive’ (slightly reminiscent of that ‘classified’ directive in Robocop, which impedes him from challenging abuses of power which really do need challenging), you kind of implied at the time that there was a moral dimension to as well (in the sense that, in your view, it was wrong and misleading to make generalisations about feminists and MRAs because they were such a varied bunch of people).

    But yesterday on your Twitter feed there’s the following exchange:


    Ɠ⊙иƶǾдҡĿдиɗ ‏@GonzOakland 21h

    .@AllyFogg we need a short hashtag to denote “MRAs are crazy jerks, here’s a valid point that shouldn’t be associated with them”.

    Reply Retweet Favorite More from Oakland, CA
    Ally Fogg ‏@AllyFogg 21h
    @GonzOakland zackly

    I mean maybe there’s something I’m missing here, but are you not in danger of sending out the message
    ‘do as I say, not as I do?’ Sort of thing?

  25. Danny Gibbs says

    .@AllyFogg we need a short hashtag to denote “MRAs are crazy jerks, here’s a valid point that shouldn’t be associated with them”.
    So damn rather than try to relate to us and get something on those points you’d rather they be taken away from the MRAs that make them? Well I guess that would make it easier for feminists to constantly cast them as evil villains.

  26. carnation says

    @ Danny Gibbs

    Unfortunately, the occasional valid point, or even thoughtful piece of writing, gets lost under a deluge of misogyny and puerile antics. Contemporaneous example: the excruciatingly stupid response, by MRAs, to the assault at Queen’s University in Canada.

    Positing Ally Fogg as being part of a conspiracy, by feminists, to cast MRAs as “evil villains” is simply nonsensical.

  27. Danny Gibbs says

    carnation you still don’t answer my question. If there are some valid points then why not try to relate to us along those points rather than trying to dismiss us all as jerks?

    “Positing Ally Fogg as being part of a conspiracy, by feminists, to cast MRAs as “evil villains” is simply nonsensical.”
    Nonsensical is you taking that comment too seriously. I figured that evil villains part would tip you off that that was an exaggeration.

    But feel free to support the idea that who “owns” an issue is more important than trying to build on the fact that different people from different sides seem to agree on something.

  28. Ally Fogg says

    sigh

    Some quick points.

    1. The HetPat First Directive was only ever introduced to lubricate constructive debate on this blog, it never did have “a moral dimension” and at no point has anyone suggested that it should apply to anyone (including me) anywhere else beyond the comment section of this blog.

    2. If anyone is affronted by something I fire off on Twitter, the appropriate thing to do is to respond on Twitter and if I feel so inclined, I might discuss it there in a rather less impatient manner than I am doing here.

    3. Since you bring it up, I have said (here and elsewhere) many times that I believe the Men’s Rights Movement, in its current incarnation, is a basket case – irreparably poisoned by the outright misogyny, corrosive, ill-informed arguments and intellectual atrophy of the likes of Paul Elam and John Hambling. For as long as characters such as these are considered the leading and guiding lights for MRAs, I will continue to treat any self-identifying MRA with extreme cynicism, notwithstanding my awareness that actually there are some good and reasonable people who can be considered exceptions.

    As far as I’m concerned, this discussion is now over.

  29. says

    carnation, you mean e.g. the response by cafe:

    “All acts of violence undermine our shared goal of fostering meaningful conversation on some challenging but vital questions. A productive dialogue can only happen in a safe environment that is conducive to open exchange of vastly different perspectives. Therefore we stand in solidarity with any victim of violence, bullying or discrimination.”

    ?

  30. says

    Ally

    Since you bring it up, I have said (here and elsewhere) many times that I believe the Men’s Rights Movement, in its current incarnation, is a basket case – irreparably poisoned by the outright misogyny, corrosive, ill-informed arguments and intellectual atrophy of the likes of Paul Elam and John Hambling. For as long as characters such as these are considered the leading and guiding lights for MRAs, I will continue to treat any self-identifying MRA with extreme cynicism, notwithstanding my awareness that actually there are some good and reasonable people who can be considered exceptions.

    Your opinion is nonsense. You could use analogous arguments to discredit almost any fringe movement, since fringe status often attracts unconventional people, a good part of which will be socially unpalatable. Your remark about irreparability is especially amusing, given the fact you advocate that men should flank the social justice movement, a movement that often seems to struggle with the coherency of its elementary concepts. The fact that social movements are laced with bad and worse argument is an utter banality and in no way particular to the MRM and so is the fact that individuals within social movements are not all reasonable. In summary you presented no argument at all for your conclusion that you treat self -identifying MRAs with cynicism

  31. says

    “In summary you presented no argument at all for your conclusion that you treat self -identifying MRAs with cynicism” Should read “In summary you presented no argument at all for why you treat self -identifying MRAs with cynicism”

  32. Adiabat says

    Sheaf (32): You’re forgetting that Carnation gets all of his information on the Men’s Rights Movement solely through Manboobz, which is widely known to manipulate it’s readers through lies and distortion. That’s all you need to know to justify dismissing anything carnation says about it.

    (33): I don’t generally read A Voice For Men but from the few articles I have read I just don’t understand this vitriol and hatred aimed at Paul Elam and co. Sure they’re assholes (and proudly so it seems) but I can’t find much that justifies this all-encompassing hatred. When I’ve asked before why people hate them I’m usually given a link to an article that is an obvious parody to highlight why a Jezebel article is problematic (though Manboobz “helpfully” cuts off the quote just before it says it’s a parody. Can’t allow the ‘rank and file’ feminists to make up their own mind based on all the evidence now can we). When I’ve asked Ally before why he holds his opinion it’s apparently because Elam once wrote an article claiming that jurors are justified in acquitting defendants accused of serious crimes if the state purposefully withholds information that would enable the jury to make a fair and just decision. Considering that one of the original purposes of Juries is to prevent the state from exercising unjust and arbitrary power* in the courtroom this argument shouldn’t attract such vitriol as it has, even if you disagree with it in this case.

    * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification: “A good example is the case of one Carnegie of Finhaven who in 1728 accidentally killed the Scottish Earl of Strathmore. As the defendant had undoubtedly killed the Earl, the law (as it stood) required the jury to render the verdict that the case had been “proven” and cause Carnegie of Finhaven to die for an accidental killing. Instead the jury asserted what it believed to be their “ancient right” to judge the whole case and not just the facts and brought in the verdict of “not guilty”.”

  33. says

    Adiabat,

    i do not read avfm enough to have a well founded opinion on them . There are a few lines by Elam that make me think that at least some of the members he is questionable, at least in his rethoric. On the other hand contributors like Straughan or Tiernan, right or wrong as they may be, do not deserve all the bad rep they are getting imo.
    Especially claims that they are idiots, something I read repeatedly are at odds with the fact that they are articulate, persuasive individuals often constructing elaborate narratives. The truth or falsity of these narratives is up to debate, but they seem a boatload more reasonable compared to inane heuristics ala “in most situations men are privileged over women” or similar nonsense which can be found in several feminist outlets.

    Note that I cannot remember Ally smugly claiming it was bad that some arguments are made by feminists, or treating feminists with “cynicism”. This despite the fact that feminism would likely not fare much better than the MRM if he were to evaluate it along the lines of coherency, prevalence of bad arguments, bigotry towards the sex not in the name and controversial figureheads (As I said before, almost all social movements would leave a bad taste, if these were valid criteria).

  34. mildlymagnificent says

    Adiabat @35

    it’s apparently because Elam once wrote an article claiming that jurors are justified in acquitting defendants accused of serious crimes if the state purposefully withholds information that would enable the jury to make a fair and just decision.

    Not quite.

    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.

    In his own words at AVfM in a post titled Jury duty at a rape trial? Acquit! on July 20, 2010.

    I can’t find any ‘just joking’ disclaimer in the article itself nor in the link. If I’m wrong I’m sure you’ll let us know. I suggest you read it carefully anyway. It’s not only pure nastiness, it’s grossly irresponsible. How any man with a mother or a sister or a wife or a daughter or any women neighbours or workmates can read this dreadful stuff and then keep clicking onto other items written by this man is beyond me.

  35. mildlymagnificent says

    Sorry Ally.

    I know that was a derail but some things have to be set straight. Even if they’re just people trying to think the best of someone they’d like to respect.

  36. carntion says

    @ mildlymagnificent

    Elam also said he cared about rape victims about as much as he cared about cake decorating. His employee John The Other laughed as he said he didn’t “give a fuck” about rape victims.

    I have asked MRAs how such men, and their supporters, can claim to advocate for males (a significant number of victims of sexual abuse are male) and hold such cold, callous views on those who have suffered such awful crimes.

    None have given a sensible answer.

  37. carnation says

    @ Adiabat

    Re Elam/JtO

    “When I’ve asked before why people hate them”

    I don’t remember anyone anywhere saying that they hated them. They don’t have anything positive to offer anyone, in terms of activism or debate, but they are a symptom rather than a cause, and they will fade away, without having achieved anything of value, except to themselves.

    Hate is strong and contentious term. Donald Rumsfeld, for example, is a character deserving of hate, as are others. Elam/JtO certainly aren’t.

  38. Sans sanity says

    So the issue at hand is that someone wrote an article arguing that men’s issues should only be dealt with within the bounds of feminism, and a feminist Professor supported it with a post arguing that having sex with boys in detention is fine…

    How “irreparably poisoned” can you get?

    Ally, I can’t really argue with your cynicism of self identified MRA’s, but It looks like it needs to be broadened a bit, hey?

  39. Adiabat says

    Mildlymagnificent (37): But what I said is precisely his point, that if the state systematically prevents jurors from seeing all the facts of a case then a juror cannot ever reach a state of “beyond reasonable doubt”. His argument is that since it is the system that is attempting to manipulate the verdict of the jury the only recourse is for the jury to use its right of nullification. I don’t agree that we are at a point where it is so bad that this is necessary if you were a juror, yet he does highlight a few cases where facts have been prevented, using Rape Shield laws, from being shown in court that led to innocent men being wrongly convicted. You could say I agree with the principle of his argument yet disagree with his application of it to the current system. But I could be convinced if the state continues to erode people’s right to a fair trial to secure more convictions, such as trying to extend practices implemented in some US universities to the justice system.

    It’s true that individual lines in that article you point to are disgusting, but then you are reading the feminist-intended version of that article, which is obviously intended to get people like you so outraged that you send people to AVFM from across the internet. He did this because he knows they’ll see the bit at the bottom of that article: Elam dubs the one you’ve pointed to as his “soundbite” version (hint: that translates to feminist-quotemine version) with a poorly laid out argument and he links to his “full version”, which you’ll notice fully lays out his argument and contains little of the offensive tone he used for the version you point to. It’s like they’re written by two different people.

    He’s manipulating you by writing something he knows you’ll send people to read, while providing himself enough plausible deniability through linking to the ‘full version’ that he can accuse you of misunderstanding his argument and just getting outraged and “emotional” the instant he mentioned the word rape. It makes it look like you are incapable of using reason when discussing rape trials.

    He’s a manipulative shit for sure, and probably a very unpleasant person, but he sure knows how to get his opponents to do his work for him.

  40. Adiabat says

    Carntion (39): You’re going to have to provide a link for the Elam claim, and not to Manboobz please.

    I read it a while ago so may be misremembering but the John the Other article was saying that he’s worn out from the lies and deceit, plus lack of empathy from feminists for male victims, that he’s struggling to care for female rape victims any more. The thing is that this article paints him in enough of a negative light that I don’t’ see why you and Manboobz etc also feel the need to quote-mine and not fully explain his position. In attempting to make him look even worse you make yourselves look deceitful and untrustworthy to someone who goes and looks up the original article.

    Just be honest and you’ll gain more ground in convincing people how bad MRA’s are, albeit more slowly, without making yourselves look like a bunch of ideologues.

    (40): Now you’re just waffling on about the word “hate”. People can hate something without explicitly saying they do. In fact it’s rare that people explicitly say that they hate the things they hate; they instead show that they do through their behaviour and how they react to it.

  41. Danny Gibbs says

    carnation:
    Contemporaneous example: the excruciatingly stupid response, by MRAs, to the assault at Queen’s University in Canada.
    I’m just now reading my way through this (I’m just getting back online after about 3-4 months of personal life being hell) so I have to ask what “excruciatingly stupid response” are you refering to? From what I’ve read so far there was some sort of talk or event at the university, it was protested, and one of the protesters was attacked?

  42. mildlymagnificent says

    Not exactly Danny.

    A woman who was known as a supporter of feminist activities on campus, including opposing an intended MRA style event, was attacked outside her home by a man who knew her name. (Indicating that it wasn’t mere chance.)

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/queen-s-student-attacked-after-threats-over-feminist-activities-1.2589321

    I think when people make suggestions as bad as accusing her of hitting herself and breaking her own tooth and faking the whole thing – then “excruciatingly stupid” is probably a bit kind.

  43. Jacob Schmidt says

    So who accused of her of faking the attack?

    I think we should not rule out the possibility that this woman might be
    making it up by assaulting herself. You never know, hate monger
    feminists can do anything, honesty is not something these people show or
    value.

    I read it a while ago so may be misremembering but the John the Other article was saying that he’s worn out from the lies and deceit, plus lack of empathy from feminists for male victims, that he’s struggling to care for female rape victims any more. The thing is that this article paints him in enough of a negative light that I don’t’ see why you and Manboobz etc also feel the need to quote-mine and not fully explain his position. In attempting to make him look even worse you make yourselves look deceitful and untrustworthy to someone who goes and looks up the original article.

    I don’t think you know what quote mining means. Hembling openly, and of his own accord, said, “I don’t give a f**k about rape victims.” That was the intended message. Quoting him on that is not quote mining; that’s regular, old fashioned quoting. You can whine all you want about his full position, but the full position doesn’t leave him in any better light.

    There’s no “deceit” in carnations post; that you need to invent it to have a point says more about your intellectual honesty than anything else.

  44. Jacob Schmidt says

    So two people claiming it was a fake equates to MRAs claiming she faked it?

    That actually wasn’t my intention. I had forgotten about carnation’s initial comment, and was only bringing some comments to show that some people were accusing her of faking it.

    But, looking closer, Attila Vinczer is the “Canadian activism director” for AVFM. I’m happy calling him an MRA.

    For the former example, there was this at the bottom: “Feminists can go very far to tarnish MHRM image and undervalue men’s problem by like hurting themselves and claiming that it was men’s right people. Gender ideologues should never be trusted.

    And this in another comment: “I know how much gender ideologues hate MRM and they can go very far to tarnish the image of MHRM, it is possible that attacker is a feminist and he might have attacked her to tarnish the image of MRM.

    Maybe this person isn’t an MRA, and just sympathetic to MRA’s.

  45. Jacob Schmidt says

    Also from AVFM’s article on the incident:

    A buck will get you ten that this whole thing was intentionally staged. Don’t think for one second that feminists wouldn’t go that far or that they aren’t that committed to defending their ideology of hate and violence. Either that or she slammed her face against a coffee table while bowing before a picture of Valerie Salinas in worship.

    I’ve dated enough actresses to be more than just a little bit skeptical when an actress claims to be a victim of anything. Reminds me of my ex who was “raped” by my friend.

    Let’s not forget: Feminists have been known to make up all sorts of false claims, including false accusations of rape, in order to exert political leverage. Especially in academia.

    That’s not to say that she wasn’t actually attacked. Maybe she was.

    No scratches or other abrasion, no swelling around chipped tooth. Hmm, I’ve seen the effects of beatings and that picture ain’t it; that is not the look of someone who has taken a whooping either. A doctor will be able to tell. Social Warriors are not unknown to fake attacks, hysteria is a wonderful thing. I am smelling a whole pile of dung here.

    That looks like makeup, not a bruise. I highly doubt someone would be pulling their punches if they’re attacking her out of hate, let alone several punches.

    It was reported that Queen’s security “helped her” report the assault to the police. That indicates that after she was “assaulted”, she didn’t report it to the police. She did however publicize her story on Facebook, trying to implicate a campus group that she’s been trying to shut down because she doesn’t like what they talk about. This has all the indicators of someone with mental health issues making up a completely bogus story.

    There are more; do you need more?

  46. says

    Schmidt 51,

    Only one of these is a clear accusation. The rest can be interpreted or clearly are statements of skepticism/disbelief. I do not think such statements to be morally questionable when dealing with a radical group that has empirically violated ethics to silence descent in the past.

  47. Jacob Schmidt says

    Well, I was trying to be nice about it, but apparently you do need more.

    Liar liar, face on fire.

    This is total BS.

    If there was an assault like that..cops and ambulance will be there. Victim would be in a hospital by now.

    Also I have punched people in the face in self defense & I know that a punch from any normal guy to the face will result in a lot more bruises. Nose should be at least wobbly / broken.

    That picture shows she wasn’t attacked. Did a ant bite her on the cheek or something/

    I imagine the scene from “Fight Club” where Ed Norton beats himself up in his boss’ office.

    You are correct. Her Facebook page has been removed. Too bad the story already went semi-viral. She didn’t think this one through. No doubt a hoax.

    To recap: it’s a lie; total bullshit; she wasn’t attack per the photo; like Fight Club, where the protagonist assaults himself; and, without doubt, a hoax.

    I do not think such statements to be morally questionable when dealing with a radical group that has empirically violated ethics to silence descent in the past.

    We’re dealing with an individual, not a group.

    I agree with mildlymagnificent: “excruciatingly stupid” is probably a bit kind.”

  48. says

    Schmidt:

    We’re dealing with an individual, not a group.

