Open thread: Would you like an open thread? »« Madman or MRA? Looking beyond easy answers to the Santa Barbara massacre

A quick defence of nuance

(Note: Glosswitch has made her blog private, at least for now. No reason to believe it had anything to do with this, but for the meantime the Google cache of the blog this responds to is here)

Dear Glosswitch

I’m a bit puzzled by the misrepresentation here. I normally let these things wash over me, but about six people have now tweeted me demanding that I go read you, and it seems to make more sense to spell out my position..

I wholeheartedly agree with the first half of your post. However you then go on to say:

Today has seen plenty of men desperate to claim that misogyny has nothing to do with misogyny because hey, that’s way too simple, ladies!

You then go on on to quote me, and no one else, so I presume it is me you are talking about. But anyone who reads my post will see that right at the top, after taking a moment to remember the victims the first point I make is this:

[Mental illness] was never an adequate explanation. Mental illness alone very, very rarely drives people to kill. Hate, bitterness and rage, on the other hand, does so daily. Rodger may or may not have been ill, he may or may not had diagnostic label on his personality or neurological function, we do not know. What we do know, without question, is that he was spitting with misogyny.

Does that read like someone claiming that this was nothing to do with misogyny?

It might also have been slightly fairer to quote me at slightly greater length, because immediately after the paragraph quoted, I go on to say:

Rodger does not appear to have identified as an MRA, and a debate as to whether or not he should be so described will be a pedantic distraction. The ugly truth is that, across much of the manosphere, his rantings are not especially unusual. Somewhere on the internet right this very moment – whether on an Insel site or an MRA site or an MGTOW site or Twitter or Facebook or an atheist forum, it really doesn’t matter – an angry young man will be spitting out his hatred of bitches, whores and sluts.

In other words, the point about whether or not he is an MRA is not me trying to get them off the hook, but the exact opposite. Inaccurately calling Rodger an MRA simply allows actual MRAs to dissociate themselves from him, and lets them dodge their culpability in their shared misogyny. That was my whole bloody point there, and I don’t think I explained it too be clumsily to be understood.

The other point I was making, which may have been missed, is that while I wholeheartedly agree that misogyny and patriarchal entitlement were the driving forces here, there are millions of men with those traits who do not become mass murderers, and the temptation to write Rodger off as a simple and clear cut case of misogyny risks cutting off inquiry into other factors that may have been involved. I mentioned bullying, as one specific detail that seems to apply to every single school / spree shooter, but there may be others unique to Rodger.

In summary, I’ve found the arguments I’ve heard over the past 24 hours a little strange. Primarily, I have been criticised for asking for nuance. (One tweet directing me to this blog simply said “No need for nuance,”

I just can’t buy into that. There is always need for nuance. When Lee Rigby was murdered, I wrote a vaguely similar blog, which also called for nuance. Yes, Rigby was murdered by two Islamist terrorists, but does the story end there? No, it didn’t at the time and it still doesn’t today.

A lot of this reminds me of what John Major once said: “sometimes I think we need to understand a little less and condemn a little more.” I’ve never been able to buy into that. However much we condemn, we can always understand a little more.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me on any point, telling me I am wrong. But very few people have been doing that over the past 24 hours. They haven’t been telling me I am wrong, they’ve just been saying “how dare you say that?”

I find that quite a depressing reaction in any circumstance.

Comments

  1. says

    I agree with Glosswitch on one thing: There is little nuance here. There is no credible connection between Rodgers and the MRM, and any attempt to do so I have seen was full of obvious lies and misrepresentations. Which brings me to this post:

    Inaccurately calling Rodger an MRA simply allows actual MRAs to dissociate themselves from him, and lets them dodge their culpability in their shared misogyny.

    This is just incredibly offensive. You claim that the misogyny exhibited by Rodgers is in any way comparable to the one by the MRM? Even in his wildest fever dreams Elam has not written shit comparable to the one by Rodgers. Rodgers was neither a MRA nor were his views about women similar. An even if they had views that are similar in the most contrived of ways, their culpability of any given member of the mrm is approximately 0.

  2. says

    @ Sheaf

    This from the founder of AVfM.

    “Let’s be clear—this show is not and never will be about the hateful bashing of women, and to be clearer, we’re going to often speak harshly of men … [But] our current gender zeitgeist is one that has promoted and enabled such a degree of female narcissism and entitlement that it has now produced two generations of women 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 men and squander them on the mindless pursuit of vanity. Is this all women? No, of course not.”

    Now, that’s not comparable to Rodger – Rodger is obviously more violent, hateful and extreme, but it’s an extremely caustic and offensive statement, don’t you think?

    Ally is talking about nuance. So, for example, he isn’t saying that any given person drove Rodger to act in the way he did, but that discussing his motivations (as stated by himself) cannot be done without comparing and contrasting with other members of the online communities he was part of. And within these communities, which made up part of the manosphere, his intense hatred of women was only unusual in the sheer extremity of it and, I would argue, that he wasn’t doing it for trolling purposes (I believe that a substantial part of the manosphere is populated by trolls, driven by a desire for negative attention).

  3. says

    The idea that any more than a tiny proportion of MHRAs are driven by misogyny is so STOOOOOOOOOOOOOPID I’m not going to address it. I invite people to subscribe to http://avoiceformen.com and make up their own minds.

    A mentally disturbed young man kills six men and two women and the underlying cause is, er, misogyny? He hated men as much as he hated women. A characteristically insightful article on the matter from Janet Bloomfield (aka ‘JudgyBitch’):

    http://judgybitch.com/2014/05/25/deeply-disturbed-man-kills-4-men-and-2-women-and-then-himself-and-is-declared-a-violent-misogynist-because-the-deaths-of-men-dont-count/

  4. says

    BaneofCiF

    I have read Elam to some extent. In the best case his writing seems to be a waste of space in the worst cases it seems to be clickbait and intentional offense. This does not mean he is culpable for any action of Rodgers. Claiming so is just dishonest.

    Ally may talk about nuance, but there is little nuance in holding a group of people you dont like collectively culpable for the action of someone who is neither associated nor similar in his views.

  5. marduk says

    These people need to understand that the US needs two things very urgently indeed (a) gun control and (b) mental health services worth mentioning that are accessible to the kinds of people who actually need them.

    In time, we might realise the degree of comfort this “no need for nuance” discussion has given to the NRA and the religious right in general who more than half suspect mental illness is a punishment from God in itself.

    Guns don’t kill people, misogynists do. The NRA must be delighted, they probably haven’t even heard of the word before. Just like guns haven’t killed people in any other school shooting, it was always something else, and it was something else here (whatever that high falutin’ liberal word means), so absolutely no need to do anything about them, right guys?

  6. Ally Fogg says

    sheaf/ Mike Buchanan

    I am not specifically talking about any individuals, however since you bring it up, I would go as far as to say Paul Elam and his pals create an atmosphere in which rank misogyny is considered acceptable or even normal. I am not saying any prominent MRA has ever published anything quite as repulsive as Rodger’s manifesto, but what they have done is contribute to an intellectual atmosphere in which people like Rodgers can find validation and solace for their views.

    Away from AVfM, you can also go to places like r/mensrights and on any given day there will be people posting hideously misogynistic, violent thoughts, and often they won’t be particularly challenged on them.

    I repeat, I am not blaming the manosphere for the killings in Santa Barbara, I blame Rodgers and no one else. However I am saying that this would be an appropriate juncture for those involved in the broad spectrum of the manosphere to ask themselves what they do or do not do which might offer succour to the likes of Elliot Rodger.

  7. says

    @ Sheaf

    You wrote “This does not mean he is culpable for any action of Rodgers. Claiming so is just dishonest.”

    I agree with you. I agreed with you here – “Now, that’s not comparable to Rodger – Rodger is obviously more violent, hateful and extreme, but it’s an extremely caustic and offensive statement, don’t you think?”

    I also didn’t hold a group of people collectively culpable. I didn’t even hint at it.

    Why are you implying I did? I was explicit in not doing so, as evidenced here: “So, for example, he isn’t saying that any given person drove Rodger to act in the way he did, but that discussing his motivations (as stated by himself) cannot be done without comparing and contrasting with other members of the online communities he was part of.”

    I said that his motivations, which were his own, couldn’t be discussed without comparing and contrasting with those made in his online communities.

    Perhaps your comments weren’t directed at me?

  8. says

    @sheaf and BaneOfCiF, the quote was bad but not the full extent of his range…

    http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2013/10/18/paul-elam-of-a-voice-for-men-in-his-own-words/

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

    Not to mention his “bash a violent bitch month” where he fantasies about beating women to death… As to is he and other MRAs culpable for allowing online spaces where hatred of women is not just allowed, even the norm, but celebrated? Yes, absolutely culpable, just as racist sites are culpable for spreading racist hatred.

    But I think Elam’s demented ravings about culpability say it all.

    If you have a vagina, the blood of all those children, who are abused far more at the hands of women than men, has stained your skin and caked around the cuticles of your fingers.

    Nothing like testerical hyperbole about women’s “collective misdeeds” to spread hatred of all women. As to the post I think it’s a shame Ally had to clarify, it’s quite clear what his point was, it still stands.

  9. says

    BaneofCif

    agree with you. I agreed with you here – “Now, that’s not comparable to Rodger – Rodger is obviously more violent, hateful and extreme, but it’s an extremely caustic and offensive statement, don’t you think?”

    I also didn’t hold a group of people collectively culpable. I didn’t even hint at it.

    Why are you implying I did?

    I simply did not. I said Ally did, The necessary quote is in my first post. I agree with most of what you said, I just disagree that there is any nunce to Allys approach here.

  10. says

    Ally

    I repeat, I am not blaming the manosphere for the killings in Santa Barbara,

    As it stands this is simply untrue. You wrote “Inaccurately calling Rodger an MRA simply allows actual MRAs to dissociate themselves from him, and lets them dodge their culpability in their shared misogyny.” which indicates collective culpability on the part of the mrm.

  11. says

    @Ally #6

    Thanks Ally. You write:

    “I am not specifically talking about any individuals, however since you bring it up, I would go as far as to say Paul Elam and his pals create an atmosphere in which rank misogyny is considered acceptable or even normal.”

    I couldn’t disagree more. They’re trying to create an atmosphere in which women are held accountable as adults for their actions and inactions – you know, the way men have always been. The justice system continues to treat men harshly and women leniently i.e. women are treated as having less moral agency than men. AVfM has numerous ‘Honey Badgers’ (non-feminist or anti-feminist women) writing for them, making videos etc. These are very bright women – why would they contribute to a misogynistic website? They wouldn’t.

    “I am not saying any prominent MRA has ever published anything quite as repulsive as Rodger’s manifesto, but what they have done is contribute to an intellectual atmosphere in which people like Rodgers can find validation and solace for their views.”

    I’m not aware of any evidence the guy was even aware of the MRM. In the mainstream MRM – AVfM for example – he’d have found NO validation or solace for his views.

    “Away from AVfM, you can also go to places like r/mensrights and on any given day there will be people posting hideously misogynistic, violent thoughts, and often they won’t be particularly challenged on them.”

    Of course, but the same can be said for radical feminist websites – e.g. calling for the compulsory castration of the vast majority of men – and nobody in the mainstream media writes about THAT. I wouldn’t follow misogynistic websites, not would the vast majority of MRAs in my experience. Indeed it’s astonishing how few men are misogynists, given how so many men are treated appallingly by individual women (e.g. denying fathers access to their children following relationship breakdowns) and society in general. It’s perfectly obvious that misogyny is a projection of people who are misandrous, and many women are that (and a fair proportion of men, too).

    The male/female suicide rate differential rose from 1.9:1 in 1982 to 3.5:1 in 2012, yet the political classes don’t give a damn. If the genders were switched we’d have debates in parliament etc. As an illustration of societal misandry, it takes some beating.

  12. AndrewV69, Visiting MRA, Purveyor of Piffle & Woo says

    Well Ally, I am pretty amused by the collision between the different modes of socialization and your subsequent reaction.

    If you really do not understand what is going on here I suggest you check your premises about how men and women communicate and socialize.

    Quite often what women say on the surface makes no sense to a man because he is missing the subtext of herd dynamics.

    You appear to fail to notice that what you are supposed to get on board with is the theme that all men are a danger to all women everywhere.

    Any inconvenient facts, nuance or subtly detracts from that hypothesis.

    What you are experiencing therefore is herding. What you are supposed to do is either signify that you wished to remain within the herd.