    This individual is member of the reference class of people very vocally protesting the MR talks. This is the totality of prior information we have about her. My prior for this reference class commiting unethical acts to silence someone is higher than my prior for the general population, since I know of very specific attempts by this relatively small reference class to do so. Since my only information about her is that she is in this reference class, my prior for her behaving this way is the same as that of any member of the reference class behaving this way. This is perfectly sound epistemology.

    this time you posted actual accusations of this being a fake. Based on the available evidence I reject these claims, since I do not know what actually happened and the people making these claims probably do not as well. Note that in an epistemically similar situation in the past you were happy to jump to conclusions/ defend people who were jumping to conclusions.

  49. says

    I wanted to add:
    The skepticism in the original statements by the avfm commenters is probably too strong based on the evidence and since epistemic failings are moral failings I revise my contention that these statements are not morally questionable. They are not more morally questionable than the majority of statements I read.

  50. Jacob Schmidt says

    This individual is member of the reference class of people very vocally protesting the MR talks. This is the totality of prior information we have about her. My prior for this reference class commiting unethical acts to silence someone is higher than my prior for the general population, since I know of very specific attempts by this relatively small reference class to do so.

    I honestly doubt your prior is anything other than bias.

    Note that in an epistemically similar situation in the past you were happy to jump to conclusions/ defend people who were jumping to conclusions.

    Do tell.

  51. Jacob Schmidt says

    The skepticism in the original statements by the avfm commenters is probably too strong based on the evidence and since epistemic failings are moral failings I revise my contention that these statements are not morally questionable.

    Thank you. I was considering whether or not it was worth addressing that, but you’ve saved me the trouble.

  52. says

    Schmidt,

    I honestly doubt your prior is anything other than bias.

    And the reason for it is? I laid out why my prior for this individual differs from that of the general population. If there is anything specifically wrong with this reasoning you can tell me. If this response is based on your general impression of me, then I do not think there is anything constructive you can say.

    Note that I spend a lot of time on double checking my decision processes. This does not make me bias free or right. Therefore if someone notices a consistent form of bias in me I am very interested in knowing about it.

    Do tell.

    I dont tell since the discussion back then was waste of time.

  53. Jacob Schmidt says

    I laid out why my prior for this individual differs from that of the general population. If there is anything specifically wrong with this reasoning you can tell me. If this response is based on your general impression of me, then I do not think there is anything constructive you can say.

    Your reasoning was extremely vague; it contained absolutely no specifics. But, for what it’s worth:

    My prior for this reference class commiting unethical acts to silence someone is higher than my prior for the general population, since I know of very specific attempts by this relatively small reference class to do so.

    Presumably you’re talking about the protesters disruptive influence, except I know of nothing that indicates these protesters engaged in false accusations to silence someone. Yes, their behaviour could be described as “unethical,” but that one engages in a given unethical behaviour is not an indication that one might engage in any unethical behaviour; not all unethical behaviour is equal. The only “unethical” attempt at silencing of which I know is one that was done openly and blatantly, without deceit or dishonesty. You don’t have a prior (at least, not one that you’ve bothered to substantiate) that indicates such.

    If you’re not talking about this specific incident, but more generally about anti-MRA feminists, then your reference class grows large enough that I doubt any prior built on anything but and actual study, as opposed to an individuals observations.

    It’s also worth noting that there is not any accusation: While d’Entremont notes that she isn’t sure if the attack is directly related to her feminist activities, she said her assailant was a man who knew her name.

    I dont tell since the discussion back then was waste of time.

    The lurker’s might find my alleged hypocrisy amusing.

    If you wanted to make a point for my benefit, it can’t happen if I don’t know what you’re talking about. If you wanted to make a point for the benefit of others, it can’t happen if they don’t know what you’re talking (unless they are willing to accept your claim uncritically). If it was only for you benefit, I don’t see the difference between mentioning some vague incident and mentioning a specific incident.

  54. says

    Presumably you’re talking about the protesters disruptive influence, except I know of nothing that indicates these protesters engaged in false accusations to silence someone. Yes, their behaviour could be described as “unethical,” but that one engages in a given unethical behaviour is not an indication that one might engage in any unethical behaviour; not all unethical behaviour is equal. The only “unethical” attempt at silencing of which I know is one that was done openly and blatantly, without deceit or dishonesty. You don’t have a prior (at least, not one that you’ve bothered to substantiate) that indicates such

    Your criticism can be reasonably paraphrase as criticism of the unethical behavior category.
    Much unethical behavior of this group is on a similar level of severity: Baseless accusations against members of the mrm. These behaviors are functionally close to the behavior that allegedly happened. I therefore reject your criticism.

    You also claim:

    Your reasoning was extremely vague; it contained absolutely no specifics.

    I thought the specifics to be readily apparent: Members of the group I was referencing used false allegations of rape apologia and similar stuff to try shut down events.

    A fermi estimate would probably give you a good first order estimate of how much the kernel of the prior differs from the general population prior, which would produce some specificity. Example: I estimate the size of the vocal group to be of order 2 or 3. The percentage of this group to block the speech of MR activists through protest is therefore between 10 and 100 more verging to 10. People in the general population who use such manipulation to achieve their political ends can probably be approximated by the number of individuals with strong antisocial traits interested in politics, maybe between 1 and 10 percent of the population more leaning to 1. Note I am not claiming this to be a definite calculation but in general such fermi estimates will serve you well when making quick decisions about credibility of statements.

    The link you provide is definitely noteworthy. It strongly reduces the probability of this being a political manouver, since doubt is probably not a good strategy for fostering a “violent mra” narrative. The discussion now reduces to a hypothetical member of the vocal group and his or her prior, not about the specific incident here.

    If you wanted to make a point for my benefit, it can’t happen if I don’t know what you’re talking about. If you wanted to make a point for the benefit of others, it can’t happen if they don’t know what you’re talking (unless they are willing to accept your claim uncritically). If it was only for you benefit, I don’t see the difference between mentioning some vague incident and mentioning a specific incident.

    I assumed you remember sine it was a rather hot headed debate. I now decided against stirring it up again since it would be a waste of time. It basically involved me criticizing some pharyngula acolyte for (imo) jumping to conclusions about some comedian who wrote a rather unfunny and -depending on exact definitions- sexist piece that was the target of pz screech at the time. Pharyngula descended on me, you among them, and we bashed heads for a maybe one or two dozen entries. In any case I should not have brought it up as it is pretty much irrelevant (A fortiori actually, hypocricy in online commenters is not very important other than for petty snipes most of the time).

  55. Jacob Schmidt says

    Much unethical behavior of this group is on a similar level of severity: Baseless accusations against members of the mrm. These behaviors are functionally close to the behavior that allegedly happened. I therefore reject your criticism.

    Does this include faking evidence and self harm towards that goal?

    They are only functionally equivalent insofar as one ignores the relevant differences.

    I thought the specifics to be readily apparent: Members of the group I was referencing used false allegations of rape apologia and similar stuff to try shut down events.

    I know nothing of “false allegations,” only that allegations were made and the university evidently found them inactionable.

    I assumed you remember sine it was a rather hot headed debate.

    I prefer not to make assumptions, though when you specified you were involved you narrowed down the field quite a bit. Before that, I could not know; accusations like yours are a dime a dozen, regardless of one’s personal integrity, and I did not know to which one you referred.

  56. says

    Schmidt:

    Does this include faking evidence and self harm towards that goal?

    Faking evidence? Yes. Claiming Farrell to be a rape apologist based on intentionally misreading him is faking evidence if you define evidence in a baysian (read: the only meaningful) way. Self harm? No. Note that the wound does not need to be self inflicted to be used to blame someone.

    They are only functionally equivalent insofar as one ignores the relevant differences.

    You did not point out relevant differences at all/ did not explain relevance in your posts other than alleging that types unethical behavior may not be linked to each other. As far as I know they are to some degree – irresponsible and unethical people behave that way because they do not regard ethical norms binding other people around them with highly – this is not manifested in transgressing one of the and upholding the other, most of the time several such norms of similar severity will be broken. In criminology many the most extreme of such cases are said t suffer from antisocial personality disorder but there seems to be a spectum of severity. In any case I did not claim functional equivalence.

  57. Adiabat says

    Jacob Schmidt (47):

    I don’t think you know what quote mining means. Hembling openly, and of his own accord, said, “I don’t give a f**k about rape victims.” That was the intended message. Quoting him on that is not quote mining; that’s regular, old fashioned quoting.

    Lol, you do realise that quote-mining involves “regular, old fashioned quoting” don’t you? If it doesn’t then it’s just straight up lying.

    Quote-mining involves selectively quoting someone in such a way as to imply they were saying something different from what they really were saying, usually to manipulate your audience. This is usually done through either only quoting parts of a sentence and missing off parts that don’t support the strawman you want to create, or quoting a part in the knowledge that they have clarified what they are saying elsewhere in the text.

    For example, quoting a ‘hatefull screed’ but cutting off the quote just before the author makes it clear it was a parody of a genuine article made by feminists. (Out of curiosity, and since I’ve never heard a feminist acknowledge this or comment on it: what is your view on this example? It seems pretty clear evidence that feminists are willing to flat out lie and deceive to smear the MRM, and Elam in particular. The fact that “reasonable” feminists haven’t called it out gives a very clear message that they are okay with using such tactics. This means that people should be sceptical of anything a feminist claims about the MRM).

    You can whine all you want about his full position, but the full position doesn’t leave him in any better light.

    The full Hembling sentance you mention above had one more word at the end: “anymore”*. Cutting off that word gives a very different impression of what he was saying than including it. If he said “I don’t give a f**k about rape victims” the response is usually how horrible that is. If he said “I don’t give a f**k about rape victims anymore” the response will be “Why?” as it implies a cause or justification behind his new viewpoint.

    And the reason he gives is what I described above. It’s little different to people who stop their monthly donation to a charity because the charity keeps making harrassing phone calls to get more money out of them: The behaviour of people fighting for a cause can turn people away from supporting that cause.

    I agree that neglecting a cause just because of the behaviour of its’ activists is pretty shitty; as either a cause is just or it’s not, and sometimes there are ways to support a cause in spite of it’s most prominant activists or it could be supported while denouncing those working on it. But neglecting to point out his actual fairly shitty position, which he acknowledges is shitty, and instead try to manipulate people into thinking he holds an even worse position feminists again give the impression that feminists care little about the truth and are willing to lie and deceive to smear the MRM.

    In attempting to gain as much political capital out of these MRA quotes, instead of just presenting all the facts honestly, you undermine your own credibility and damage your own movement.

    * It also continues “I cannot force myself to give a shit. I know intellectually I should, I know that rape is a terrible crime, and being subject to it is probably a terrible thing. But, I don’t give a fuck. And the reason I don’t give a fuck is you, YouTube feminists, you victim cult, female supremacist assholes”

  58. Jacob Schmidt says

    Faking evidence? Yes. Claiming Farrell to be a rape apologist based on intentionally misreading him is faking evidence if you define evidence in a baysian (read: the only meaningful) way.

    This is silly in two ways:

    1) What I’ve read of Farrel does not leave him in good light with respect to rape. I’ve no reason to accept that such claims of Farrel are wrong; they seem quite credible from where I stand.

    2) That someone is wrong does not mean that someone is lying.

    You did not point out relevant differences at all/ did not explain relevance in your posts other than alleging that types unethical behavior may not be linked to each other.

    Other than to point out that you have no prior that includes faked evidence and apparent (but perhaps not) self harm; you know, the things that separate your asserted prior and the attack on that Queens student.

    Quote-mining involves selectively quoting someone in such a way as to imply they were saying something different from what they really were saying, usually to manipulate your audience.

    Was Hembling communicating lack of concern for rape victims? Why yes, yes he was. Quoting him to an extent that demonstrates is not quote mining, per your own description of quote mining. He really was saying ““I … don’t give a f**k about rape victims anymore.”* Lack of concern for rape victims is the intended message

    The full Hembling sentance you mention above had one more word at the end: “anymore”*. Cutting off that word gives a very different impression of what he was saying than including it.

    As far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t. Do you remember how this quote got introduced? Here, I’ll remind you: “I have asked MRAs how such men, and their supporters, can claim to advocate for males (a significant number of victims of sexual abuse are male) and hold such cold, callous views on those who have suffered such awful crimes.

    Notice the relevant aspect here? It’s lack of concern. That Hembling claims he once felt concern, and that he recognises he should, isn’t relevant. Hembling stated of his own accord that he does not feel concern for rape victims. Carnation questioned Hemblings ability to advocate for rape victims based on his freely stated lack of concern. Unless you want to pretend Hemblings really said he feels concern for rape victims, there is no dishonesty. If you do want to pretend such, then the dishonesty is yours.

    *Incidentally, you’re right that I left of the ‘anymore’; amusingly enough, despite your disdain for manboobz, it’s manboobz that included the full quote.

  59. Jacob Schmidt says

    Further incidentally, the full quote and reasoning really doesn’t leave him in better light. On its own, it indicates lack of concern for rape victims. In full, it indicates lack of concern for rape victims born entirely of disdain of specific group. That’s not any better, and to my view its worse.

  60. says

    This is silly in two ways:

    1) What I’ve read of Farrel does not leave him in good light with respect to rape. I’ve no reason to accept that such claims of Farrel are wrong; they seem quite credible from where I stand.

    Nonsense. He did not say that rape can be excused in his published history. You are invited to prove me wrong on this but in the past feminists have only pulled out some quote about conflicting body language and verbal language, which no one capable of speech would read as him excusing rapists.

    2) That someone is wrong does not mean that someone is lying.

    If someone is alleging something negative about someone else and there is literally no evidence at all that the alleged thing is true, then the person is more probably lying than wrong. In this particular case it makes about as much sense as making the distinction between the student intentionally faking an attack or being wrong about being attacked.

    Other than to point out that you have no prior that includes faked evidence and apparent (but perhaps not) self harm; you know, the things that separate your asserted prior and the attack on that Queens student.

    ??? Self harm was not part of the equation and I see no prima facie reasoning why you count it as unethical. It is completely irrelevant to the prior. False allegations of rape apologia have happened though and are pertinent. In any case other unethical behavior like physically hindering attendance, vocally disrupting lectures and pulling fire alarms during lectures are also in the category. This is important under the assumption that persons that do not feel themselves bound by one law will often behave free from some others as well. Overall your criticism of the unethical behavior category falters on the first level of scrutiny.

  61. says

    also:

    That someone is wrong does not mean that someone is lying.

    I consider being wrong on its own to be unethical. Whether they are lying or not is somewhat immaterial. I guess it would make the whole thing even worse.

  62. Jacob Schmidt says

    He did not say that rape can be excused in his published history. You are invited to prove me wrong on this but in the past feminists have only pulled out some quote about conflicting body language and verbal language, which no one capable of speech would read as him excusing rapists.

    It is important that a woman’s “noes” be respected and her “yeses” be respected. And it is also important when her nonverbal “yeses” (tongues still touching) conflict with those verbal “noes” that the man not be put in jail for choosing the “yes” over the “no.” He might just be trying to become her fantasy.

    This is actually textbook rape apologia: the equivalence between acts that are not consent for sex (kissing, you’ll note, does not establish consent for sex) with actual consent. You’ll also note that at no point is there any confusion between verbal consent and non-verbal consent on my part; my criticism rests entirely on the fact that Farrel excuses rape if something as innocuous as french kissing has occurred while the woman says no to sex.

    Then there is this: “The Ms. survey can call it a rape; a relationship counselor will call it a relationship.

    If someone is alleging something negative about someone else and there is literally no evidence at all that the alleged thing is true, then the person is more probably lying than wrong.

    Unsubstantiated.

    It is completely irrelevant to the prior.

    Nonsense. None of the acts you include in your prior include any sort of self harm; they carry no risk to oneself. To claim that this established a prior for self harm behaviour is ridiculous.

    I consider being wrong on its own to be unethical. Whether they are lying or not is somewhat immaterial.

    Except we are questioning whether a given person is lying; whether or not they are lying is central. Have you forgotten? “A buck will get you ten that this whole thing was intentionally staged.” | “Let’s not forget: Feminists have been known to make up all sorts of false claims, including false accusations of rape, in order to exert political leverage.” I trust you’re capable of reading the others.

  63. Adiabat says

    Jacob Schmidt (64):

    Was Hembling communicating lack of concern for rape victims? Why yes, yes he was. Quoting him to an extent that demonstrates is not quote mining, per your own description of quote mining. He really was saying ““I … don’t give a f**k about rape victims anymore.”* Lack of concern for rape victims is the intended message

    Nope, the intended message was what I said it was: that it is the behaviour of feminists which has caused him to struggle to care for the issue that they claim they advocate for. He even recognises that his new viewpoint is wrong, both intellectually and morally, but it is a normal reaction when advocates for a cause behave horribly. This is obviously the message when you consider the whole thing, rather than just the sound-bite feminists like to spread. Within the context, and his recognition of his failing, what he says takes on a deeper meaning than the hate-fest feminists are trying to promote: it brings up issues of how groups advocate for issues, how they use issues to silence opponents who mention ‘inconvenient victims’, and the risk of losing sight of real issues when we focus too much on us-and-them approaches.

    As far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t.

    Of course not, because your entire argument relies on not recognizing the different message once context is taken into account. No doubt you praised Lindy West’s semi-famous article that made pretty much the same argument Hembling made, but in reverse:

    Most feminists don’t hate men, as a group (we hate the system that disproportionately favors men at the expense of women), but — congratulations! — we are starting to hate you.