  13. AndrewV69, Visiting MRA, Purveyor of Piffle & Woo says

    For those who are confused by the promiscuous misuse of MRA/MHRA a thumbnail sketch:

    – Manosphere – comprises a bunch of different groups concerned about men’s issues with different focuses. The following is a general breakdown:

    – MRA/MHRA Men’s Rights/ Men’s Human Rights
    – MGTOW – Men Going Their Own Way.
    – PUA – Pick Up Artists.

    There is some overlap between the three above but not much. The PUAs for example are generally concerned with getting laid and could care less about much of anything else.

    One last note: The aspergers fuelled lunatic Elliot Rodger appeared to interact with the Manosphere only by being a member of an anti-PUA group!!

    So, to try and create a linkage between Roger and MRAs is going to get you laughed at. Expect a decline in credibility.

    If anyone wishes to see a Manosphere discussion on Roger you can find one here http://www.justfourguys.com/special-post-elliot-rodgers-retribution-manifesto/

    (Obsidian is a Black American BTW)

  14. Sans-sanity says

    @ Ally,

    I am honestly starting to get confused with the message you are trying to convey. I suspect it is because you are trying to communicate with two different audiences for whom the take home message lies in different parts of your overall thesis. Further complicated by the fact that both audiences are quite apt to lose their shit if the message doesn’t reach them just right.

    Would I be correct in paraphrasing you as:

    “Dear Feminists+associates: Don’t try and blame MRAs for this one. He wasn’t with them, they didn’t know him, and we’ll all just wind up arguing about that rather than looking at the relevent elements of this tragedy which are….

    Dear MRAs+associates: Check your shit. This one wasn’t on you. You got lucky; it could have been. Look at what the people around you are saying. Yes it’s different to what he said, but by enough?”

  15. Sans-sanity says

    @Andrew
    “The aspergers fuelled lunatic”
    Talking of declines in credibilty.

    I think I may be having a Poe’s law moment.

  16. says

    Sans Sanity

    Dear MRAs+associates: Check your shit. This one wasn’t on you. You got lucky; it could have been. Look at what the people around you are saying. Yes it’s different to what he said, but by enough?”

    Still incredibly offensive if that was the intended message.

  17. says

    Mike Buchanan writes:

    “The idea that any more than a tiny proportion of MHRAs are driven by misogyny is so STOOOOOOOOOOOOOPID I’m not going to address it. I invite people to subscribe to http://avoiceformen.com and make up their own minds.”

    This statement is so profoundly lacking in self-awareness. People who +have+ visited that website then +understand+ that even those who aren’t overtly misogynistic are tolerant of those that are.

    AndrewV69 writes:

    “So, to try and create a linkage between Roger and MRAs is going to get you laughed at. Expect a decline in credibility.”

    MRA only have credibility amongst themselves – their laughter will not phase many.

  18. Hunt says

    “Guns don’t kill people, misogynists do. The NRA must be delighted,”

    I would say “exactly,” (and I argued similarly in the prior post), except technically it’s a false dilemma. Reduction of general misogyny AND strengthened gun laws could bring down incidence of terrorism like this. However, in the present USA political climate and given the status of the gun lobby, I think it’s valid to question whether we really want to present a divided front, given their skill at exploiting any ambiguity. Are you really sure you want to, eh, give them the ammunition? It may well become “guns don’t kill people, misogynists do.” Is it worth sacrificing the united front?

  19. says

    How has it escaped people’s attention that most of the people killed in this case – as in most cases – were men? You might as usefully say misandry kills because both men and women regard men as inherently disposable, and women inherently valuable. I did some calculations about DV today. For every refuge place available for a straight man, there are about 175 available for women. And we know from the British Crime Survey that 40% of victims of domestic abuse/violence are men. I doubt if one in ten people in the general population have even heard of the term ‘misandry’, let alone know what it means.

  20. Sans-sanity says

    Mike says: “How has it escaped people’s attention that most of the people killed in this case – as in most cases – were men?”

    On the other thread Sans-sanity says: “He killed twice as many women as men!! How are people missing this?”

    I ain’t people? (crosses all four arms and pouts)

    Seriously though, it hasn’t been missed, it just hasn’t been repeated.

  21. says

    MIke Buchanan writes:

    “How has it escaped people’s attention that most of the people killed in this case – as in most cases – were men?”

    It hasn’t. The news coverage reported it, people have commented on it, it’s discussed at length here and elsehwere.

    “You might as usefully say misandry kills because both men and women regard men as inherently disposable, and women inherently valuable.”

    There is no use in clumsily rehashing a theory of Warren Farrells. Farrell is a fool, as are his devotees. Claiming “both men and women regard men as inherently disposable, and women inherently valuable” is nonsense.

    “I did some calculations about DV today. For every refuge place available for a straight man, there are about 175 available for women. And we know from the British Crime Survey that 40% of victims of domestic abuse/violence are men.”

    That’s an entirely different discussion. One that is actually valid and that I believe you are ill-qualified to take part in.

  22. marduk says

    However marginal the chances, gun control is still more amenable to legislation than ending misogyny.

    My personal view of this situation is actually that mental illness is an absolutely adequate explanation, this isn’t part of a continuum and in my view has about as much to do with misogyny as the actions of other shooters had to do with God, aliens, CIA mind control or anything else. The factor of the widespread availability of guns however is not up for argument.

    But let us step back from guns for a second because I feel like I’m guilty here of something that is increasingly disturbing me about coverage of this case already. Has anyone noticed by the way that four of his victims have barely been mentioned since this story broke? Already its become a political chess piece and already we’re allowing a madman a great deal of power to define his actions that is somewhat contradicted by the facts of what actually happened.

  23. says

    @BaneofCiF #21

    Why am I ‘ill-qualified’ to comment on DV? It’s a subject to which I’ve devoted a good deal of time, and covered at considerable length on my blogs. Mankind Initiative recently published a short video (1:50) on YouTube, it’s attracted over 2.2 million viewers in just a few days – including over 1 million in the past 24 hours. It’s also attracted 10,000+ comments:

  24. marduk says

    Mike, I saw that covered in the Independent. I notice the “we love gender flips” Guardian which has been obsessed with this genre of activism lately has somehow overlooked it. Can’t begin to imagine why…

  25. says

    There is no use in clumsily rehashing a theory of Warren Farrells. Farrell is a fool, as are his devotees. Claiming “both men and women regard men as inherently disposable, and women inherently valuable” is nonsense.

    I have asked about this point at various times on this blog. several metrics seem to confirm Farrels hypothesis (E.g. Violence, war, depiction violence against males in the media, sex specific cancer spending etc). What is wrong with this hypothesis?

  26. says

    Sheaf writes: “What is wrong with this hypothesis?”

    It’s rather simple: it ignores reality. It’s not for me to have to disprove the theories of a disreputable theorist, it’s up to his confirmation bias ridden followers to prove.

    And this isn’t the thread to do it. Let’s stick to the OP.

  27. says

    Mike Buchanan writes: “Why am I ‘ill-qualified’ to comment on DV?”

    You have nothing to do with the Mankind Initiative. You have everything to do with a regressive political party. You have been wrong about everything that you have written in this thread so far, therefore, you are ill-qualified to talk about anything, especially given your affiliations.

    Good day to you, sir, I will not talk directly to you again, but will correct your errors.

  28. says

    @sheaf #26

    In our party consultation document we point to 20 areas in which men and/or boys are disadvantaged by the state’s actions and inactions, usually to advantage women and/or girls. Over the past year I’ve challenged many people – including radfems – to suggest even one area where the state disadvantages women and/or girls. Not one person has suggested an area. If women (as a class) are oppressed by men (as a class) – a cornerstone of feminist ‘patriarchy theory’ – in the UK in 2013, then I’m a Wagon Wheel.

  29. marduk says

    @BaneofCif
    The same hypothesis is widely accepted without any real controversy when it is expressed elsewere, e.g., studies of imperialism, class and oddly, radical feminism where it is both critiqued and also asserted as desirable and inevitable (e.g., Mary Daly Gyn/Ecology).

    How off-topic is it though? I notice the coverage of this case has already skewed to some victims being talked about a lot more than others. Indeed, several mainstream commentators have built their arguments entirely on overlooking them.

  30. says

    @BaneofCiF

    “You have been wrong about everything that you have written in this thread so far, therefore, you are ill-qualified to talk about anything, especially given your affiliations.”

    Oops, perhaps it’s time to check your female privilege?

    “Good day to you, sir, I will not talk directly to you again, but will correct your errors.”

    Oh no! I’m utterly devastated… no, wait a moment, I’m over it.

  31. says

    @ Sheaf

    I will decline your kind invitation. I don’t ever use Reddit, and believe that my happiness levels benefits from this decision.

    I would also urge you to interrogate any theory with academic rigour, not with Reddit users who identify as MRAs. You will find no objectivity or critical thinking there.

  32. Thil says

    1) with regard to that people need to understand that “John Major” quote people need to understand there’s a difference between trying to understand motive and trying to remove blame

    2) secondly to anyone who’s saying that not calling him an MRA is a semantic distinction I ask “then why does it matter to you that he not be called one?”

    3) if he really was motivated primarily by misogyny (which he was) ally’s attempts to analyse all possible factors should only make that clear, where as if it doesn’t then you shouldn’t be using him as an example of a misogynist killer

  33. says

    Mike Buchanan writes: “Oops, perhaps it’s time to check your female privilege?”

    I am not female. That you believe being robustly challenged and dismissed for your views is indicative of “female privilege” is telling.

    I will continue to correct your errors, as previously stated (when there is enough time to do so, given the sheer number of them).

  34. Thil says

    god I fucked that up

    should read: “with regard to that people need to understand that “John Major” quote people need to understand there’s a difference between trying to understand motive and trying to remove blame” and “then why does it matter to you that he be called one?”

  35. says

    I think Sans-Sanity explained it well in #14.

    Re: “How dare you say that?”

    I’m afraid that’s become the norm online. I can think of two explanations for it. Firstly, people are more interested in activism than intellectual discussion. Thus they focus more on punishing people who violate the norms of what think constitutes a just society. In this case, a “just society” is one where everyone attacks any form of misogyny they see and aim to destroy anyone who is perceived as promoting misogyny e.g. the MHRM. Thus your call for nuance, which makes sense if your aim is to Arrive At The Truth, doesn’t sit well with their attempts to destroy the MHRM.

    The second explanation: outrage is easier than thought.

    Let me ask you, though – are you willing to put feminists in same spotlight you put MRAs? Are you willing to say that feminists in the 60s helped “create an atmosphere in which rank” misandry was “considered acceptable or even normal” resulting in Valerie Solanas shooting Andy Warhol? I ask for information.

  36. Thil says

    FUCK:

    “with regard to that “John Major” quote people need to understand there’s a difference between trying to understand motive and trying to remove blame”

  37. says

    I would also urge you to interrogate any theory with academic rigour, not with Reddit users who identify as MRAs. You will find no objectivity or critical thinking there

    I will.

  38. says

    Navin Kumar writes “Let me ask you, though – are you willing to put feminists in same spotlight you put MRAs?”

    Being remotely familar with Ally Fogg’s writing would confirm that, yes indeed, he is willing to put the same spotlight on feminists as on MRAs (and many others).

    You go on: “Are you willing to say that feminists in the 60s helped “create an atmosphere in which rank” misandry was “considered acceptable or even normal” resulting in Valerie Solanas shooting Andy Warhol? I ask for information.”

    Would you be willing to ask the same of anarchists? After all, Solonas proposed, in the SCUM manifesto, many things straight out of anarchist theory.

  39. marduk says

    Navin,

    While I probably share some social concerns with MRAs I can’t associate with them because a lot of what they say is rubbish and a lot of it is expressed very badly. Some parts are coopted unhelpfully and variously by the likes of the PUAs, the religious right and the American nationalists as well.

    What they definitely aren’t, for the most part, are liberals.

    What they are a mirror to is radical feminism which it is true has managed to get away with more than it should and mostly survives challenges to its respectability by the very fact it has been so marginalised within mainstream feminism that nobody seems to know much about it (although the outbreak of TERF in the Guardian of all places was a fairly shocking exception but you’ll note that was clamped down quite hard in the end). I’d certainly agree with you that being told the SCUM manifesto was a “post-modern joke” is not very convincing in view of what she actually did. But you won’t for example find many references to men being ‘non-human mutants’ unless you actually look for it, although it is certainly out there and on a university library shelf near you.

    Ultimately most people are going to say a curse on both their houses. There is no mainstream equivalent of mainstream moderate feminism in the ‘manosphere’ to defend really.