    &

    Feminism is, in essence, a social justice movement—it wants to take the side of the alienated and the marginalized, and that includes alienated and marginalized men. Please stop turning us against you.

    http://jezebel.com/5992479/if-i-admit-that-hating-men-is-a-thing-will-you-stop-turning-it-into-a-self-fulfilling-prophecy

    This article was widely praised by feminists when it came out yet it makes essentially the same points as Hembling, just with a lot more vomit-inducing fake-concern. No doubt you’ll reply saying how the context of those quotes makes what Lindy is saying so very different. But hey, she said those words didn’t she? And that was her “intended message” wasn’t it?

    Do you remember how this quote got introduced? Here, I’ll remind you: “I have asked MRAs how such men, and their supporters, can claim to advocate for males (a significant number of victims of sexual abuse are male) and hold such cold, callous views on those who have suffered such awful crimes.”

    And Hembling explains why in the video, yet you wouldn’t think so the way you lot keep quote-mining it. Hemblings point is not “lack of concern” like you claim but rather, like the Lindy West piece, that the way the ‘other side’ pushes their issues makes it harder to care.

    Incidentally, you’re right that I left of the ‘anymore’; amusingly enough, despite your disdain for manboobz, it’s manboobz that included the full quote.

    Manboobz doesn’t just use quote-mining to manipulate its audience. Another tactic is that it’ll quote a section of what someone says then immediately ‘helpfully provides’ an interpretation of “what they really mean” to ensure the faithful know exactly what to think. Can you really not recognise the ways that that site tries to manipulate its audience? It’s blatant. Perhaps you should have a think about your answer to my earlier question about where it chose to cut off its quote on that Elam piece.

    (65):

    Further incidentally, the full quote and reasoning really doesn’t leave him in better light.

    I agree, and have said already, that it’s still a shitty position even within context, but I disagree that it’s as bad as the quote-mined version. I think it’s similar to the charity analogy I gave before: It’s much worse to not donate just because you really don’t care than it is to not donate because the actions of the people working on the issue has put you off. Neither are admirable, but one is definitely worse than the other.

  64. Jacob Schmidt says

    Nope, the intended message was what I said it was: that it is the behaviour of feminists which has caused him to struggle to care for the issue that they claim they advocate for.

    Right, and quoting him to the effect of the bold is not quote mining per your own definition. That he does not feel concern for rape victims is his intended message. It is not the whole of his message, but it is his message.

    No doubt you praised Lindy West’s semi-famous article that made pretty much the same argument Hembling made, but in reverse:

    That you need to invent my praise for an article I’ve never read by an author I’ve never read* reminds me of my earlier point: “that you need to invent it to have a point says more about your intellectual honesty than anything else.

    No doubt you’ll reply saying how the context of those quotes makes what Lindy is saying so very different. But hey, she said those words didn’t she? And that was her “intended message” wasn’t it?

    Well, actually, I’m going to note the disparity between your words and your criticisms of manboobz:

    This article was widely praised by feminists when it came out yet it makes essentially the same points as Hembling, just with a lot more vomit-inducing fake-concern.

    Another tactic is that it’ll quote a section of what someone says then immediately ‘helpfully provides’ an interpretation of “what they really mean” to ensure the faithful know exactly what to think.

    Interesting that you’ll complain about Futrelle’s alleged interpretations about what people really mean, but that you’re quick to assure me that West’s concern is fake.

    Hemblings point is not “lack of concern” like you claim but rather, like the Lindy West piece, that the way the ‘other side’ pushes their issues makes it harder to care.

    Hembling literally stated “…I don’t give a fuck…” That is lack of concern. He has a shitty, stupid reason for his lack of concern. That changes nothing. Per his won words, he lacks concern. Once more, carnations point was entirely about lack of concern.

    Can you really not recognise the ways that that site tries to manipulate its audience? It’s blatant.

    Despite it’s blatancy, you’ve yet to actually demonstrate it. You assert, repeatedly, with no reference to either piece (by avfm or manboobz).

    I think it’s similar to the charity analogy I gave before: It’s much worse to not donate just because you really don’t care than it is to not donate because the actions of the people working on the issue has put you off. Neither are admirable, but one is definitely worse than the other.

    Notice how you don’t actually justify that, but merely assert it? By what standard is it worse? In either case, one lacks concern for charity or victims. The actual effects are the same. I’m willing to say that Hemblings full reasoning is worse: it indicates willingness to take out disdain for a specific group on others; not only does he lack concern for rape victims, but he does not bother to restrain his ire to those who actually (in his mind) deserve it. Moving beyond that, one must make a decision based on personal judgement or taste; an opinion. I think Hembling is worse when one considers the full piece.

    * I have, for clarity, skimmed it; that is to say, I read the title, about a half dozen lines, got bored, and left. You can call that “reading” if you like, but in any case I’ve offered and held no opinion on it.

  65. says

    “It is important that a woman’s “noes” be respected and her “yeses” be respected. And it is also important when her nonverbal “yeses” (tongues still touching) conflict with those verbal “noes” that the man not be put in jail for choosing the “yes” over the “no.” He might just be trying to become her fantasy.”

    This is actually textbook rape apologia: the equivalence between acts that are not consent for sex (kissing, you’ll note, does not establish consent for sex) with actual consent. You’ll also note that at no point is there any confusion between verbal consent and non-verbal consent on my part; my criticism rests entirely on the fact that Farrel excuses rape if something as innocuous as french kissing has occurred while the woman says no to sex.

    Except he does not in the part you quoted. He just explains that the ambiguity people are confronted with is a problem – a problem since it could punish misguided people in the wrong way. He does not lay moral blame or lack of blame on any actor in the situation, does not claim the sexual actor is or is not raping the other, or blaming the other person for getting the actor in the narrative to rape her. It is clear to anyone who is not trying to read more into the lines than there is that he is trying to describe conflicting signal someone is getting and that he believes that punishment with jail in such a situation is wrong. This is not the same as rape apologia, right or wrong as he may be.

    Unsubstantiated.

    Maybe. It is based on my belief that people may belief wrong detrimental things about others with a greater probability because someone tries to undermine this person than they believe such things because of random fluctuations, since there is a strong incentive for people to gain influence by unmasking others as bad. ever witnessed how someone made up gossip?

    Nonsense. None of the acts you include in your prior include any sort of self harm; they carry no risk to oneself. To claim that this established a prior for self harm behaviour is ridiculous.

    It is irrelevant to the prior since self harm is not needed for the action in question. I explained this once already: A wound does not need to be self inflicted to be used. .

    Except we are questioning whether a given person is lying; whether or not they are lying is central. Have you forgotten? “A buck will get you ten that this whole thing was intentionally staged.” | “Let’s not forget: Feminists have been known to make up all sorts of false claims, including false accusations of rape, in order to exert political leverage.” I trust you’re capable of reading the others.

    Since the point eludes you, lets try it again: If you are making claims of rape apologia on basically nothing, then this behavior is a highly unethical attempt to silence your opposition since you did not give them the benefit of the doubt. Whether this is due to your own stupidity or malice is irrelevant insofar as the predictive properties of your group are concerned- if you are malicious/stupidly enough to do such a thing,you raise the probability of maliciously faking something or mistaking actions for what they are not and blaimng the group you are oposing.

  66. Jacob Schmidt says

    This article was widely praised by feminists when it came out yet it makes essentially the same points as Hembling, just with a lot more vomit-inducing fake-concern. No doubt you’ll reply saying how the context of those quotes makes what Lindy is saying so very different. But hey, she said those words didn’t she? And that was her “intended message” wasn’t it?

    Incidentally, I’ve never understood this particular tactic. If I accept your description of West’s piece, then I simply conclude that West’s piece is, at least in part, stupid. Maybe it made some good points elsewhere that are worth considering (you mention that West’s piece in context make her message “very different”), but that doesn’t mean I can’t criticize what you’ve quoted, assuming the apparent message is actually what she meant. Maybe West has a shitty justification for it; I don’t really care. I won’t whine at you about “quote mining” and “deceit” for criticising them.

    Also, the piece isn’t quite analogous. By the quotes you provided, West blames men for her hatred of men. West actually manages to keep her response restrained to those she (however wrongly) feels have earned it. Hembling does no such thing: he responds to feminists he doesn’t like by losing concern for rape victims.

  67. Jacob Schmidt says

    It is clear to anyone who is not trying to read more into the lines than there is that he is trying to describe conflicting signal someone is getting and that he believes that punishment with jail in such a situation is wrong.

    There is no conflicting signal, sheaf. French kissing is not consent for sex. To be clear, Farrel is discussing date rape.

    To recap: as far as I’m concerned, you have no prior. As far as your alleged prior is concerned, it does not establish willingness to fake evidence of a crime, as opposed to saying wrong things about one’s written work. You can continue if you wish, but I doubt it will continue beyond this.

  68. says

    There is no conflicting signal, sheaf. French kissing is not consent for sex. To be clear, Farrel is discussing date rape.

    I know the quote. I ca reiterate what I said, but you seem to invested in this so I will let it go.

    To recap: as far as I’m concerned, you have no prior. As far as your alleged prior is concerned, it does not establish willingness to fake evidence of a crime, as opposed to saying wrong things about one’s written work. You can continue if you wish, but I doubt it will continue beyond this.

    I have no prior? Of course I do. The question is whether the methodology I used to arrive at it is sound. Saying wrong things alone is not enough. The relevant category is: (probably intentionally) saying wrong things about the work,that strongly imply the other person to be very bad in your world view in order to silence dissent. This category is present, and I believe suffiscient to establish my claims. In any case this was only part of the argument, the more central being that there is much general unethical behavior in order to silence dissent is present and we would therefore expect more of it.

    To recap: Your criticism falters at the first level of scrutiny.

  69. Adiabat says

    Jacob Schmidt (70):

    Right, and quoting him to the effect of the bold is not quote mining per your own definition. That he does not feel concern for rape victims is his intended message. It is not the whole of his message, but it is his message.

    &

    Hembling literally stated “…I don’t give a fuck…”That is lack of concern. He has a shitty, stupid reason for his lack of concern. That changes nothing. Per his won words, he lacks concern. Once more, carnations point was entirely about lack of concern.

    Nope, carnations point was that Hemblings lack of concern was a “cold, callous view” (post 39), not merely that Hembling possesses a ‘lack of concern’. He, and you, aren’t just stating that John said some words (which would be a rather banal observation on your part): you are presenting those words, and solely those words, to others for judgement and to comment on his character. Epistemologically speaking it shouldn’t be possible to pass judgement on Hembling without the context that those words were said in, though people being people will pass judgement anyway based on their own biases and ideology. By only presenting those words you know that people are going to reach the conclusion that you want them to reach; hence it is manipulative and dishonest.

    When provided with the context Hemblings view is revealed as not so cold and callous, he actually acknowledges that it’s a terrible thing for victims to go through. It’s only his emotional fatigue at the behaviour of feminists which causes him to have the view he has.

    Notice how you don’t actually justify [that Hemblings view with context isn’t as bad as his view without context], but merely assert it? By what standard is it worse? In either case, one lacks concern for charity or victims.

    We acknowledge that when people are treated badly they become averse to things associated with those who mistreated them. This moral principle is behind such things as single-sex DV services. If we applied your approach we would have to shame some DV victims as man-haters, as the cause of their current position would be immaterial. This would be wrong of course.

    To counter Hemblings given cause you would have to argue that feminists don’t use various rape-related shaming tactics to silence critics. That’ll be hard though as it’s not exactly uncommon for feminists to use such underhand tactics as quoting someone out of context and call them a ‘rape-apologist’. I’m sure we can find an example somewhere close by…

    On a completely unrelated note: Have you even read the context of that Warren Farrell quote you gave or are you just copying the quote from some feminist site?

    That you need to invent my praise for an article I’ve never read by an author I’ve never read*…
    *I have, for clarity, skimmed it; that is to say, I read the title, about a half dozen lines, got bored, and left. You can call that “reading” if you like, but in any case I’ve offered and held no opinion on it.

    So Hemblings position is so horrible that you feel the need to argue about it and convince others how disgusting he is, even though you hadn’t actually bothered to find out the context for yourself until I pasted some of it here. Yet when presented with a similar position held by one of your fellow ideologues you can’t even be bothered to read it, and refuse to form an opinion because you haven’t read the whole thing. What a hypocrite you are. You don’t really give a shit about what his actual position is do you (as evidenced by your can’t-give-a-shit attitude when presented with someone else with similar views to Hembling)? You just want something to smear the MRM with.

    Despite it’s blatancy, you’ve yet to actually demonstrate it. You assert, repeatedly, with no reference to either piece (by avfm or manboobz).

    I’ve asked you twice now for your response to Manboobz’ cutting off a quote just before it says it’s a parody, and whether you consider that a blatant attempt by Manboobz to manipulate its readers. It’s not hard to find and you’re obviously just trying to get out of giving an answer. But here you go anyway: http://manboobz.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/my-first-post-in-domestic-violence.html.

    I’m not expecting an answer to my question.

  70. Jacob Schmidt says

    Nope, carnations point was that Hemblings lack of concern was a “cold, callous view” (post 39), not merely that Hembling possesses a ‘lack of concern’.

    Are you seriously going to pretend that lacking concern for rape victims based on the actions of others is anything but cold and callous? Really? That’s not a winning battle.

    When provided with the context Hemblings view is revealed as not so cold and callous, he actually acknowledges that it’s a terrible thing for victims to go through. It’s only his emotional fatigue at the behaviour of feminists which causes him to have the view he has.

    No, it’s still very cold and callous; both words denote emotions: insensitivity, disregard, uncaring, etc, are all synonyms. “Emotional fatigue” is not a contradiction or exclusion to “cold and callous” no matter how convenient that would be for your argument; indeed, emotional fatigue is often a reason one might be cold and callous.

    Have you even read the context of that Warren Farrell quote you gave or are you just copying the quote from some feminist site?

    Ahahahahaha, lordy you’re funny. I never thought I’d see the day someone would imply that the ask men boards was a feminist site.

    So Hemblings position is so horrible that you feel the need to argue about it and convince others how disgusting he is, even though you hadn’t actually bothered to find out the context for yourself until I pasted some of it here.

    No, I knew the entire context well before this thread. It’s rather old hat, all things considered. Once more, that you need to invent otherwise says more about your intellectual honesty than anything else.

    Further, I don’t need to convince you that it’s “disgusting.” You admit as much: “I agree that neglecting a cause just because of the behaviour of its’ activists is pretty shitty;” Convincing you that Hembling’s position is shit is not something I need to do, even if I wanted to.

    You don’t really give a shit about what his actual position is do you (as evidenced by your can’t-give-a-shit attitude when presented with someone else with similar views to Hembling)? You just want something to smear the MRM with.

    No; I wish his actual position wasn’t so atrocious; I wish the MRM did have such an emotionally immature man as one of their most notable. In any case, do you know how little regard I have for Jezebel? I don’t like them. At all. What I’ve read of them keeps me from reading any more.

    Yet when presented with a similar position held by one of your fellow ideologues you can’t even be bothered to read it, and refuse to form an opinion because you haven’t read the whole thing.[1] What a hypocrite you are.[2]

    1) Not actually analogous, as I’ve noted; you seem to be ignoring post 72.

    2) That’s not what hypocrisy means, particularly given that I’ve condemned the piece based on your description (once more, see post 72). I’ve been quite consistent on this, which is more than I can say for you (see your disparity between your description of West’s piece and your criticism of manboobz).

    In any case, my point about “not reading it” was not to say that I can’t be bothered (though it’s true, I can’t; see above for my regard for Jezebel); it was to reinforce my point about your intellectual dishonesty in ascribing a view to me that I not only did not have, but could not have.

    Also, given that I’ve condemned Jezebel, both the article in question and the site in general, on this thread and others, on this very blog as you should be aware,* how are they my “fellow idealogues”? Is this yet another invention of yours? (Spoilers: I think it is.)

    I’ve asked you twice now for your response to Manboobz’ cutting off a quote just before it says it’s a parody, and whether you consider that a blatant attempt by Manboobz to manipulate its readers. It’s not hard to find and you’re obviously just trying to get out of giving an answer.

    Right, it couldn’t possibly be that I didn’t know what you were talking about, given that you’ve given me few details to work with, that piece in question was from well before I’d learned of manboobz, and was on a different site, of which I was unaware. That’s, what, 3 inventions of yours? 4? I’m not sure, I’ve lost count (though I admit I haven’t been trying).

    In any case, you’re right, Futrelle should have included the bit about it being a parody. As it stands, it looks as if AVFM wrote a gender-flipped counter part to the Jezebel piece. There’s this bit: “This little violent fantasy of his is ostensibly inspired by an obnoxious three-year-old post from Jezebel which basically celebrated the fact that various female staffers had beaten up boyfriends of theirs. Elam’s fantasy, of course, goes well beyond anything any of them confessed to.” But that does not describe parody, merely that Elam was reacting to something else.

    Additionally, (now that I know which articles in question you’re complaining about) what amuses me is that Elam has quote mined himself (to an extent) on this matter, as Ally pointed out:

    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.”

    Aside: “Omit” is perhaps the wrong word to chose; the rest of the words are there, but Elam sets them aside from the others as if “I don’t mean this” and “I don’t mean this, but it’s not wrong” are the same thing.

    *For reference

    To you, specifically: Frankly, Jezebel’s cavalier attidtude towards female violence puts me on edge, even if they do repudiate it.

    More generally in that same thread: Even Jezebel does it, and we’ve already established that they’re pretty shitty.

  71. WhineyM. says

    What I guess I find difficult in some ways, Ally, is the apparent double-standards here. I mean, in the blog piece above you’ve outlined a situation which is not at all uncommon: the political and media establishment, pretty much across the board, comes out with this narrative of purely innocent girls and completely evil boys. We’ve seen it so many times before – of course, they are exactly the same language and concepts used around prison reform: women are ‘vulnerable’, victims of a whole range of circumstances, and this is the only lens through which their offending behaviour should be viewed – unless, that is, they’ve committed some extreme act of violence, and even then that is some strange abberation.

    One of the principle voices constantly coming out with these messages is of course that of professional feminists, who have clear vested interests in propagating these stereotypes. How do they differ from MRAs, or to use the correct, preferred term, MHRAs? Well, they are very often rich, in positions of power and authority, as writers and editors in the media, andas politicians in the House of Commons and Lords.

    But when these people come out with all this bigotry, you response as a writer is to react respectfully, making discreet, modest, reasoned criticism. Nowhere is the same dismissiveness and contempt that you express towards the MHRM, who are mostly amateur, ordinary people, doing everything on a shoe-string. Nowhere is there directed towards these professional feminists of the establishment the same kind of invective and abuse, or indeed the same broad-brush generalisations. The only real or ‘true’ feminism to be recognised is apparently that of a radical force for progressive change. The only MHRM to be recognised is a group of ‘idiotic jerks’, whose numbers just seem apparently to include individuals like Straughen, Erin Pizzey and Riot Girl.

    So, look, Ally, I think you’re a good guy, and I know you always want to do the right thing, but for
    me, this is in some ways the wrong way round: the greatest outspokenness and passion should be directed towards those with the greatest power and authority to shape society. But to target these (sometimes clumsy)
    amateurs with vitriol, whilst sparing the same ire for all these ‘pillars of the establishment’, just seems a really bizarre way of going about things.

  72. Whiney.M says

    Mind you, not suggesting for one moment that Karen Straughen is in any way ‘clumsy,’ for that gal is one smooth operator! :-)

  73. Adiabat says

    Jacob Schmidt (76):

    Are you seriously going to pretend that lacking concern for rape victims based on the actions of others is anything but cold and callous? Really? That’s not a winning battle.

    Using google definitions:

    Cold: lacking affection or warmth of feeling; unemotional.

    Yet his reasoning is emotional, borne out of anger and frustration.

    Callous: showing or having an insensitive and cruel disregard for others.

    Yet Hembling states that it’s a terrible thing for victims to go through. He has the humility to recognize that his position is wrong, both intellectually and morally, but finds it hard to get over his very human reaction to mistreatment. This is far from callous.

    Ahahahahaha, lordy you’re funny. I never thought I’d see the day someone would imply that the ask men boards was a feminist site.

    So you’ve just googled and found a non-feminist source, woopdedoo. That you would do this rather than just admit that I ‘called it’ correctly just highlights how dishonest you are. Giveaway: what you quoted isn’t actually in your link. And then you moan when I point out how deceitful feminists are when it comes to MRA’s.

    And answer the question: Have you read the context of the Warren Farrell quote? Have you read his argument and the general point he was making?

    No, I knew the entire context [of Hembling’s quote] well before this thread. It’s rather old hat, all things considered.

    So when you said that Hemblings “intended message” was that he didn’t care about rape victims, instead of what it actually was, you what? Forgot? Lied?

    Convincing you that Hembling’s position is shit is not something I need to do, even if I wanted to.

    Lol, you are here trying to convince me that it’s as shitty as you claim it is. The fact that our views on how shitty it is differ so much is practically the whole point of this discussion.

    1) Not actually analogous, as I’ve noted; you seem to be ignoring post 72

    Not ignored, but cut out of my response for length reasons, as I found it a weak criticism anyway. Here’s what I wrote but cut out:

    (72):

    Also, the piece isn’t quite analogous. By the quotes you provided, West blames men for her hatred of men. West actually manages to keep her response restrained to those she (however wrongly) feels have earned it. Hembling does no such thing: he responds to feminists he doesn’t like by losing concern for rape victims.

    Nope. West finds herself not caring about “alienated and marginalized men” because of the actions of MRA’s. This is analogues to Hembling’s position that it is those who are campaigning on behalf of the group that is causing the attitude.

    That’s not what hypocrisy means

    I don’t think you get to lecture on my understanding of things after your previous attempt to claim that I don’t know what quote-mining is and I ended up having to educate you on it.

    particularly given that I’ve condemned the piece based on your description (once more, see post 72).

    Condemned?! Where have you condemned it? You’ve given some token criticism to appear consistent but your reaction to the two couldn’t be more different. If Hemblings position is so reprehensible I expect something a little bit equivalent in your response to West.

    In any case, you’re right, Futrelle should have included the bit about it being a parody

    That’s it? That’s all you have to say about a blatant attempt at manipulating readers from the most popular feminist MRA-criticism site? C’mon, you’ve just been shown an obvious example of this and your reaction is to suggest some minor oversight on Manboobz part. That’s a pretty pathetic response. Don’t you expect integrity from your fellow feminists, especially ones as influential as Manboobz? Aren’t you concerned that they may be intentionally giving a false impression to a whole bunch of people, yourself included perhaps? Maybe if feminists weren’t endlessly lying to smear the MRM the two groups could start working together on some issues.

    the rest of the words are there, but Elam sets them aside from the others as if “I don’t mean this” and “I don’t mean this, but it’s not wrong” are the same thing.

    You’ve obviously read that thread so I assume you saw my early comment there pointing out that Ally cut his quotation short, and that after Ally’s cut-off Elam clarified exactly what is ‘not wrong’. Also note that no-one, Ally included, responded to that. And despite having read the thread and failing to respond at the time now you’re here making the same claim Ally did with exactly the same misquote.

    Look , I think I’ve got everything I need to out of this exchange: I’ve shown you to be deceitful and dishonest, and to not care about what’s true when it comes to smearing MRA’s. Unless you post a whopper of a comment in reply to this I’m happy leaving it right here.

  74. Danny Gibbs says

    Using google definitions:

    Cold: lacking affection or warmth of feeling; unemotional.

    Yet his reasoning is emotional, borne out of anger and frustration.

    Callous: showing or having an insensitive and cruel disregard for others.

    Yet Hembling states that it’s a terrible thing for victims to go through. He has the humility to recognize that his position is wrong, both intellectually and morally, but finds it hard to get over his very human reaction to mistreatment. This is far from callous.
    Agreed. There’s a huge difference between “I’m so angry and frustrated over this I find myself not caring anymore.” and “I don’t care about this.”

  75. carntion says

    Bonjour, comrades. 

    Looks like a few of you hardy souls have been going at it hammer & tongs!  Some of you trying to defend the quite obviously indefensible, and others tried to appeal to common humanity.

    Here’s a little thought experiment that I devised earlier.  I’d like to challenge Adiabat and Danny Gibbs (and anyone else who condones or doesn’t condemn Elam/Hembling’s words) to discuss and describe the following statements.  A prediction – the dissonance you experience will prevent honesty on your parts: 

    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 care if men are raped or falsely accused of rape, because I’m fed up with MRAs constantly bringing it up and their culture of victimhood”

  76. Jacob Schmidt says

    Giveaway: what you quoted isn’t actually in your link.

    Imma get to the rest later, I’m just gonna address this for now: you’re a fool or a liar.

    In red, you ignorant dumbass.

    What I quoted: “It is important that a woman’s “noes” be respected and her “yeses” be respected. And it is also important when her nonverbal “yeses” (tongues still touching) conflict with those verbal “noes” that the man not be put in jail for choosing the “yes” over the “no.” He might just be trying to become her fantasy.”

  77. Jacob Schmidt says

    One last one for time being:

    You’ve obviously read that thread so I assume you saw my early comment there pointing out that Ally cut his quotation short, and that after Ally’s cut-off Elam clarified exactly what is ‘not wrong’. Also note that no-one, Ally included, responded to that. And despite having read the thread and failing to respond at the time now you’re here making the same claim Ally did with exactly the same misquote.

    Me, in that thread

    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.

    Fool or a liar sounds about right.

  78. says

    Schmidt, 82

    Adiabat is incorrect and the quote is present in the link. I almost got nijad by you.
    Note that this likely resulted from the fact that characters get converted when they are copied here. So when Adiabat tried to search the string you quoted, he got nothing back.

    I suspect tough that you did not copy from the forum: Given that it does not even attribute the quote to Farrell you could not have felt save lifting it from there.
    An after the fact google search seems more plausible to me. Given the total amount of evidence whether you did this, however, I will decline definite judgement.

  79. says

    Schmidt 83,

    How is the quoted section a response? It quotes Adiabat? I think the meaning of response in Adiabats post was more akin to rebuttal than to acknowledgement of existence, if I read him correctly. I have not read the entire thread though.

  80. Jacob Schmidt says

    I suspect tough that you did not copy from the forum: Given that it does not even attribute the quote to Farrell you could not have felt save lifting it from there.
    An after the fact google search seems more plausible to me. Given the total amount of evidence whether you did this, however, I will decline definite judgement.

    I had a half dozen sources found through google. In most of them, the quotes were “fisked,” and it wasn’t entirely clear if there was text left out in between. I found the Ask Men forum, which had the exact same text but without the intermittent comments.

    For the record, the literally Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V was actually done from the webpage I provided; I laughed at Adiabat questioning my source because of that.

  81. Jacob Schmidt says

    How is the quoted section a response? It quotes Adiabat?

    It quotes me quoting Adiabat.

  82. Jacob Schmidt says

    Sorry, it quotes me addressing a quote from Paul Elam that adiabat brought up.

  83. Danny Gibbs says

    Oh why not?

    carnation:
    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…
    So what exactly is it about the label that causes you to feel this way? Maybe you’ve had bad experiences with some MRAs in the past and they likely soured your feelings. But just spewing rage at them like that won’t do much good.

    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”
    Simply not true. At best you might be able to say that a portion of the last two generations of men fall into this category.

    Or: “I don’t care if men are raped or falsely accused of rape, because I’m fed up with MRAs constantly bringing it up and their culture of victimhood”
    This tells me that dealing with MRAs on this subject has just pissed you off to the point that you find yourself not caring anymore. That is unfortunate. But if I were to quote you on this (but I won’t because I know you’re just hypothesizing here) I’d be sure to include the entire sentence rather than just cheery picking, “I don’t care if men are raped or are falsely accused of rape.”

  84. says

    carnation:

    I wuld find the statements very unpleasant. In fact I cringe every time feminists or MRAs say such shit. I have read enough of both sides to know that theses are definitely not exclusive phenomena, but far more reflections of the fact that individuals that feel powerless and disowned by society as well as young hotheaded radicals and -probably most frequently culpable- people fishing for reactions are a prominent part of these debates. Elam seems to be in the fishing for traffic category, just like Manboobz who is in turn using Elam’s quotes for traffic.

  85. Jacob Schmidt says

    Note that this likely resulted from the fact that characters get converted when they are copied here. So when Adiabat tried to search the string you quoted, he got nothing back.

    No, I found the problem. There is an “a” between “that” and “woman’s” present in the quote I gave that is not present in the ask men board’s quote, which means the literal copy and past did not occur from those boards, despite post 86.

  86. Adiabat says

    Jacob Schmidt (91): Does that mean I called it correctly, and you did do an after the fact google search?

    Y’now what, it doesn’t matter. I’ve had a bit of insomnia recently and it’s making me unduly irritable. I’m sorry for any hard feeling from me in this thread.

    For what it’s worth I generally agree with you on non-feminist talking points when I’ve seen your posts elsewhere.

    Carnation (81):

    A prediction – the dissonance you experience will prevent honesty on your parts

    So basically I show double standards in my response to your reversed quotes or I don’t and you accuse me of lying, whether I am or not? So your thought experiment will end up proving nothing and achieve nothing but waste my time.

    I think I’ll pass.

  87. Jacob Schmidt says

    Does that mean I called it correctly, and you did do an after the fact google search?

    Depends on what you mean by “after the fact”; like I said in post 86: “I had a half dozen sources found through google. In most of them, the quotes were “fisked,” and it wasn’t entirely clear if there was text left out in between. I found the Ask Men forum, which had the exact same text but without the intermittent comments.

    I’ve had a bit of insomnia recently and it’s making me unduly irritable.

    I’m sorry to hear that; I hope you get some sleep.

    Yet his reasoning is emotional, borne out of anger and frustration.[1]

    He has the humility to recognize that his position is wrong, both intellectually and morally, but finds it hard to get over his very human reaction to mistreatment. This is far from callous.[2]

    1) At feminists; that does not contradict lack of emotion or regard for rape victims.

    2) Here’s another definition: insensitive; indifferent; unsympathetic: i.e. “[doesn't] give a fuck…”

    Have you read the context of the Warren Farrell quote? Have you read his argument and the general point he was making?

    Yes.

    So when you said that Hemblings “intended message” was that he didn’t care about rape victims, instead of what it actually was, you what? Forgot? Lied?

    Ahahaha, what? His message actually was that he doesn’t care. He blames it feminists, which means he’s being petulant. He states that he should care, which is to his credit. And yet the fact remains that Hembling let us all know, freely and of his own accord, that he doesn’t care about rape victims.

    Until you can demonstrate that he does; until you can provide a context where, “I … don’t give a f**k about rape victims anymore,” actually means that he does care, you’re full of shit.

    Lol, you are here trying to convince me that it’s as shitty as you claim it is. The fact that our views on how shitty it is differ so much is practically the whole point of this discussion.

    Oh, you’re dearly confused. No, the whole point of this discussion is not about “how shitty” Hembling’s quote is. As I’ve already stated, I think Hembling looks worse in context. No, this whole discussion started with your ridiculous assertion that carnation quote mined, and has continued with me pointing out your dishonest bullshit, and your silly self serving assumptions you like to make. Go ahead and do a Ctrl-F for “invent,” I found quite a few.

    You’ve conceded that the quote is shitty. Your whine of, “But it’s not quite as shitty as you think,” is ad hoc bullshit.

    I don’t think you get to lecture on my understanding of things after your previous attempt to claim that I don’t know what quote-mining is and I ended up having to educate you on it.

    You mean that definition you provided by which Hembling was not quote mined?

    I did find that rather amusing, I have to admit.

    If Hemblings position is so reprehensible I expect something a little bit equivalent in your response to West.

    My responses so far have been pretty equivalent.

    The only reason this conversation has gone on for so long is that you keep making shit up. Had you simply said, “I think Hembling looks better in full context,” without your silly assertion of quote mining, I never would have responded. I’d chalk it up to a mix of personal opinion and charitable reading.

    That’s it?

    Yep.

    Nope. West finds herself not caring about “alienated and marginalized men” because of the actions of MRA’s. This is analogues to Hembling’s position that it is those who are campaigning on behalf of the group that is causing the attitude.

    What? That doesn’t make any sense. Neither quote you provided demonstrates that.

    Here’s the full quote:”Most feminists don’t hate men, as a group (we hate the system that disproportionately favors men at the expense of women), but — congratulations! — we are starting to hate you. You, the person. Your obsession with misandry has turned misandry into a self-fulfilling prophecy. (I mean, sort of. Hating individual men is not the same as hating all men. But more on that in a minute.) Are you happy now? Is this what you wanted? Feminism is, in essence, a social justice movement—it wants to take the side of the alienated and the marginalized, and that includes alienated and marginalized men. Please stop turning us against you.

    “You” refers to a specific group of men, not all men.

    Now, at first I thought you were just making a point. I figured you deliberately quote mined West to demonstrate that West looks worse out of context than in context. The difference, though, is that out of context, West appears to hate men as a group. In context, its clear she doesn’t. Its clear that the only men she hates are men who engage in specific behaviours. The quotes don’t, then, convey any message that West intended. Contrast that with Hembling, who by stating, “I … don’t give a f**k about rape victims anymore,” really did mean, “I … don’t give a f**k about rape victims anymore.”

    But you’ve asserted that West doesn’t “[care] about ‘alienated and marginalized men’ because of the actions of MRA’s,’” which is neither (to my knowledge) in that piece, nor is that a reasonable reading of the quotes you’ve provided. Hell, they don’t even mention MRAs. At this point, I don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about, and am leaning towards “fool or a liar” again.

    Danny Gibbs

    Are the quotes I provided in post 50, 51, and 53 to your satisfaction? They were originally for your benefit, after all.

  88. Danny Gibbs says

    I appreciate you answering (sorry for not doing so sooner).

    I was just wondering but often times when someone says “MRAs” they usually just mean “The AVfM crowd”.

  89. Jacob Schmidt says

    I appreciate you answering (sorry for not doing so sooner).[1]

    I was just wondering but often times when someone says “MRAs” they usually just mean “The AVfM crowd”.[2]

    1) No worries; truth be told, I had forgotten about you until you started posting again.

    2) That’s might a fair criticism, at least in my experience. I disagree with the majority of MRAs, but AVFM seems to put out the most pernicious material.

  90. carntion says

    @ Jacob
    @ Danny Gibbs

    When I discuss the MRM/MRAs I am thinking of AVfM, basically because it is the most popular MRA blog, the only one with “professional” (paid) staff but also because I see very little difference of opinion between MRA theory seen on other blogs featuring MRAs. Personal, occasional macro political, differences, but the reactionary stereotyping, crude assumptions, cruel depictions and angry misogny is standard for the manosphere.

    Scan up the comments on this thread, not one condemnation of the egregious commentary originating from AVfM.

    I will pay AVfM their due though, through social media strategy and doggedness they have achieved an auduence. It is highly unlikely that they can convert this into anything tangible that effectively ensures “compassion for men and boys.”

    That in a nutshell is the tragedy of the MRM.

  91. Danny Gibbs says

    Yeah Jacob things have been quite hectic in real life (hell I have a post scheduled later on today at my blog that would be the first in over a month).