  40. says

    Yes, that’s pretty much bang on the nail, thank you

    Ouch.You at said something completely different above, indicating actual culpability on mras. Now you just limit yourself in smugly telling people you disagree with that, while there is no evidence that they had anything to do with a tragedy, that they are the kid of people who could have caused it. Not pretty.

  41. carnation says

    @ marduk – I agree with everything that you have written.

    There is no liberal MRM, it is a completely reactionary collection of leaders and their intellectual supplicants. A mirror image of radical feminism, complete with fantasies of oppression and resistance.

    They need each other. They encourage and facilitate each other.

    There will be a (further split) in the MRM, I predict it will be facilitated by some within AVfM, probably within a year or so. Obstensibly about theory, but more likely about allocation of funds and the clashing of unjustifiably inflated egos.

  42. says

    @Marduk #42

    Gender / radical / militant feminism has been the default gender ideology od the political and other establishment classes for 30+ years. It’s a train which can only go in one direction, advantaging women and girls regardless of the cost to men and boys. A small example. At Brunel university today female postgrad engineering students get an additional £15,000 grant solely on the grounds of gender – http://j4mb.wordpress.com/female-postgraduate-engineering-students-to-be-given-15000-p-a-more-than-their-male-counterparts/. This is despite we know that few women return to engineering after having their first child. The government is bullying FTSE100 companies (through the threat of legislated gender quotas) to appoint more female directors, despite knowing one consequence will be corporate financial decline http://c4mb.wordpress.com/improving-gender-diversity-on-boards-leads-to-a-decline-in-corporate-performance-the-evidence/. And who’s paying for all this social engineering? Men, in the main, who pay 72% of the income taxes which finance the state. The MHRM isn’t opposed to a fringe movement, it’s opposed to a mainstream movement. The fact that people don’t see it as such is one of the ‘triumphs’ of these hate-driven women. A remarkable testament to the deference men show towards women, regardless of the consequences.

  43. says

    Mike Buchanan writes: “Gender / radical / militant feminism has been the default gender ideology od the political and other establishment classes for 30+ years.”

    This is very obviously incorrect. Mike Buchanan acknowledges his errors by citing, by way of proof, two (unreferenced) initiatives which have nothing what-so-ever to do with the goals of radical feminism (gender-feminism is a nonsense term devised and used by anti-feminists; militant feminists are active radical feminists). Either Mike Buchanan knows this and is being deliberately obtuse in an attempt to whip uo outrage, or he is staggeringly incompetent and intellectually incurious.

    Mike Buchanan continues: “And who’s paying for all this social engineering? Men, in the main, who pay 72% of the income taxes which finance the state.” Mike Buchanan is wrong again. He clearly doesn’t understand what social engineering is. He also doesn’t reference his income tax statistic, but given his tragic litany of errors, it’s probably incorrect.

    Mike Buchanan goes on “The MHRM isn’t opposed to a fringe movement, it’s opposed to a mainstream movement. The fact that people don’t see it as such is one of the ‘triumphs’ of these hate-driven women. A remarkable testament to the deference men show towards women, regardless of the consequences.”

    Mike Buchanan is almost correct – the MHRM +does+ oppose a mainstream movement; feminism (we have already established Mike doesn’t understand what different feminisms mean) but more importantly, they oppose women as a class.

    Mike Buchanan’ embarrasses himself by blaming “hate-driven” women for covering up the egregious injustices that Mike bravely points out. The injustices, and the hate-filled women, don’t exist.

    But Mike Buchanan does. And I’d encourage everyone to challenge him and watch his struggle.

  44. mildlymagnificent says

    You appear to fail to notice that what you are supposed to get on board with is the theme that all men are a danger to all women everywhere.

    That’s nonsense. Women generally know that the great majority of men are not usually violent towards women. We all of us, men and women alike, also know perfectly well that the ones who are inclined to violence do not have flashing neon warning lights attached to them. There is no way to distinguish the violent ones from the much more numerous non-violent ones by appearance or short acquaintance.

    Come to think of it, not from long acquaintance either. Just look at all those neighbours and friends who come out of the woodwork after a man murders the woman he was married to for twenty or more years. “I thought they were a wonderful couple.” “He was always first there to help out.” “We lived next door to them for years and we never thought there was anything wrong.” I remember the shocked faces of the staff at a local cafe – I wondered what was going on and they asked if I’d heard about “Fred” (not his name). I reacted in the standard what’s happened, is he sick, is he dead vein. No. He’d shot his ex-wife dead in front of hundreds of people in a city shop. None of us knew that he’d even been married, he was a single man and a bit of a favourite because of his lovely dogs and his charity work. I’d had experience with an abusive husband and I knew others had the same background – and none of us picked it despite our acquired hyper-vigilance.

    Women have to be wary because we need a bit more information about blokes before we’re prepared to take the risk of engaging them in conversation, or friendship, or intimacy. We can never know which throw of the risk dice will turn out badly. Anyone can break our hearts if we like/love them and it doesn’t work out, but the exceptional ones will break our bones or break out the special heavy makeup to conceal the black eye.

    It’s not that we think every man is dangerous. Our problem is that we have no way of knowing which of the very few among the many will hurt us or kill us – until they raise their fist.

  45. says

    @BaneofCiF

    “The injustices, and the hate-filled women, don’t exist.”

    You appear to be sliding into writing comedy. I’ve pointed out our consultation document shows British men and boys today are disadvantaged in 20 areas, I challenge you to point me to one where British women and girls are today (without misrepresenting inequalities as outcome as reflecting inequalities of opportunity).

    The American equity feminist Christina Hoff Sommers used the term ‘gender feminists’ in a book published 20 years ago, ‘Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women’. She described gender feminists as women (and their male collaborators, such as you) determined to gain ever more privileges for women, regardless of the consequences. It’s a great book, just about the only one by a self-declared feminist that we recommend. You should read it.

  46. gjenganger says

    @Sheaf
    I am with Ally (and Sans-Sanity) on this one. Even a quite cursory glance at MRA-like web sites comes up with bitterness, foaming rage and revenge fantasies against women Which is why I know little about these sites, such things are not to my taste. Now I actually sympathise with the anger and hurt that lie behind this, there are real grievances here, and anyway people have a right to their opinions. I do not much respect revolutionary socialists or feminist separatists either, but everybody have a right to put up their stall.