    2) That’s might a fair criticism, at least in my experience. I disagree with the majority of MRAs, but AVFM seems to put out the most pernicious material.
    Yeah and to be more specific I agree with a lot of the topics they bring up but not just the proposed solutions and opinions on those issues. I guess that’s why I read them. For a while though I was silly enough to think that openly disagreeing with Elam multiple times would at least be some measure of evidence that I don’t fall in with that crowd. But then I remember that those that accuse me of falling in with them have a habit of only noticing what I say when there’s a chance to sweep in and tell me that I’m wrong.

    But oh well that’s no reason to not continue the good fight I guess.

  92. Adiabat says

    Jacob Schmidt (94):

    Depends on what you mean by “after the fact”

    I mean that to save face you found a non-feminist source afterwards and lied about copying the quote from there.

    Considering that the source you provided doesn’t even mention Farrell and that you claimed you “ctrl-C and ctrl-V” the quote from there when you obviously didn’t, as the quotes are different, makes me think you lied. The fact that, even though you didn’t quote from it, you presented it as though you did and used that to justify some mockery just makes you look ridiculous.

    Have you read the context of the Warren Farrell quote? Have you read his argument and the general point he was making?

    Yes.

    After the fact again? Since you have read the context why do you make the dumbass suggestion that it’s “textbook rape apologia”? You say:

    my criticism rests entirely on the fact that Farrel excuses rape if something as innocuous as french kissing has occurred while the woman says no to sex.

    when earlier he quite clearly says that “Nearly 40 percent of college women acknowledged they had said “no” to sex even “when they meant yes”, and he mentions several other cues so your claim that he’s just talking about French Kissing is dishonest (yet again). It’s also quote-mining by leaving out the parts where he did give other examples of cues.

    In the real world consent is obtained through a series of verbal and non-verbal cues, which indicate whether to escalate or not. And the 40% figure also shows that a “no” is a poor indicator of consent or not-consent, when combined with other cues.

    “Tongues touching” is given as just one example, and obviously not as a sole indicator of consent. That you think he is saying that “Farrel excuses rape if something as innocuous as french kissing has occurred” makes you a dumbass. This misreading is so wrong that it can’t even be an honest mistake; it’s an ideologically driven “worst possible interpretation” against all likelihood of it being accurate.

    The fact that people like you spread these “worse possible interpretations” that fly in the face of any sensible reading is just more indication that you and your fellow feminists can’t be trusted to be honest when talking about your critics.

    1) At feminists; that does not contradict lack of emotion or regard for rape victims.

    Now you’re just clutching at straws. Every indication shows that his attitude is fundamentally emotional.

    2) Here’s another definition: insensitive; indifferent; unsympathetic: i.e. “[doesn't] give a fuck…”

    You really need to stop with that quote-mine, it really isn’t helping your case when you keep posting it in every post you make. I’ve already shown that the context indicates that he isn’t indifferent or unsympathetic.

    So when you said that Hemblings “intended message” was that he didn’t care about rape victims, instead of what it actually was, you what? Forgot? Lied?

    Ahahaha, what? His message actually was that he doesn’t care.

    You keep saying that yet you’ve already been shown to be wrong. I’ve already shown that the context makes his point different from what those literal words indicate. Hint: Usually at this point you need to provide an argument, or something, to make your case instead of making the same debunked assertion over and over again.

    Until you can demonstrate that he does; until you can provide a context where, “I … don’t give a f**k about rape victims anymore,” actually means that he does care, you’re full of shit.

    (I can’t decide whether this comes under goalpost shifting or non-sequitar.) To prove it’s a quote-mine I don’t need to show that he does care, I just needed to show that that line in context suggests a different position than what was claimed using the out of context quote. Since out of context it implies his view is “cold and callous” while I’ve shown that in context it’s an emotional response to crap behaviour directed towards him I’ve done that.

    Oh, you’re dearly confused. No, the whole point of this discussion is not about “how shitty” Hembling’s quote is. As I’ve already stated, I think Hembling looks worse in context. No, this whole discussion started with your ridiculous assertion that carnation quote mined, and has continued with me pointing out your dishonest bullshit, and your silly self serving assumptions you like to make. Go ahead and do a Ctrl-F for “invent,” I found quite a few.

    Nope, the point is as I said it was: “The fact that our views on how shitty it is differ so much is practically the whole point of this discussion.” By showing that Hembling’s position in context isn’t as bad as what carnation claimed I am showing that it is a quote-mine. The rest of the discussion is you trying to assert that it is as bad anyway, as though that makes it not-a-quote-mine.

    It’s all confused by the fact that you simultaneously hold the contradictory views that Hembling’s position is different in context and that carnation didn’t quote-mine Hembling. You seem to be the one that’s confused.

    As for my “dishonest bullshit”, I believe it’s just you that been shown to be dishonest by claiming you got your quote from a site where the quote was different. Since I’ve shown that carnation was being deceitful in his quote-mining and that we only have your word (which I’ve shown isn’t worth shit through your willingness to lie about your sources) on the rest of my “dishonesty” I think you haven’t a leg to stand on.

    You’ve conceded that the quote is shitty. Your whine of, “But it’s not quite as shitty as you think,” is ad hoc bullshit.

    Nope. The fact that Hemblings position isn’t the one carnation tried to claim with his quote-mining is the whole point of this discussion.

    You mean that definition you provided by which Hembling was not quote mined?
    I did find that rather amusing, I have to admit.

    You obviously still don’t understand what quote-mining is, and I think it’s beyond my ability to teach you. Let’s try wikipedia (From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context):

    Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms:
    1. As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme)

    Had you simply said, “I think Hembling looks better in full context,” without your silly assertion of quote mining, I never would have responded. I’d chalk it up to a mix of personal opinion and charitable reading.

    But only providing part of a quote out of context to make his position look worse is quotemining. This isn’t hard to understand.

    But you’ve asserted that West doesn’t “[care] about ‘alienated and marginalized men’ because of the actions of MRA’s,’” which is neither (to my knowledge) in that piece, nor is that a reasonable reading of the quotes you’ve provided.

    You right about my intention behind those quotes, specifically to your “He literally said” line. West also “literally said” the words I quoted as well. Basically your “literally” argument is very weak, and in fact is a big component of quote-mining.

    TBH her article is confused. She claims to hate individual men, yet refers to these individual men solely as a group of men who claim misandry is real. She also conflates this group with “alienated and marginalized men” when she says “stop turning us against you”.

    There is the bit about only hating individuals, but misandry by definition is hatred men as a class. So if individuals are “creating her misandry” she is hating a whole group for the actions of few.

    Her article is a clusterfuck of contradictions, but her point is that it is the behavior she is facing that is causing her misandry. The comparison I am making is still valid.

  93. says

    “Tongues touching” is given as just one example, and obviously not as a sole indicator of consent. That you think he is saying that “Farrel excuses rape if something as innocuous as french kissing has occurred” makes you a dumbass.

    I agree. A pretty good heuristic when confronted with such an absurd notion is to ask yourself: “If I would ask Warren Farrel if he would be in favor of rape being allowed, once there was a french kiss, what would his likely answer be?” The only way this would be answered with yes is when the oly things you know about him are blog entries by Futrelle.

    Generally I would like to ask Schmidt whether he has read any book by Farrell.

  94. Jacob Schmidt says

    I mean that to save face you found a non-feminist source afterwards and lied about copying the quote from there.[1]

    Considering that the source you provided doesn’t even mention Farrell…[2]

    1) Then no.

    2) Do you have trouble reading? I had a half dozen sources; I find it highly unlikely that the same text would show up elsewhere written by a different author, and don’t find it particularly difficult to figure out who wrote it.

    “Tongues touching” is given as just one example, and obviously not as a sole indicator of consent.

    Do you know what that sounds like?”An interpretation of “what they really mean” to ensure the faithful know exactly what to think.

    That’s twice now (that I’ve noticed) you’ve delved into the same tactics you deride when it suits you.

    when earlier he quite clearly says that “Nearly 40 percent of college women acknowledged they had said “no” to sex even “when they meant yes”, and he mentions several other cues so your claim that he’s just talking about French Kissing is dishonest (yet again). It’s also quote-mining by leaving out the parts where he did give other examples of cues.

    If a man ignoring a woman’s verbal “no” is committing date rape, then a woman who says “no” with her verbal language but “yes” with her body language is committing date fraud. And a woman who continues to be sexual even after she says “no” is committing date lying.

    Do women still do this? Two feminists found the answer is yes. Nearly 40 percent of college women acknowledged they had said “no” to sex even “when they meant yes.” In my own work wit hover 150,000 women and men- about half of whom are single-the answer is also yes. Almost all single women acknowledge they have agreed to go back to a guy’s place “just to talk” but were nevertheless responsive to his first kiss. And almost all acknowledge they’ve recently said something like, “That’s far enough for now,” even as her lips are still kissing and her tongue is still touching his.

    We have forgotten that before we began calling this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting. Somehow, women’s romance novels are not titled He Stopped When I Said “No.” They are, though, titled Sweet Savage Love, in which the woman rejects the hand of her gentler lover who saves her from the rapist and marries the man who repeatedly and savagely rapes her. It is this “marry the rapist” theme that not only turned Sweet Savage Love into a best-seller but also into one of the most enduring of women’s romance novels. And it is Rhett Butler, carrying the kicking and screaming Scarlett O’Hara to bed, who is a hero to females-not to males- in Gone with the Wind (the best-selling romance novel of all time- to women). It is important that woman’s “noes” be respected and that her “yeses” be respected. And it is also important when nonverbal “yeses” (tongues still touching) conflict with those verbal “noes” that the man not be put in jail for choosing the “yes” over the “no.” He might just be trying to become her fantasy. The danger is in the fine line between fantasy and nightmare.

    The differences in each sex’s experiences are so enormous emotionally that I can create understanding only by conducting role-reversal dates: having the woman ask the men out and discover which of the men’s “noes” mean “no” forever, which mean “no” for the rest of the date, which for a few minutes, and which just mean slow down….and having the men feel what it’s like to have their “noes” ignored.

    The only cues presented are: kissing; french kissing.

    Now you’re just clutching at straws. Every indication shows that his attitude is fundamentally emotional.[1]

    You really need to stop with that quote-mine, it really isn’t helping your case when you keep posting it in every post you make. I’ve already shown that the context indicates that he isn’t indifferent or unsympathetic.[2]

    1) So what? I no point did I deny his argument was emotional. I denied that (by his statements) he feels emotion for rape victims.

    2) No you haven’t. You’ve shown him blaming others and stating that he should be, not that he isn’t.

    You keep saying that yet you’ve already been shown to be wrong. I’ve already shown that the context makes his point different from what those literal words indicate. Hint: Usually at this point you need to provide an argument, or something, to make your case instead of making the same debunked assertion over and over again.

    You mean like this”His message actually was that he doesn’t care. He blames it feminists, which means he’s being petulant. He states that he should care, which is to his credit. And yet the fact remains that Hembling let us all know, freely and of his own accord, that he doesn’t care about rape victims.

    You brought up two points to dispute; neither of them is, in any way, a contradiction to not caring about rape victims.

    Nope, the point is as I said it was: “The fact that our views on how shitty it is differ so much is practically the whole point of this discussion.”

    That you imagine your motivation is my motivation is yet another bazaar invention of yours. Here’s (another) hint: I don’t care what you think of Hemblings quote.

    It’s all confused by the fact that you simultaneously hold the contradictory views that Hembling’s position is different in context and that carnation didn’t quote-mine Hembling. You seem to be the one that’s confused.

    Oh dear. No, I don’t think, in context, Hemblings position is any different; in context, he still doesn’t care about rape victims.

    As for my “dishonest bullshit”, I believe it’s just you that been shown to be dishonest by claiming you got your quote from a site where the quote was different. Since I’ve shown that carnation was being deceitful in his quote-mining and that we only have your word (which I’ve shown isn’t worth shit through your willingness to lie about your sources)[1] on the rest of my “dishonesty” I think you haven’t a leg to stand on.[2]

    1) “No, I found the problem. There is an “a” between “that” and “woman’s” present in the quote I gave that is not present in the ask men board’s quote, which means the literal copy and past did not occur from those boards, despite post 86.

    I’m not sure why you think freely correcting myself is an indication of dishonesty. Hell, you didn’t show anything; sheaf guessed at the cause of the difference, and I corrected him.

    2) I could be the worlds biggest liar; that has no bearing on any dishonesty on your part.

    Nope. The fact that Hemblings position isn’t the one carnation tried to claim with his quote-mining is the whole point of this discussion.

    Holy shit, I addressed this days ago:

    Do you remember how this quote got introduced? Here, I’ll remind you: “I have asked MRAs how such men, and their supporters, can claim to advocate for males (a significant number of victims of sexual abuse are male) and hold such cold, callous views on those who have suffered such awful crimes.

    Notice the relevant aspect here? It’s lack of concern. That Hembling claims he once felt concern, and that he recognises he should, isn’t relevant. Hembling stated of his own accord that he does not feel concern for rape victims. Carnation questioned Hemblings ability to advocate for rape victims based on his freely stated lack of concern. Unless you want to pretend Hemblings really said he feels concern for rape victims, there is no dishonesty. If you do want to pretend such, then the dishonesty is yours.

    You’ve tried addressing this, but your argument relies on complaining about carnation’s use of the phrase “cold and callous,” conflating anger at feminists with emotions towards rape victims, and pretending that Hemblings simultaneously doesn’t care about rape victims but feels sympathetic towards them (a contradiction, you’ll notice).

    West also “literally said” the words I quoted as well. Basically your “literally” argument is very weak, and in fact is a big component of quote-mining.

    Eh? I used the word “literally” to address “lack of concern”: “Hembling literally stated “…I don’t give a fuck…” That is lack of concern. He has a shitty, stupid reason for his lack of concern. That changes nothing. Per his [own] words, he lacks concern.

    What the fuck are you talking about? I neither believe nor asserted that quoting someone’s literal words can’t be quote-mining.

    She also conflates this group with “alienated and marginalized men” when she says “stop turning us against you”.[1]

    There is the bit about only hating individuals, but misandry by definition is hatred men as a class. So if individuals are “creating her misandry” she is hating a whole group for the actions of few.[2]

    Her article is a clusterfuck of contradictions, but her point is that it is the behavior she is facing that is causing her misandry. The comparison I am making is still valid.[3]

    1)” Its clear that the only men she hates are men who engage in specific behaviours.” i.e. not alienated and marginalized men, but men who complain about misandry.

    2) West herself addresses this: “our obsession with misandry has turned misandry into a self-fulfilling prophecy. (I mean, sort of. Hating individual men is not the same as hating all men.

    3) No, its entirely clear from the article that she only hates a specific group. She even qualifies her use of the term “misandry” towards that purpose. The behaviour she’s facing is causing hatred for the people engaging in the behaviour she’s facing; this is not analogous to Hemblings views, who lacks concern for a group based on the actions of others.

  95. Adiabat says

    Jacob Schmidt (101):

    Do you have trouble reading?

    No, I have trouble believing your far-fetched story. I asked you for your source and you provided an obscure page with barely a discussion which doesn’t even mention Farrell, indicating that you wouldn’t have found it by googling something like “Warren Farrell quote”. You then doubled down and claimed that you did get the quote from there, then obviously noticed your mistake (that the quotes weren’t the same), and made up this far-fetched story about how you read it elsewhere but got that quote from this site anyway as it was a full quote.

    It’s all obviously bullshit.

    I’m not sure why you think freely correcting myself is an indication of dishonesty. Hell, you didn’t show anything; sheaf guessed at the cause of the difference, and I corrected him.

    Because, after insulting me and insisting you copy and pasted from there, you noticed your fatal mistake. Knowing that your credibility would be eviscerated when I pointed out your error you tried to save face with your pathetic attempt at “freely correcting yourself”. Considering your insults and prior insistence, your correction is less an indication of your honesty and more that you are the type of person who, when caught in a lie, makes up more lies to cover it up.

    You never even apologised despite your admission that you were wrong.

    2) I could be the worlds biggest liar; that has no bearing on any dishonesty on your part.

    It does when the only evidence that I was wrong is your word.

    “Tongues touching” is given as just one example, and obviously not as a sole indicator of consent.

    Do you know what that sounds like?”An interpretation of “what they really mean” to ensure the faithful know exactly what to think.”

    My word, you are a dumbass. Do you have any concept of how ridiculous “your” interpretation is? Do you seriously believe that the guy whose whole point is largely that “it’s all more complicated than no-means-no” would propose something as simple as “rape is exused if something as innocuous as French kissing has occurred”? It’s fucking idiotic to think that’s his point. Only a dumbass could believe that me saying that Farrell didn’t think that French kissing excuses rape is me “ensuring the faithful know what to think”. And then people wonder why I have such a low opinion of feminist criticisms of their critics.

    And from your quotes, other cues mentioned: “had said “no” to sex (though this is ambiguous it does indicate a proposition for sex, but no doubt with your interpretation you’ll translate the “to sex” as “a peck on the cheek”), “go back to a guy’s place” is a cue. Also “And it is also important when nonverbal “yeses” (tongues still touching)”: even if only one example is given, the plural is used for “yes”. The use of the plural indicates quite strongly that he thinks that there are more cues than just French kissing. This stuff is reading comprehension 101 by the way.

    I no point did I deny his argument was emotional.

    So his position isn’t “cold”, it’s an emotional position.

    2) No you haven’t. You’ve shown him blaming others and stating that he should be, not that he isn’t.