    But even though the Rogers is not a product of the MRA community, his anger and bitterness do have a number of parallels with things that can be seen on MRA sites. That is not your fault, of course, and it does not make the MRA position illegitimate. But like it or not it does mean that you have to be a bit careful in what you say in order to avoid encouraging violent psychopaths with grievances similar to yours.

  47. says

    Mike Buchanan writes

    “The American equity feminist Christina Hoff Sommers used the term ‘gender feminists’ in a book published 20 years ago, ‘Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women’. She described gender feminists as women (and their male collaborators, such as you) determined to gain ever more privileges for women, regardless of the consequences. It’s a great book, just about the only one by a self-declared feminist that we recommend. You should read it.”

    I have read it, but that error is the least of your worries. Sommers is very clearly and obviously an anti-feminist, which is why you recommend her book.

    I +haven’t+ and +won’t+ read any of your consultation documents for the simple reason that you are so wrong so often that it would be a waste of my precious time: I will instead stick to exposing your errors on this blog. It’s a lot more simple, straightforward and enjoyable.

    Mike went on to point out that problems do exist that are visited upon men & boys (Mike, in tabloid prose, calls them “injustices”. Mike is +correct+ in this assertion, but +incorrect+ in thinking that radical feminism caused them. Mike offers no solutions to these “injustices”.

    I forgot to point out another of Mike Buchanan’s quite unbelieveable errors from earlier. ” …income taxes which finance the state.” Of course, a very complicated range of taxes fund the state, one of which is, indeed, income tax. VAT is another. Council Tax is another.

    Mike Buchanan, please try harder – this is too easy.

    Oh look, pub o’clock… Cheers!

  48. gjenganger says

    @Mike Buchanan
    Please.

    In this thread we have a misogynist mass murderer, and Ally who is catching flak for refusing to lump Rogers, you, and all your ilk into the same circle of hell. Is this, of all discussions, the place to start on women getting extra study money and the 20-point discussion document of how men are disadvantaged?

    You are letting the side down, Sir.

  49. says

    gjenganger,

    You would subscribe to what i quoted in the first post?
    Some guy killed himself and others ad several people lied to blame his actions on the mrm. Ally joined in and proclaimed: He was not mra, but the mras are still culpable in their shared misogyny – completely brushing all mras with the same brush and strongly indicating that they are in fact culpable.

    I do not identify as MRA but I will not let that stand. I think it is absolutely egregious behavior on his part.

  50. AndrewV69, Visiting MRA, Purveyor of Piffle & Woo says

    @ #47, mildlymagnificent

    We are pretty much on the same page. However, I believe that what Ally was responding to was the first link in his article (replicated below for your convience). That is the context to what I was saying.

    http://glosswatch.com/2014/05/25/elliot-rodger-and-illusions-of-nuance/

    I could be wrong of course, but if you were also aware that Ally has been castigated on Twitter in a similar vein you may also see where I am coming from:

    https://twitter.com/AllyFogg/statuses/470585394082627584

    Basically, he is being told he is straying from the party line is and he must follow it or else face expulsion from the herd.

  51. gjenganger says

    @Sheaf 52
    Yes, I can subscribe to that. I am sure that Ally is rather less tolerant of anti-woman talk than I am. But Ally is carefully NOT saying that Rogers crimes were caused by MRA philosophy or because Rogers was one of them. He is saying that you cannot give your feelings against women free rein on the internet without considering the consequences, as long as people like Rogers exist. And there he is right, unfair as it may be. Other groups, from Muslims to socialists, have the same problem. As for the wording, he is writing this particular posts to his progressive friends, who ARE blaming MRAs, and who are blaming Ally for not joining in. I think you are being hypersensitive at best, unfair at worst.

  52. AndrewV69, Visiting MRA, Purveyor of Piffle & Woo says

    Some of you people need to get out more often. Or continue to read the dudebros at Reddit or whever part of the Internet the virging neckbeards hang out.

    The following is my “quotemine” from an interview of Judgy Bitch by Obsidian of JustFourGuys :
    http://www.justfourguys.com/because-you-dont-know-sht-an-interview-with-janet-judgybitch-bloomfield/#more-2085

    JB: I guess for me the real question is “what counts as misogyny/sexism”? Simply disagreeing with me does not count, in my mind. I have pretty high standards for what counts as a misogynist attack. Someone who thinks I’m stupid or my arguments are invalid or my logic is flawed is not engaging in misogyny or sexism. That is simple disagreement and I generally respond with a shrug and a “oh, well, fuck you, too”. I really haven’t experienced very much true misogyny, as in “how dare you speak you are a woman shut the fuck up”, which I would definitely count as a valid example. Misogyny is expressing hatred for me simply because I am a woman. Hating my blog because you think my articles are stupid is not misogyny.

  53. says

    Gjenganger

    Yes, I can subscribe to that. I am sure that Ally is rather less tolerant of anti-woman talk than I am. But Ally is carefully NOT saying that Rogers crimes were caused by MRA philosophy or because Rogers was one of them. He is saying that you cannot give your feelings against women free rein on the internet without considering the consequences, as long as people like Rogers exist.

    Where is he saying that? I think you are straining to read something charitable here. And even if it was the case that this was the message, it is a completely inane message: People should be allowed to vet on the internet. They are still not culpable if someone evil takes it the wrong way.

    Other groups, from Muslims to socialists, have the same problem.

    So what? This does not mean I will pontentficate about how the intrinsic socialism or whatever of someone unrelated to them killed people. It would honestly be beneath me.

    As for the wording, he is writing this particular posts to his progressive friends, who ARE blaming MRAs, and who are blaming Ally for not joining in.

    Just because some people are even more deplorable does not mean I will laud Ally here.

    I think you are being hypersensitive at best, unfair at worst

    Hypersensitve? Maybe. I read some article about the shootings that really got to me. The fact that some idealogues use this tragedy is a new low for a lot of them. But I do not think my reading is unfair.

  54. says

    @BaneofCiF #50

    “Sommers is very clearly and obviously an anti-feminist, which is why you recommend her book.”

    On the contrary, she describes herself as a feminist – an equity feminist – to this day.

    “I haven’t and won’t read any of your consultation documents for the simple reason that you are so wrong so often that it would be a waste of my precious time:”

    You’ve done nothing to refute anything of what I’ve said, you’ve engaged in personal attacks, and you won’t waste your ‘precious time’ on reading the evidence base for our positions? Typical feminist tactics, whether from female or male feminists – ‘Don’t bother me with facts, I KNOW women are oppressed by the patriarchy!’.