    The fact that he acknowledges his position is wrong intellectually and morally shows that he is not callous. He’s obviously sensitive to the issue by acknowledging it.

    You mean like this”His message actually was that he doesn’t care. He blames it feminists, which means he’s being petulant. He states that he should care, which is to his credit. And yet the fact remains that Hembling let us all know, freely and of his own accord, that he doesn’t care about rape victims.”

    Already dealt with this. I am not repeating myself yet again. You just keep making this “literally” argument again and again, and just keep quote-mining him by repeating that line. Obviously even Wikipedia cannot educate you on what quote-mining actually is.

    You’ve tried addressing this, but your argument relies on complaining about carnation’s use of the phrase “cold and callous,” conflating anger at feminists with emotions towards rape victims, and pretending that Hemblings simultaneously doesn’t care about rape victims but feels sympathetic towards them (a contradiction, you’ll notice).

    Already dealt with all this. See my charity analogy: Someone can still care about something while “not giving a fuck anymore” because of how their advocates behave. His position isn’t cold and callous but an emotional response to mistreatment: the emotion caused by the mistreatment is stronger than his ability to care hence leading to his “not giving a fuck anymore”. The fact that he acknowledges the issue shows he is somewhat sympathetic, despite his overall moral failing.

    So as you can see, no contradiction. Perhaps if you actually responded to my arguments instead of just making the same assertions again and again you’d have picked up on this.

    Oh dear. No, I don’t think, in context, Hemblings position is any different.

    Yet you said before that you though his position is worse in context. If it is worse his position in context must be different than it is out of context. It’s the difference between “I will acquit all defendants” and “I will acquit all defendants because I don’t think the system gives them a fair trial”. In your way of looking at such things those positions are identical, but they are not (even though both “literally” say “I will acquit all defendants”). The reasoning behind a position changes that position, in particular our reaction towards it. By providing Hembling’s quote partially and out of context you are affecting the reader’s reaction to his position, which may be different with the context, hence it is quote-mining.

    Despite your previous assertion, the reasoning behind a position can change everything.

    Its clear that the only men she hates are men who engage in specific behaviours.” i.e. not alienated and marginalized men, but men who complain about misandry.

    Actually she is saying she hates alienated and marginalized men as shown in the first two paragraphs and this line later on: “To all the men who have had shitty lives and mistake that pain for “misandry””. There is a difference in that she specifies a subgroup of “alienated and marginalized men”, but do you think that Hembling would be justified in using the same reasoning for not caring about rape victims who are also feminists? Do you think that if he specified feminist rape victims you wouldn’t be arguing how horrible he is? (Also note that Lindy says she actually hates these hurt men, while Hembling never stated that he hated rape victims.)

    Frankly I cut out this line of argument previously because it’s generally considered weak to argue that an analogy or comparison is invalid unless it’s not exactly the same. Both use behaviour as reasons for not caring about a group that has been hurt. Both have obviously had people discussing an issue with them in a certain way and said in frustration “I don’t care anymore”. Whether that behaviour is from them directly or those that advocate for them matters little, because neither approach is a laudable position to hold, even if it is understandable and should be taken into account when judging them. Your point is only valid if you believe that Hembling would be justified in not caring about feminist rape victims anymore. I’m assuming that you’re not going to be okay with that.

    Since I brought the West article up partly to show how much you care about context and “what their position really is” when it’s a fellow feminist yet fail to do so for MRA’s I think that point is proven. I was impressed by how long you resisted the urge to bring up the context of West’s article but your need to “correct some guy on the internet” seems to have won out in the end.

  96. Adiabat says

    Sheaf (100):

    Generally I would like to ask Schmidt whether he has read any book by Farrell.

    He’d probably lie again anyway. And even if he did read one he won’t try to figure out what the author is actually trying to say.

    I wonder how much the influence postmodernism and concepts such as ‘death of the author’ has within feminist “thought” cause these “worst possible interpretations” that feminists use? Personally I think it’s important to interpret something based on how likely it is to be the author’s true position, but feminists seem to believe that as long as an interpretation is possible it is fair game, and it doesn’t matter how unlikely it is to reflect the authors true opinions.

    Or maybe we’re approaching feminist ‘thought’ wrong by expecting coherency and integrity. Perhaps it should be viewed purely as a political vehicle where lying and intentionally misinterpreting your opponents is fair game to achieve the goals it wants to achieve.

  97. gjenganger says

    @Jacob Schmidt.
    You are not winning this one. If somebody says

    I don’t give a f**k about rape victims anymore. I know intellectually I should, I know that rape is a terrible crime, and being subject to it is probably a terrible thing. But, I don’t give a fuck. And the reason I don’t give a fuck is you, YouTube feminists, you victim cult, female supremacist assholes

    and you quote only the bit in italics, you are misrepresenting him, you are trying to make him look worse than he is, and you are being dishonest. Admit that this is wrong, get it over with, and get back to attacking MRAs. It is not like there is any lack of honest material to beat them with. You do have a point if you say that even the stuff they actually do say shows them as pretty nasty pieces of work. But you must still give the devil his due. All this aggressive, rude and obnoxious language shows people in a bad light (be they MRAs or atheists), but so does deliberately misrepresenting the people you are arguing against.

  98. Adiabat says

    gjenganger (104):

    It is not like there is any lack of honest material to beat them with.

    Definitely, I think I said as much in one of my earlier posts in this thread. Here it is in comment 43:

    In attempting to make him look even worse you make yourselves look deceitful and untrustworthy to someone who goes and looks up the original article.

    Just be honest and you’ll gain more ground in convincing people how bad MRA’s are, albeit more slowly, without making yourselves look like a bunch of ideologues.

  99. gjenganger says

    @Adiabat 105
    Yes, my comment was not new. After this long, detailed debate, I just wanted to show that somebody else agreed with you.

    While we are at it:
    1) I have never read a book by Farrell and I am not going to. I know little about him, but (like Scientology) I know enough to decide I am not interested in finding out more.
    2) On feminist argument.
    I suspect it is that progressive people in general form an opinionated in-group (they are not the only ones, of course). Among friends everybody agrees that all MRA are Neanderthal assholes, totally beyond the pale so it does not really matter if your argument is fair or foul. The conclusion is obvious, the message is clearly correct, so any quote that shows the bad guys in their truly awful colours will in all honesty seem right and fair, whether it is slightly doctored or not. A bit like arguing against Julius Streicher, the anti-Semitic Nazi propagandist.

    Which is all fine as long as you are arguing among friends, of course. It just gets a bit tiring when you leave the closed circle and start arguing in public, and still assume that all decent people must necessarily be nice and progressive, and that any dissenting opinion is evil, illegitimate, or both.

  100. Adiabat says

    gjenganger (106):

    Yes, my comment was not new. After this long, detailed debate, I just wanted to show that somebody else agreed with you.

    Thanks, it’s always good for someone else to come along in these long detailed debates to assure you that you haven’t gone off the deep end :).

    I wasn’t claiming to “own” that comment or anything, it just reminded me of my earlier comment. I also thought it would be useful to repost that comment to remind anyone reading that I’m not an MRA who’ll defend anything they do.

    I think your in-group analysis is accurate. If someone is only used to arguing in an echo-chamber they never experience any checks on their ideas and arguments and they forget how to view things in a wider perspective.

  101. D506 says

    I identify as a feminist. I generally believe men’s issues are far better served by feminists than they are by the vast majority of MHRAs. Destroying the expectation that it’s a woman’s place to stay home with children, for example, also opens the door for men want to stay home with children.

    Still, I personally find it far, far more frustrating to see bad or dishonest arguments for good causes and from people I believe in than from the ‘other side’. And it’s incredibly frustrating to see those people rally together against those who point that sort of thing out.

    I wouldn’t say feminists are worse than anyone else for that though. Still, as a feminist and a skeptic, it’s hard not to expect better.

  102. Jacob Schmidt says

    No, I have trouble believing your far-fetched story. I asked you for your source and you provided an obscure page with barely a discussion which doesn’t even mention Farrell, indicating that you wouldn’t have found it by googling something like “Warren Farrell quote”. You then doubled down and claimed that you did get the quote from there, then obviously noticed your mistake (that the quotes weren’t the same), and made up this far-fetched story about how you read it elsewhere but got that quote from this site anyway as it was a full quote.

    It’s all obviously bullshit.

    Well, there’s this, showing that my first visit to the site occurred prior to my original post.

    You could say that I’ve doctored the image, but at that point you’re assuming my dishonesty to demonstrate my dishonesty.

    (Side note: the History Calender extension for chrome is excellent. I’m really not sure why google doesn’t just implement it everywhere.)

    Generally I would like to ask Schmidt whether he has read any book by Farrell.

    No; but I’m probably lying, so yes; but…

    (But seriously, no, I haven’t, and frankly I haven’t much interest. Also, I’m not sure what you mean by “generally”; I remember you mentioning that english is not your first language, so I wonder if you meant “genuinely”)

    Anyways, since we’ve simply delved into repetition (I mean, more so than usual), I’ll let you have the last word on the rest.

  103. says

    While we are at it:
    1) I have never read a book by Farrell and I am not going to. I know little about him, but (like Scientology) I know enough to decide I am not interested in finding out more.

    I somewhat dislike this attitude. While a relatively easy argument shows fringe positions to be probably wrong in most situations, I have Hubbels book on dianetics ad I listened to the audiobook version of Farrell’s myth of male power( It is on youtube). I think there is rarely a point where you know too much abut the topics you are interested i (though I probably read too many books by William Lane Craig, I could probably reproduce most of his arguments almost verbatim)

    schmidt, Yes I meant genuinely.

  104. Jacob Schmidt says

    I must concede, alas, that I am not; that research really is fascinating. I’m a chemical engineering student in ontario.

    The slymepit occasionally post excerpts from comments on FTB, along with commentary of their own. I was curious if any of mine had been posted. A few have, and it was about what I had expected.

  105. says

    @ Adiabat, Gjganger, Jacob, Danny Gibbs

    The allegations of quote-mining are embarrassingly puerile. Adiabat and Danny Bigg – I think you’d have more respect for yourselves if you had approached this with humanity instead of vainly trying to score points.

    An individual claims that to be a human rights activist whilst simultaneously stating that he “doesn’t give a fuck” about humans having their right to bodily integrity violated in a criminal and immoral manner. And people rush to lessen the gross offensiveness of this statement with crude semantics. Shameful. Shockingly shameful.

    The video is no longer available online on the original channel, but one of the reasons that I mentioned it is that I cannot recall if the sex of the rape victims he “doesn’t give a fuck” about is mentioned. Whilst I will be happy to be corrected on this, I don’t think that it is (I have searched online, I can’t find the full original video).

    In re-visting one version of the video (not the original), he does state that he wouldn’t stop a rape, he doesn’t specify the sex of the victim. That kinda negates the academic musings of Adiabat et al – it’s not that he’s been bullied into a state of uncaring by feminists, it’s that he would do nothing to stop someone being violated. And he says that he’s a human rights activist. The dissonance needed to support these views is quite incredible. It must be uncomfortable.

    The sex of the victims not to be cared about it made clear by a colleague though:

    “I don’t find it particularly hyperbolic for a man to say, ‘I’m not gonna give a damn about female rape victims anymore,’” Elam said in a video posted Sunday on YouTube. “They have tons of money, of law enforcement, of special programs funded by the government, of social consciousness – schools have Take Back The Night rallies, everything you can possibly think of.”

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/23/mens-rights-activist-explains-why-its-ok-to-not-care-about-female-rape-victims/

    Part of the reason that actual human rights activist involved in supporting victims of rape have had some successes in terms of funding, provision and multi-agency response, is that they have a mission statement that is clear and focused:

    Rape Crisis:

    “MIssion: We exist to promote the needs of women and girls who have experienced sexual violence, to improve services for them and to reduce the incidence of sexual violence in the general population.”

    Survivor’s UK

    “Mission: SurvivorsUK helps men who have been sexually violated and raises awareness of their needs”

    These organisations, as I have said, are there to support victims. The individual that we are speaking about is articulating his reasons to ignore, and to publicly revel in his ignorance, of victims of gross human rights violations.

    Quote-mining isn’t the issue. Defending the obviously indefenceable is.

    Jacob Schmidt – respect to you my friend. You have patience that I don’t have.

  106. says

    Quote-mining isn’t the issue. Defending the obviously indefenceable is.

    Quote mining is pretty much indefensible. Obvious meta implications follow.

  107. says

    Also note that Elam promised to match the reward:

    AVFM will match the reward money, So the financial incentive now stands at $2,000.00 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of D’Entremont’s alleged attacker.

    I also issue a challenge to other men’s right’s groups to volunteer additional incentive to solve this alleged crime.

  108. gjenganger says

    @Carnation 114

    Let us keep things separate, shall we?
    Is this individual being misquoted? Yes.
    Is that OK? No.
    Is it OK if he is a nasty person? Still no.
    Just admit it, if you want this debate to stop.

    Then we can get on to discussing whether this person is indeed a nasty article – which is a different question. I agree that he is, and I have not the least desire to defend him. Even the stuff he manifestly does say leaves a bad taste. So why not attack him for that, instead of twisting his words for effect?

  109. Jacob Schmidt says

    If anyone noticed it looks like AVfM is offering a reward for information that leads to the capture and conviction of Danielle D’Entremont’s attacker.

    Well that’s interesting; the author is one of my examples above in post 48.

    In re-visting one version of the video (not the original), he does state that he wouldn’t stop a rape, he doesn’t specify the sex of the victim.

    I had forgotten about that.

  110. Jacob Schmidt says

    Also, in the comments of that article:

    If Ms D’Entrement could identify her alleged attacker as a MHRA, then she must have some idea of who he was.

    D’Entrement’s actual words on the subject: “While d’Entremont notes that she isn’t sure if the attack is directly related to her feminist activities, she said her assailant was a man who knew her name.“

    Some people just aren’t paying attention.

  111. Danny Gibbs says

    D’Entrement’s actual words on the subject: “While d’Entremont notes that she isn’t sure if the attack is directly related to her feminist activities, she said her assailant was a man who knew her name.“

    Some people just aren’t paying attention.
    So you’re saying this this does point to her attacker being an MHRA?

  112. carntion says

    @ Danny Gibbs

    What do you mean by a MHRA? Someone who reads the collection of blogs that constitutes the MHRM? What is your definition?

    You seem confused by what other people’s words mean, so I will clearly state that I have no idea who attacked the unfortunate student or why.

  113. Danny Gibbs says

    I was quoting Jacob. With what he quoted from that article along with what he is saying it seems like he is saying something to the effect of, “Well duh, of course MRAs/MHRAs attacked D’Entrement”. I just want clarification on what he’s saying.

  114. Jacob Schmidt says

    So you’re saying this this does point to her attacker being an MHRA?

    No. Here, I’ll give you more of the quote:

    If Ms D’Entrement could identify her alleged attacker as a MHRA, then she must have some idea of who he was. The fact that she doesn’t have a clue, renders her claims about his supposed affiliations so dubious, that they should be consigned to the realm of feminist fantasy – that imaginary land where hate-mongering bigots morph into great piles of heaving bosoms and tears.

    Except D’Entrement has made no claim about the affiliation of who attacked her. She’s explicitly stated that she doesn’t know.

    That’s what I mean about people not paying attention.

  115. carntion says

    @ Danny

    Answer my question, please.

    @ Jacob

    Stop quote-mining!! It confuses them…

  116. Danny Gibbs says

    What do you mean by a MHRA? Someone who reads the collection of blogs that constitutes the MHRM? What is your definition?
    I’m going by what those who use the label say. I haven’t seen much of a split between those who would use that label vs that of MRA but I don’t pretend to know all.

    Stop quote-mining!! It confuses them…
    Did I accuse Jacob of quote mining or being dishonest or something? I asked him questions for clarity and he gave them. Plain and simple.

    Answer my question, please.
    Now as for you specifically I answer your questions and respond to your challenges and for the most part you don’t respond to my answers. Why is that?

  117. carnation says

    @ Danny

    You use the term MHRA instead of MRA, but it appears that you cannot adequately explain the difference.

    It’s actually irrelevant to the point I am going to make

    An MHRA (a term coined on AVfM), is someone who reads MHRA blogs and agrees with the theories contained within. Since a small bus could comfortably accommodate every activist (as in someone who engages in real life activity, distinct from reading/writing blogs) that the MHRM boasts, it’s rather safe to summarise that only a tiny minority of MHRAs are actually known as MHRAs.

    Now, do I think that an MHRA attacked the student? It’s very unlikely. Do I think that the student staged her own attack to discredit the MHRM? It’s very unlikely.

    Re Jacob’s words. Nothing that he said could remotely be construed as inferring that an MHRA attacked the student in question. In fact, he was quite clearly pointing out that nobody had said such a thing. I cannot see where you are coming from with this.

    @ Adiabat, Danny Gibbs

    Here’s an actual example of quite mining:

    Danny Gibbs said “of course MRAs/MHRAs attacked D’Entrement”

    Full context: “With what he quoted from that article along with what he is saying it seems like he is saying something to the effect of, “Well duh, of course MRAs/MHRAs attacked D’Entrement”. (sic)

  118. Danny Gibbs says

    You use the term MHRA instead of MRA, but it appears that you cannot adequately explain the difference.
    No I used the term MHRA instead of MRA because that is what was in the comment that Jacob used in comment 120 above.

    Re Jacob’s words. Nothing that he said could remotely be construed as inferring that an MHRA attacked the student in question. In fact, he was quite clearly pointing out that nobody had said such a thing. I cannot see where you are coming from with this.
    That’s called misunderstanding what someone said. I didn’t say that he was doing making an inference but rather asked because I may have been reading him wrong and it turns out I was. Quit trying to imply that I’m putting words in Jacob’s mouth.

    Here’s an actual example of quite mining:

    Danny Gibbs said “of course MRAs/MHRAs attacked D’Entrement”

    Full context: “With what he quoted from that article along with what he is saying it seems like he is saying something to the effect of, “Well duh, of course MRAs/MHRAs attacked D’Entrement”. (sic)
    I’m not even sure what you’re getting at here. You know I’m just asking Jacob some questions so that I can understand what he’s talking, not attack him. But for some reason you are intent on trying to make this out to be some sort of attack at Jacob or a claim that I’m saying he’s being dishonest or something.

  119. Jacob Schmidt says

    Danny Gibbs

    I didn’t say that he was doing making an inference but rather asked because I may have been reading him wrong and it turns out I was. Quit trying to imply that I’m putting words in Jacob’s mouth.

    For the record, the phrasing, “So you’re saying X?” is often used to attack people positions via strawmen. For example:

    1: “We should put down severely infected animals for disease control.”
    2: “So you’re saying we should murder puppies?”

    You’ve generally been respectful and amicable, from what I remember of you, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but I will admit that, to me, it looked like you were putting words in my mouth.

  120. Danny Gibbs says

    Jacob:
    1. My apologies for coming off like I was attacking you. I truly did not intend to. You’ve been respectful to me this entire time (and any other time we’ve crossed paths in the comments here as far as I recall) and I have no reason to attack you or put words in your mouth.

    2. Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt.

  121. carntion says

    @ Danny

    Whilst it’s noble and respectful to acknowledge your mistakes re Jacob, it would be prudent and sensible to question the ideological framework that facilitates and encourages such mistakes.

  122. Danny Gibbs says

    So carntion, do you have an idea what ideological framework facilitated and encouraged my misreading of Jacob and what line of questioning would be worth pursuing about it?

  123. carnation says

    @ Danny

    Certainly.

    The ideological framework that I assume informs your comments on this blog is anti-feminism – by it’s very nature reactionary.

    A reactionary framework is one that needs a steady stream of outrage to continue (see media analysis of the Daily Mail for examples). Anti-feminists almost exclusively get their information about feminism from anti-feminist blogs and this shines through the repetitive, reactionary and ill-informed theory and opinion pieces that constitute almost the entirety of the “movement.”

    A major component of anti-feminism is the granting to feminism, of scope and power (and negative intent) delusionally at odds with reality.

    So, you assume Jacob was behaving like a feminist, by doing what you erroneously believe feminists would do.

    Ask yourself, why do you subscribe to just a reactionary ideological framework?

    What does it do to help men, particularly vulnerable men?

  124. Danny Gibbs says

    The ideological framework that I assume informs your comments on this blog is anti-feminism – by it’s very nature reactionary.
    That would be incorrect on the grounds that while I have had negative experiences with feminists a desire to clash with them doesn’t form a framework of how I interact with them.

    A reactionary framework is one that needs a steady stream of outrage to continue (see media analysis of the Daily Mail for examples). Anti-feminists almost exclusively get their information about feminism from anti-feminist blogs and this shines through the repetitive, reactionary and ill-informed theory and opinion pieces that constitute almost the entirety of the “movement.”
    While that is a logical course of thought and there are many that subscribe to it that’s not what I’m getting at. My information about feminists and feminism comes from feminists themselves.

    So, you assume Jacob was behaving like a feminist, by doing what you erroneously believe feminists would do.
    Now this is interesting. What makes you think I believe Jacob is “behaving like a feminist”? (On a side note , honestly I don’t even know if Jacob ID’s as feminist.)

    Ask yourself, why do you subscribe to just a reactionary ideological framework?
    Simple, I don’t.

    What does it do to help men, particularly vulnerable men?
    You seem to be taking one interaction I’ve had with Jacob and trying to run a full analysis on where I stand in relation to feminism and then taking the results of said analysis and asking, “What good does that do for men?”. Well if you analysis were correct (which its not) and if I thought that such an approach was doing any good for men (it doesn’t) then you may have a point with this line of questioning.

  125. Adiabat says

    Jacob Schmidt (109):

    No, I have trouble believing your far-fetched story. I asked you for your source and you provided an obscure page with barely a discussion which doesn’t even mention Farrell, indicating that you wouldn’t have found it by googling something like “Warren Farrell quote”. You then doubled down and claimed that you did get the quote from there, then obviously noticed your mistake (that the quotes weren’t the same), and made up this far-fetched story about how you read it elsewhere but got that quote from this site anyway as it was a full quote.

    It’s all obviously bullshit.

    Well, there’s this, showing that my first visit to the site occurred prior to my original post.

    So? My contention isn’t about timeframes, but about the fact that the quote wasn’t copied from where you insisted it was (with a fair amount of mockery). Even if you did click on that page before, it wasn’t your source, yet you claimed it was to score points. That is the dishonesty I am highlighting.

    Carnation: What sheaf and gjenganger said in 115 and 118.

    If your position is so strong why do you feel the need to quote-mine MRA’s to make them look worse?

    P.S

    this shines through the repetitive, reactionary and ill-informed theory and opinion pieces that constitute almost the entirety of the “movement.”

    Lol, This is the guy who obsessively brings up MRA’s in nearly every thread on this blog (even when they haven’t been mentioned previously) just to moan about them, and the guy who regularly gets his arse kicked in debates only to disappear and pop up in new threads making the exact same claims.

  126. carntion says

    @ Danny TBC

    @ Adiabat

    Textbook! Fantasy, error and delusions of grandeur in one vainglorious offering.

    Quick, get back to “kicking arse”, your movement needs you… My oh my, you’re good for a giggle.

  127. Jacob Schmidt says

    So? My contention isn’t about timeframes, but about the fact that the quote wasn’t copied from where you insisted it was (with a fair amount of mockery). Even if you did click on that page before, it wasn’t your source, yet you claimed it was to score points. That is the dishonesty I am highlighting.

    *shrug*

    If your example of dishonesty is me being wrong about the literal copy-and-paste source, but not being wrong about having read the text in context before commenting on it, then I’m officially past caring.

    (You also seem to think “source” means I had to copy and paste from there, which is just odd.)

    Carnation

    I think you’re being way too hard on Danny.

  128. carntion says

    @ Jacob

    I don’t think I am. He answered my points thoughtfully; I replied TBC because I wanted to be thorough in my response. I think it’s obvious that a reactionary mindset informed his assumption, and look foward to discussing it further.

    I dismissed Adiabat’s ramblings in a deserved offhand manner.

  129. Adiabat says

    Jacob Schmidt (138):

    If your example of dishonesty is me being wrong about the literal copy-and-paste source, but not being wrong about having read the text in context before commenting on it, then I’m officially past caring.

    (You also seem to think “source” means I had to copy and paste from there, which is just odd.)

    Er, no, That was you. I asked you where your quote was from and you provided the ask men board as a way to mock me. You again mocked me for pointing out that you obviously didn’t get the quote from there. In a discussion relating to the dishonest tactics some feminists use to attack their opponents you lying about this just so you can mock me is very relevant. The fact that you have such a relaxed attitudes to such tactics tells us everything we need to know about you and your feminism. (If you were “just wrong” and it was an honest mistake an apology to me for mocking me when I was right all along would’ve been the decent thing to do.)

    I actually don’t know if you read the text in context, but if you did why did you make the dumbass claim you made about Farrell? You’re either lying about reading it (or too dumb to understand what you were reading – which to be fair I don’t believe), or you did read it and made your claim anyway knowing it’s idiotic. The second is far worse than the first, as not only is it even more dishonest, you are intentionally using rape and rape victims to smear a critic of feminists. Tell me: do you actually give a fuck about rape victims? Or are they just political tools to you that are to be used to smear people you don’t like with claims of “textbook rape apologia”?

    I don’t think someone who actually cared about rape victims would be minimizing what they go through just to smear ideological opponents.

    carnation (137): I had no idea I was part of a movement but if I’m so textbook I should be easy to refute…

    *tumbledweed rolls by*

    Regulars will know the general behaviour of yours I’m referring to but for any new lurkers these are the outstanding posts of mine:

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013/07/27/the-hetpat-first-directive/#comment-7650

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013/12/09/just-dropping-by/#comment-17481

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2014/01/11/im-only-writing-this-to-get-laid-or-am-i/#comment-32017

    (I particularly like carnations response in the third link). Note that the first one providing studies, government reports and contributions from experts such as the former president of the law society and you just reply “n’uh” and then disappear. Then the following two links are you obsessively making the same debunked arguments discredited in the first, as though the previous discussions never happened. Then of course there’re Tamen’s post outstanding in the recent ‘douchebag’ thread and a few more people no doubt have a few examples.

    You have no credibility left to be as dismissive as you are carnation, and your claims regarding MRA’s aren’t to be trusted due to your propensity to be dishonest about them, as shown above. You’ve become the embodiment of every flaw you are attributing to “anti-feminists”.

    And of course I still think this is due a response: If your position is so strong why do you feel the need to quote-mine MRA’s to make them look worse?

  130. Jacob Schmidt says

    Er, no, That was you.

    No it wasn’t: “My contention isn’t about timeframes, but about the fact that the quote wasn’t copied from where you insisted it was (with a fair amount of mockery). Even if you did click on that page before, it wasn’t your source, yet you claimed it was to score points.,/i>”

    Your contention that the ask men boards was not a source is based entirely on not having copied and pasted from there. You have literally nothing else.

    If you were “just wrong” and it was an honest mistake an apology to me for mocking me when I was right all along would’ve been the decent thing to do.

    I mock you for implying I hadn’t read it in context, and for the rest of your unsubstantiated assumptions in this thread (for which the best defence you had was that it was only my word that those baseless assumptions were wrong). I don’t apologize because that still stands.

    I don’t think someone who actually cared about rape victims would be minimizing what they go through just to smear ideological opponents.

    *shrug*

  131. Adiabat says

    carnation (141): I’m afraid that the resolution to the discussion above is that you did. You were free to join in then, or you can make an argument now, but as it stands the consensus and weight of argument is that you did.

    And unfortunately that doesn’t change just because you’re being snarky.

    So tell, why did you feel the need to quote-mine? Do you feel that you can’t make MRA’s look bad enough by being honest?

    Jacob Schmidt (142):

    No it wasn’t: “My contention isn’t about timeframes, but about the fact that the quote wasn’t copied from where you insisted it was (with a fair amount of mockery). Even if you did click on that page before, it wasn’t your source, yet you claimed it was to score points.

    Your contention that the ask men boards was not a source is based entirely on not having copied and pasted from there. You have literally nothing else.

    *Can’t.. tell.. if.. you’re.. dumb.. or .. just.. being.. stubborn.*

    It’s obvious (i.e the fact that I was talking about the quote just before) that “source” in that sentence is referring to the source of the quote. I’m seeing a pattern here with your reading comprehension. Do you always just read whatever suits your argument into anything, without any regard for what’s likely or what makes sense?

    I mock you for implying I hadn’t read it in context

    It’s right there in comment 82! You have a link to an image right after calling me “a fool” “a liar” and an “ignorant dumbass” pointing out in red how the quote is there (before you realised that it’s not). In #86 you say “For the record, the literally Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V was actually done from the webpage I provided; I laughed at Adiabat questioning my source because of that.”

    Personally I think that fact that the quote wasn’t there means that laughing at me turned out to be unjustified and would normally elicit an apology if it was an honest mistake. The foremost reason that I can think of for why you would ‘stick your heels in’ would be if you were caught lying.

    I really don’t get what you’re trying to achieve here by denying something which anyone can scroll up and see.

    P.S Where did you copy the quote from? If the ask men board was your source (for ‘context only’ or something) then why not just “Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V” from there, where there is a slightly different but perfectly serviceable quote? You yourself said that you struggled for a quote as most of your sources didn’t have the full quote.

    Even if you are telling the truth, now, surely you can see why people would be sceptical of your claims, based on what happened above?

  132. carnation says

    @ Adiabat

    I didn’t quote mine. I provided an example of quote-mining.

    You are confused, This isn’t surprising.

    Keep giving us the cool stories though, bro’.

    @ Ally Fogg

    Come back!! Your blog needs you :-)

  133. Jacob Schmidt says

    Personally I think that fact that the quote wasn’t there means that laughing at me turned out to be unjustified and would normally elicit an apology if it was an honest mistake. The foremost reason that I can think of for why you would ‘stick your heels in’ would be if you were caught lying.

    Oh, christ you’re a fool.

    Adiabat, being wrong about the literal copy and paste wasn’t the only reason I laughed at you. It wasn’t even the most important, or important at all. In fact, it merited only an offhand comment to sheaf.

    Yes, I called you either a liar or a fool, and an ignorant dumbass. Unless you want to pretend that the missing ‘a’ invalidates that source, you claiming the relevant text isn’t there is simply idiotic.

    Where did you copy the quote from?[1] If the ask men board was your source (for ‘context only’ or something) then why not just “Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V” from there, where there is a slightly different but perfectly serviceable quote?[2] You yourself said that you struggled for a quote as most of your sources didn’t have the full quote.[3]

    1) Dunno. I thought it was the ask men boards, but that clearly isn’t right.

    2) You’re questioning why I chose one functionally equivalent source over another? What? Given that the quotes are functionally identical, I don’t think I put any thought into it. I’m certain that at no point did I stop and think to myself, “You know, someone might make a huge deal about the literal copy and paste source, so I’d better make sure I take it from the ask men forum.”

    3) No I didn’t.

  134. carnation says

    “That would be incorrect on the grounds that while I have had negative experiences with feminists a desire to clash with them doesn’t form a framework of how I interact with them.”

    You clashed with Jacob by dramatically misreading his words. That you associated them with maliciousness intent suggests that you associated Jacob, or his politics, with maliciousness.

    “My information about feminists and feminism comes from feminists themselves.”

    On this occasion, I don’t think that’s what happened. You assumed that a perfectly reasonable and civil commenter on this blog said something he didn’t. Anti-feminists have been united in their hysteria surrounding this particular incident. More broadly speaking, virtually no online anti-feminists display any knowledge of meaningful feminist activism, still less an understanding of the multiple and contradictory feminisms that exist. I am afraid I don’t think that you are an exception.

    You do subscribe to a reactionary ideological framework: anti-feminism. You acknowledged as much in your first paragraph.

    “You seem to be taking one interaction I’ve had with Jacob and trying to run a full analysis on where I stand in relation to feminism and then taking the results of said analysis and asking, “What good does that do for men?”. Well if you analysis were correct (which its not) and if I thought that such an approach was doing any good for men (it doesn’t) then you may have a point with this line of questioning.”

    You have also acknowledged yourself as being pro-MRA. So what does anti-feminism/MRA blogs do to support vulnerable men?

    Apologies for the delay, life gets in the way.

  135. Danny Gibbs says

    You clashed with Jacob by dramatically misreading his words. That you associated them with maliciousness intent suggests that you associated Jacob, or his politics, with maliciousness.
    First you said anti-feminism (“The ideological framework that I assume informs your comments on this blog is anti-feminism – by it’s very nature reactionary.”) now you’re saying it maliciousness towards Jacob. Which is it? Misreading Jacob doesn’t mean I have hostile intent towards him.

    On this occasion, I don’t think that’s what happened. You assumed that a perfectly reasonable and civil commenter on this blog said something he didn’t. Anti-feminists have been united in their hysteria surrounding this particular incident. More broadly speaking, virtually no online anti-feminists display any knowledge of meaningful feminist activism, still less an understanding of the multiple and contradictory feminisms that exist. I am afraid I don’t think that you are an exception.
    Basically your line of logic here is that since I misread Jacob and anti-feminists misread feminists then that must mean I’m anti-feminist.

    You do subscribe to a reactionary ideological framework: anti-feminism. You acknowledged as much in your first paragraph.
    When did I acknowledge that? Having said that I’ve had negative experiences with feminism doesn’t mean that I ID with anti-feminism. Based on that AllyF would classify as anti feminist.

    You have also acknowledged yourself as being pro-MRA. So what does anti-feminism/MRA blogs do to support vulnerable men?
    In terms of bringing up issues that affect men (kinda like the stuff I do at my small place) it helps get the word out on what happening to men (regardless of vulnerability).

    carnation I enjoy our interactions to an extent but its becoming increasingly clear that you are more interested in bootstrapping me to negative MRAs than with trying to talk to me in general. You’re setting up a double bind where if I support those negative ideas that means I’m like them but if I don’t spend all my time denouncing those negative ideas to your satisfaction that means I’m like them.

  136. Jacob Schmidt says

    “… now you’re saying it maliciousness towards Jacob.”

    I think carnation means you assumed I was being malicious.

    Which, in a very broad sense, is kinda true. I feel mostly contempt for AVFM, and was certainly mocking them, just not for the reason you initially believed.

  137. says

    Farrell is doing an ama on redditt soon. If I have time I will ask him, whether he thinks that rape should be allowed once there was french kissing. Anyone placing any bets on his response?

  138. Adiabat says

    Carnation (144): I refer you to gjengangers posts 104 and 118, as well as the definition of quote-mining I provided from Wikipedia.

    Until you provide a response to those then the result of this discussion is that you quote-mined.

    Being snarky doesn’t change that, and blanket denials from you just make you look desperate and deluded.

    Jacob Schmidt (145):

    Adiabat, being wrong about the literal copy and paste wasn’t the only reason I laughed at you. It wasn’t even the most important, or important at all. In fact, it merited only an offhand comment to sheaf.

    Yes, I called you either a liar or a fool, and an ignorant dumbass.