  55. says

    Stories from today:

    1. A 40-year-old female bank worker stole over £30,000 from vulnerable elderly customers (one had Alzheimer’s, another was blind) and walked free from court http://j4mb.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=6293&action=edit

    2. A drunk groom-to-be slapped an air hostesses’ backside and now faces a jail sentence http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2639566/Groom-returning-stag-faces-jail-slapping-air-hostess-bottom-Ryanair-flight.html

    We could do stories demonstrating such double standards every day of the week. Why is the patriarchy treating women so leniently and men so harshly?

  56. says

    @withinthismind #59

    The man behind that website is evidently David Futrelle, universally regard with contempt by mainstream MHRAs. One of many AVfM pieces touching on what he does:

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/valenti-futrelle-and-other-child-abusers/

    With respect to the claim that 99% of the ‘MRA movement’ is misogynistic, I think it was Adolf Hitler who said the way to get the public to believe a lie was to make it a big lie, and repeat it endlessly. You appear to be following hid dictum. I repeat my invitation to people to subscribe to http://avoiceformen.com for a month then make up their own minds. I’ve invited plenty of people to do this, and none have ever told me they found the site misogynistic – unless you mean expecting women to demonstrate more moral agency than a little child is misogyny, of course?

  57. says

    While it’s true mental illness rarely leads people to violence, rarely is not never, as anyone who has worked with the mentally ill will tell you. I know this personally: I was attacked on the street by a bipolar stranger who was off his meds. So far as I know, he didn’t attack me out of an ideology, but he might have, and ultimately, it doesn’t matter: he let himself go off his meds. I didn’t press charges because they believed he was so appalled at what he had done that he would not let that happen again, but still, the fact is simple: mentally ill people attack people for no reason or for reasons that we call insane for a good reason. Look, for example, at the Washington snipers: were they driven by a hatred of whites? Their plan called for killing six white people a day. Or was the older one mentally ill, and the younger one susceptible to the influence of the elder? Can you name any spree killer that you do not think was mentally ill?

  58. says

    —- unless you mean expecting women to demonstrate more moral agency than a little child is misogyny, of course?—

    But then, I’m not surprised that you support a voice for men, being that you are clearly a misogynist yourself, which you’ve just proven by stating that women are just little children and you don’t feel they have any moral agency.

    Paul Elam’s own words repeatedly prove he is a misogynist of the worst kind. That you don’t see it says a great deal about you, none of it good. http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2013/10/18/paul-elam-of-a-voice-for-men-in-his-own-words/

    I have ideas about women who spend evenings in bars hustling men for drinks, playing on their sexual desires … And the women who drink and make out, doing everything short of sex with men all evening, and then go to his apartment at 2:00 a.m.. Sometimes both of these women end up being the “victims” of rape.

    But are these women asking to get raped?

    In the most severe and emphatic terms possible the answer is NO, THEY ARE NOT ASKING TO GET RAPED.

    They are freaking begging for it.

    Damn near demanding it.

    And all the outraged PC demands to get huffy and point out how nothing justifies or excuses rape won’t change the fact that there are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.

    That is Paul Elam. Those are his words. That is the man to whom you just linked me. That is the man behind AVFM.

    You claim AVFM isn’t misogynistic. You are flat out lying.

  59. says

    To give you credit Ally I do not see you as trying to deny or downplay misogyny at all, and would be interested in why some might think you are. There is some knee-jerk reaction to people mentioning a need to consider all elements to the killers motives and I do respect being open to those elements.

    But I also at least want to understand the sensitivity even if it was misdirected in your case. I would guess that this person is reacting to a large number of people trying to make them stop looking at misogyny, because that is an actual tactic being used by people that just don’t like the word and the attached concept. It’s an easy connection for people to wave at, but in the end all assertions of fact or need to change the subject to particular other causes need some evidential support. People are jumping the gun as a means of strategy in social warfare.

    More generally, I have been taking the position of being willing to consider mental illness a possibility. But until evidence for that possibility arrives, I’m going to keep looking at what we already have in front of us (the misogyny, the anti-PUA angle suggesting men-hatred stemming from problems that previously led to woman-hate). I am happy to follow the logic that the killers motives were rooted in his hatred of women, and his hatred of men stemmed from his problems that led to his hatred of women. And until evidence arrives I am happy to think that he was normal in all other respects. Other options are possible, but not all other options are reasonable.

  60. marduk says

    OT but in reply to above:

    From @Telegraph to @MetroUK to @5WrightStuff to @LADBible to @BuzzFeed, everyone’s talking about #ViolenceIsViolence https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3PgH86OyEM

    The Telegraph, The Times, The Daily Mail, The Independent… anyone notice who is missing?

    Seriously, when are you shipping water to the bloody Daily Mail (not mention ‘Lad Bible’) on coverage of liberal social affairs issues, there are questions to be asked as to policy surely.

  61. Paul says

    @marduk

    The only decent article i’ve read in the Guardian about domestic violence from the perpsective of men as victims appeared about three years ago and was written by Nicola Graham-Kevan.You can read it in the following link.Since then the primary focus in the Guardian has firmly been on women and children as victims at the hands of abusive men.And some feminists have got away with writing that dv is gendered because 95% of victims are women which clearly isn’t the case.Whilst the few men who’ve mentioned it seem to bend over backwards not to offend the Guardianista sisterhood.

    No-one in their right mind would seek to detract from the experiences of women at the hands of abusive men.Nevertheless we can only speculate as to why the Guardian clearly doesn’t want to look at the problem of domestic violence in its entirety.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jun/07/feminism-domestic-violence-men

  62. Paul says

    as to why the Guardian clearly doesn’t want

    That should have read ”..as to why the Guardian is clearly reluctant…”

  63. Chaos-Engineer says

    We could do stories demonstrating such double standards every day of the week. Why is the patriarchy treating women so leniently and men so harshly?

    The saying, “the plural of anecdote is not data” applies here.

    And of course they’re not even anecdotes. They’re from the “Daily Mail” and some random MRA site, which makes them little more than gossip. There might be some facts buried somewhere in the stories, but we can’t assume that any particular sentence in either of them is true.