    You’re such a dumbass. In a discussion touching on how feminists are accepting of lies when it comes to attacking their opponents you are demonstrating a remarkable indifference to you being caught in your own lying so you could attack me. Even if you have other reasons for attacking me the fact that you made two posts reveling in this for the sole reason that I said the quote wasn’t taken from where you said it was warrants an apology, if it was an honest mistake. In many ways I don’t care about the apology, I was never offended because I know you’re only lying and continuing to act the way you are because of who you are as a person, and I’ve long accepted that people like you are prevalent in certain parts of the internet. I’m just pointing out that if it was an honest mistake, and you were a decent person, you would’ve apologized when you realized your mistake. I even made it easy for you in my conciliatory “olive branch” post after you realised your error.

    Every single attempt by you to downplay this just further demonstrates your own intellectual dishonesty and dubious morality. It makes your attempts at assuming any high ground, and denigrating me, look rather pathetic.

    Unless you want to pretend that the missing ‘a’ invalidates that source, you claiming the relevant text isn’t there is simply idiotic.

    Stop trying to change the subject, it’s transparent. At no point have I denied that the source is valid. I’m just highlighting how you lied about it. I’m also building a case that it wasn’t used for context by you as well, and that you are lying about that. The fact that you “for the record” insisted you got the quote from there to give yourself a reason of attacking me, the fact that Warren isn’t explicitly named, that there’s barely a discussion, and this:

    You yourself said that you struggled for a quote as most of your sources didn’t have the full quote.[3]

    3) No I didn’t.

    Except you said this in #86:

    I had a half dozen sources found through google. In most of them, the quotes were “fisked,” and it wasn’t entirely clear if there was text left out in between. I found the Ask Men forum, which had the exact same text but without the intermittent comments.

    So you struggled to find the full quote, so you found the ask men site, yet didn’t quote from there? It doesn’t add up. Also the fact that you said you used elsewhere for context but found the ask men site just for the “full text” implies that you didn’t use the ask men site for the context.

    None of this adds up, and there’s just too much “misremembering”. I could’ve believed that you found two sites with the full quote and thought you copied from one when you didn’t, but to concoct this “for the record” story, and the fact that it was just too convenient for ‘insult purposes’ makes me doubt the whole thing. You’re image above just shows you clicked on it before you gave that quote, it’s not evidence that you quoted from it (because you didn’t) and it’s not evidence that you read it.

    In many ways though the above doesn’t matter, the fact that you have to be a dumbass to claim what you claimed while aware of the context is enough to believe that you didn’t read the context. But I suppose we’ve already established that you reading comprehension is lacking when you want to read something in a text against all probability that it is a reasonable and likely interpretation.

    Sheaf (150):

    Farrell is doing an ama on redditt soon. If I have time I will ask him, whether he thinks that rape should be allowed once there was french kissing. Anyone placing any bets on his response?

    Unlikely as it is, I’m going to take a risk and bet that he doesn’t think thinks that rape should be allowed once there was french kissing (because I like living on the edge). /s

  139. carntion says

    @ Adiabat

    Do you keep your stories in the fridge?

    Only a fool would accuse me of quote-mining. Only an intellectual troglodyte would obfuscate to the degree that you do to provide defence for the indefensible.

    You are weak and petulant. But you amuse me. I enjoy watching you get increasingly irate.

  140. gjenganger says

    @Adiabat 151
    Why keep on with all those details of who wrote what when? Your stubbornness is impressive, but what difference does it make in the end?

    @Carnation 152
    - Your post 114
    - My post 118
    If that makes me a fool, so be it.

  141. carntion says

    @ Gjanger

    I quoted him. I didn’t misquote him. I was demonstrating that he didn’t care about rape victims and asked if such a person could help male victims of sexual abuse.

    No quote-mining.

  142. gjenganger says

    These people seem too full of anger and rage and their own grievances, and I would not advise anybody to go there for help. Writing the bits you quoted at all, even with the modifications you chose to leave out, does say much about them. But you were still misrepresenting what he actually said, and quoting out of context is still misleading, dishonest, and destructive of good debate. Why do it when there is so much legitimate material to use?

    The Bible contains the following quote:
    Judas went and hanged himself.[...]Goest thou then and do likewise!.” This is not a misquote, the omissis in the middle just covers dozens of pages, so that the two halves are from different Gospels. Whatever you think of the Bible, wouldn’t you agree that this kind of games are at best silly?

  143. Adiabat says

    Gjenganger (153):

    Why keep on with all those details of who wrote what when? Your stubbornness is impressive, but what difference does it make in the end?

    Several reasons. One is that it takes me 5 minutes to bash out a comment, as you can tell by all the spelling and grammar errors, so it’s low cost.

    There’s also a fair amount of fun in seeing someone who normally adopts such a superior and arrogant attitude towards others squirm when they’ve been caught in fundamentally dishonest behaviour. I find his continued attempts at arrogance and feigned indifference entertaining, especially combined with his compulsive need to always have the last word. So there’s some admittedly cruel schadenfreude involved.

    Finally, his continued behaviour supports my original point, though I probably did keep it going too long so readers no doubt are getting sick of it, and it’s making me look worse. I’ll stop now.

    (155):

    These people seem too full of anger and rage and their own grievances, and I would not advise anybody to go there for help.

    I agree, and it’s likely because it’s a group formed originally of men who have been hurt by the current make-up of society. My impression is that it is getting better as more people are joining the MRM out of agreement with their general points and causes rather than because they’ve been hurt. I see the MRM mainly as consciousness-raisers, which they seem rather successful at, making it easier for other organization’s to provide services without backlash from established feminist groups and society in general. They’re the ‘angry atheists’ of ten years ago, and the ‘angry feminists’ of 30 years ago*. (And I think the reaction to ‘angry [group]’ is different from person to person. Personally I look past any anger or un-PC sentiments and ask “What are they trying to say?” and “Are they right?”. It’s probably why I don’t get as outraged at some of the examples above.)

    I don’t really read MRA sites much; I prefer more ‘neutral’ places. I’ve only my own impressions to go on but a few years ago any comment critical of feminism, or even critical of certain shibboleths, was quickly shut down with the usual silencing tactics (“privilege”, “rape apologist” etc etc), but nowadays I’m seeing much more pushback, and much more reasoned and evidenced pushback. Men’s issues are also getting much more balanced stories and reactions in mainstream media. It’s hard to directly attribute causes to this but I don’t see how it’s possible to rule out the increased profile of MRA’s in recent years.

    I’d quite like to have a forthright and honest discussion about the MRM, but I think it will be very difficult with carnation here, with his obsessive rants and dismissive attitude towards any argument he doesn’t like. I also think any discussion has to be about the MRM as it actually is, rather than the picture created by misrepresentation and quote-mining.

  144. carntion says

    If you believe anything you have written in paragraph four then you aren’t simply deluded (common amonst those of your ilk) you’re approaching derangement.

    @ Gjganger/Danny Gibbs

    You two are different, your dissonance is obvious. Will write more later.

  145. D506 says

    @158 carntion

    You’ve made a bad argument. That it’s good cause or that your conclusion (Elam should not be listened to) is correct doesn’t change that. Calling everyone deluded or stupid and asserting that you’re right without any argument over and over again isn’t helping.

    Fundamentally, there is a difference between “I don’t care about rape victims.” and “I don’t care about rape victims [b]anymore[/b], and here’s why.” One is a statement of hate and callousness, one is a statement of disenfranchisement. Asserting that the latter is the same as the former is dishonest. It`s also silly, since the latter is problematic enough to make clear why Elam isn’t worth listening to. I really don`t understand why you refuse to acknowledge this.

  146. carnation says

    @ Adiabat

    You’re the guy that said this:

    “ I just don’t understand this vitriol and hatred aimed at Paul Elam and co”

    You, and a couple of your dogged ideological fellow travellers, persist in embarrassing yourselves with allegations of quote mining. So let’s go back to the start.

    Here’s what you said:

    “I read it a while ago so may be misremembering but the John the Other article was saying that he’s worn out from the lies and deceit, plus lack of empathy from feminists for male victims, that he’s struggling to care for female rape victims any more”

    Here’s what I said:

    “His employee John The Other laughed as he said he didn’t “give a fuck” about rape victims.”

    You depict him as “struggling to care” because of what’s done to him. You portray his callousness as the fault of others.

    At comment #140, you carefully list and link to previous comments I’ve made – in other threads. At comment #156 you write “One is that it takes me 5 minutes to bash out a comment, as you can tell by all the spelling and grammar errors, so it’s low cost.”

    You’re so invested in this discussion that you feel the need to delve into previous discussions to portray yourself as a victorious keyboard warrior.

    You aren’t convincing. In You’re basically an apologist for the most excruciatingly embarrassing MRA theory that exists.

    @ Danny

    Ask yourself, why do you subscribe to just a reactionary ideological framework?
    Simple, I don’t

    You have stated that you are an MRA (or MHRA – you have said there isn’t a difference between them).

    Please describe the praxis common to MRAs/MHRAs. With examples. And remember, common to them. Not the idealised version, of the occasional actual activist involved in something substantial.

    @ D506

    When did I say Elam shouldn’t be listened to? I said that people who hold views such as his cannot accurately be described as human rights activists. I believe passionately in free speech so wouldn’t support anyone trying to stop him saying what he does. Lucking, nobody outside of the MRM actually believes that they are human rights activists. Also, I believe for every person, like Adiabat, who doesn’t find him objectionable, many others will. For all the delusional hyperbole (and hilarious attempts at hubris a la Adiabat), the MRM has achieved nothing. They don’t seem to have many tangible goals besides increasing internet traffic, so in that tiny, limited, parochial and ineffective sense, they are effective.

    You write:

    “Fundamentally, there is a difference between “I don’t care about rape victims.” and “I don’t care about rape victims [b]anymore[/b], and here’s why.” One is a statement of hate and callousness, one is a statement of disenfranchisement.

    OK… thought experiment. Is saying the following a statement of hate and callousness, or is it a statement of disenfranchisement (I don’t think you understand what that word means):

    “I don’t give a fuck about men getting raped in prison because some men in prison are rapists.”

    You seem to struggle with a few fundamentals. I’ve given an actual example of quote mining further up the page for people like you. Have a look, and a good think, and you’ll realise where you’ve gone wrong.

    It’s tragic watching people trying to justify this pathetic, grubby point of view.

    I’ve not been online much, and won’t be contributing to this particular discussion any more. Will welcome follow up comments – but I’m done.

    Adiabat seems Hell bent on having the last word, it will be my privilege to read them.

  147. Danny Gibbs says

    You know what carnation I’m through dealing you with you (at least for now). Time after time and post after post you ask me these questions, challenges, posed hypotheticals, etc… and I answer them and all I ever get in return from you is more question, challenges, posed hypotheticals, etc…

    You aren’t interested in trying to talk to civil MRAs/MHRAs even when they plainly in your face and even as you ask for where they are. No you are interested in making assumptions about us, asking us to answer for all the transgressions of the nastiest ones, asking us to explain this negative idea or that, and all sorts of other stuff.

    Time and again I’ve seen you quite literally only mention MRAs when there is a chance to get in a cheap shot or an attack (and despite what I may have said to AllyF above I can say for sure that even he has on occasion brought something MRAs have said and simply added an, “I can agree with that.”).

    A few weeks ago I brought how AVfM was offering up some reward money for info on the capture and conviction of the Danielle D’Entremont’s attacker and you flew right over it.

    So no. I’m done with this for now.

    Take it easy.

  148. Meggamat says

    How did a civilization to which a quarter of the world paid tribute fall to such lows? The BNP argues that it is the immigration of other races into our nation, but they are wrong. If anything this has slowed down our decline. I blame the so called “liberalism” which annihilates everything it encounters, leaving people in the barbaric, animilistic state of gang members and rioters.

  149. gjenganger says

    @Carnation 106
    This discussion really is not moving anywhere.

    Now I do not particularly care what you may have said before (unlike some), but it would be nice to know what you are thinking now. So, if someone says

    I don’t give a f**k about rape victims anymore. I know intellectually I should, I know that rape is a terrible crime, and being subject to it is probably a terrible thing. But, I don’t give a fuck. And the reason I don’t give a fuck is you, YouTube feminists, you victim cult, female supremacist assholes

    do you think it is fair and honest to quote the bit in italics without mentioning the rest?

    Yes, no or ducking the question?

  150. thetalkingstove says

    @ gjenganger in #163

    I’ll admit I haven’t read this entire argument. But it makes very little difference whether someone quotes part or all of that sentence. It’s disgusting either way. Do you really think what comes after the italics in that quote makes it any better?

    The guy is saying that because there are some ‘YouTube feminists’ he intensely dislikes, he has no sympathy for rape victims.

    That’s awful.

  151. Danny Gibbs says

    @164
    Yes it actually does make a difference because its the difference between just being tired of something and maliciously not caring about it in the first place (or some other motive).

    I know I’ve seen activists express that they no longer gave a fuck about something and it was because something was draining their supply of fucks on the matter.

    And it can also possibly indicate whether or not they may actually start giving a fuck again.

  152. gjenganger says

    @TalkingStove 164
    That point has indeed been discussed at length. The shortest refutation of your point is post 159 by D506. You could say that the short version quote means ‘Rape victims deserve no sympathy’, and the long one means ‘Rape victims do deserve sympathy, but I have been so fucked over by those women/feministst that now I reserve my sympathy for fellow men”. Both are pretty nasty, but the first one is clearly worse. And quoting the first one when the man actually said the second one is dishonest and misleading.

    If you are just talking within the sisterhood it makes little difference – everybody in the sisterhood agrees that the man is a troglodyte anyway and there is nothing to argue about. But if you are talking to people who are not in the sisterhood – as is the case when you are trying to convince people in general that they should not pay attention to Elam and co. – you cannot just take for granted that they agree with you. Here you have to argue, and you have to hit the MRAs on what they say, not on what you think they might have said instead. Otherwise you come across as a blinkered ideologue with on respect for the truth or for the people you are discussing with.

  153. thetalkingstove says

    @ Danny

    Yes it actually does make a difference because its the difference between just being tired of something and maliciously not caring about it in the first place (or some other motive).

    No, the guy behind that quote maliciously doesn’t care about rape victims simply because another group has pissed him off. He’s not tired of giving sympathy to rape victims. He is angry at uppity women and so is withdrawing sympathy as some kind of punishment.

  154. thetalkingstove says

    @ gjenganger

    @TalkingStove 164
    That point has indeed been discussed at length. The shortest refutation of your point is post 159 by D506. You could say that the short version quote means ‘Rape victims deserve no sympathy’, and the long one means ‘Rape victims do deserve sympathy, but I have been so fucked over by those women/feministst that now I reserve my sympathy for fellow men”. Both are pretty nasty, but the first one is clearly worse. And quoting the first one when the man actually said the second one is dishonest and misleading.

    Sorry, no. Having sympathy for victims of crime or injustice should not be contingent on another (much smaller group) of people behaving in a way you deem acceptable. That’s kind of sociopathic.

    Where is the evidence that he has been ‘so fucked over’? All he does is whine vaguely about ‘youtube feminists’.
    Has he in any way been ‘fucked over’ or is he just annoyed at the things feminists say?

    Look, I think most of what MRAs say is disgusting and reprehensible. Does that mean I wouldn’t have sympathy for a male victim of rape? Or sympathy for a father who genuinely wants to see his children but is prevented by an inflexible court system or a cruel mother? No, I would still be able to have sympathy for that man. It would be ridiculous not to.

    It’s really amazing to me that you think ‘because I hate youtube feminists!’ makes his statement better. It just makes it sound petulant and vicious.

  155. thetalkingstove says

    But I don’t really want to go back and forth on this and none of us change our minds.

    So my final point would actually be to say yes, use the full quote.

    If MRAs think the full context makes it less unpleasant then that says a lot about them, which is valuable to see.

  156. Adiabat says

    Talkingstove (167):

    No, the guy behind that quote maliciously doesn’t care about rape victims simply because another group has pissed him off.

    I think the full quote leaves a lot more open to interpretation, and I believe that there are possible, likely, interpretations of what he means that are counter to your “malicious” interpretation and leaves him in a less negative light. I think my ‘nagging charity’ analogy is applicable, considering his acknowledgements of the morality of his position, and that this isn’t as bad as flat out ‘not caring’. I also think finding another organization or movement which advocates for rape victims, and which isn’t feminist, would solve his moral conundrum.

    (169):

    But I don’t really want to go back and forth on this and none of us change our minds.

    So my final point would actually be to say yes, use the full quote.

    Agreed. Without more information neither of us can convince the other which interpretation of the full quote is the “correct one”. Does anyone know if there has been any official clarification from Hembling, as I cannot find one?

    At least we agree that the full quote should be used, as the partial quote removes the ambiguity of the full quote.

  157. gjenganger says

    @talkingstove
    Yes, let us leave it at that. To me the two quote versions are both reprehensible, but they are different, in degree and kind, which is why I think we should use the correct one. Still, the kind of things that they do write is more than enough to convince me that these are people I am not interested in listening to.

  158. Danny Gibbs says

    @169
    But I don’t really want to go back and forth on this and none of us change our minds.

    So my final point would actually be to say yes, use the full quote.

    If MRAs think the full context makes it less unpleasant then that says a lot about them, which is valuable to see.
    Who said anything about less unpleasant? Its a matter of using the full quote for the sake of context and honesty.

    So yeah MRAs think the full context says that they care about full context. There are MRAs out there that say horrible things, well the least we can do is do them the honor of fulling quoting what they say instead of cherry picking in hopes of spinning context.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>