    And of course white-collar crimes like embezzlement are always punished less severely than violent crimes like assault. (There’s some logic in this; a violent criminal is a continuing danger to the community in a way that an embezzler-with-no-opportunity-to-embezzle isn’t. And it’s easier to pay restitution if you’re not in jail.)

    And at this point it’s hardly worth pointing out, but the embezzlement story gives the actual sentence after judgement, and the assault story gives the maximum potential sentence. So it doesn’t make sense to compare the two numbers directly.

    This is really a good example of what’s gone wrong with the MRA. It’s gotten itself into this toxic mindset where gossip is valued over facts, petulance is valued over logic, and sulking is valued over introspection.

  64. Paul Inman says

    To be fair, Glosswitch is a typical pro-feminist idiot. She’s not as funny as her blog “about” would have you believe, she harps on a lot about mental disorders past and present, sees misogyny everywhere and in everything and blames patriarchy for pretty much all of her ills. I’d say she’s destined for a miserable life and if she’s criticising you then you’re probably doing something right.

  65. says

    —-Dr Nicola Graham-Kevan is a remarkable woman. She isn’t afraid, for example, to say that in most cases of one-directional domestic violence, women are the perpetrators, and men the victims. Her presentation at the last Mankind Initiative conference on male victims of domestic violence:—

    Which is why the vast majority of domestic murders are men being killed by women, right?

    Oh… no… wait…nope.

  66. Jacob Schmidt says

    You wrote “Inaccurately calling Rodger an MRA simply allows actual MRAs to dissociate themselves from him, and lets them dodge their culpability in their shared misogyny.” which indicates collective culpability on the part of the mrm.

    For misogyny. Culpability for misogyny. The MRM share culpability for misogyny.

    Christ on a cracker, this isn’t hard.

  67. Pitchguest says

    WithinThisMind –

    Yes, yes. You love echo chambers. You don’t like dissent. Fuck nuance. Now how about if you actually made an argument instead of spouting ideological, dogmatic bullshit?

  68. Mr Supertypo says

    ” Which is why the vast majority of domestic murders are men being killed by women, right?

    Oh… no… wait…nope. ”

    but if we are talking about violent women and abuse what has the so-called vast majority blabla to do with anything? If we are talking about male victims by females, then we should not deviate from the topic, the vast majority talk is OT, so excuse my language and my vulgar way of expressing my self…but its bullshit.. Just like the majority of the comments in this topic.

    A moron wrote a blog entry on Ally based on a lie. Now there are two things either that person is not so bright as he/she would appear or its flat out a liar. If its the former…oh well lots human pity and love. If its the last well, its hardly surprising. Some people approach this topic with fanaticism, either you are with us or against us, and approaching this subject from another perspective is seen as becoming one with the enemy. Everything is black and white like old movies, newspapers and zebras. Welcome to the zebra world.

    In reality nuances, exceptions and mistakes happens. And there is nothing nobody can do about it beside paying attention and being honest. Everything else is a fail and a vaste of time.

  69. gjenganger says

    @Brony 64

    until evidence for that possibility arrives, I’m going to keep looking at what we already have in front of us (the misogyny, the anti-PUA angle suggesting men-hatred stemming from problems that previously led to woman-hate). I am happy to follow the logic that the killers motives were rooted in his hatred of women, and his hatred of men stemmed from his problems that led to his hatred of women

    I completely agree – but then that does look pretty obvious.

    The problem is that ‘misogyny’ is a very widely applied term. I am one, by some definitions, because I am somewhat antifeminist. For people who already think that all their political opponents are ‘misogynist’, it is very tempting to argue ‘Rodgers was a misogynist and an evil murderer, my opponents are also misogynists, therefore they are all evil murderers at heart’. People who are routinely called ‘misogynist’, myself included, take some exception to that logic.

    It is not reasonable to use Rodgers to deligitimize the entire manoshpere, anymore than it was reasonable to use the Baader-Meinhof gang to deligitimize socialism. It is reasonable to ask what actions might be specifically encouraging or condoning violence, and some specific sites or people might be in for a warning. Personally I am not necessarily shocked by revenge fantasies, but I would propose keeping them off the debating sites and limiting them to alt.sex.stories, where they are not mistaken for political programs. Other people will have stronger demands, but wherever you draw the line it cannot include the entire antifeminist sphere.

  70. says

    —-Other people will have stronger demands, but wherever you draw the line it cannot include the entire antifeminist sphere.—-

    Yes, it can. Wherever the line is drawn, it definitely needs to include the entire antifeminist sphere. Why? Because antifeminism is toxic masculinity.

    1 in 4 women are raped due to entitled toxic masculinity. Men are raped and can’t get help for it due to toxic masculinity.

    And here you are, saying ‘well, golly gee, maybe we should treat the folks shitting toxic masculinity everywhere with nuance instead of, you know, calling them on their shit.’

  71. Danny Gibbs says

    In other words, the point about whether or not he is an MRA is not me trying to get them off the hook, but the exact opposite. Inaccurately calling Rodger an MRA simply allows actual MRAs to dissociate themselves from him, and lets them dodge their culpability in their shared misogyny. That was my whole bloody point there, and I don’t think I explained it too be clumsily to be understood.
    I’m so glad you acknowledge that it is inaccurate. Doing so is nothing more than an attempt at either trying to paint all MRAs out to be the same and/or an attempt at making all MRAs answer for the actions of the few.

  72. carnation says

    @ Gjganger

    “The problem is that ‘misogyny’ is a very widely applied term. I am one, by some definitions, because I am somewhat antifeminist.”

    I have seen this argument elsewhere – it is pathetic. The definition of misogny is very clear, those who wrongly apply it to you should be ridiculed. Buying into the concept that it’s “a widely applied term” allows actual misogynists (almost all MRAs) to idiotically attempt to reclaim the term.

    Revenge fantasies constitue a very large part of MRA blogs (blogs make up the entire MRA “movement”).

    “It is not reasonable to use Rodgers to deligitimize the entire manoshpere”

    Not very many people are, actually. The crass misogny so obvious in every section of the manosphere is the reason it isn’t “legitimate”. It’s not like the manosphere was taken seriously or had any respect (outside of the tiny ghetto it resides in) before Elliot Rodger.

    Elliot Rodger was a misogynist. The manosphere is populated and defined by misogynists. That’s indisputable.

  73. carnation says

    @ Danny Gibbs

    I think the point is that Rodger was a misognist (albeit a more extreme and active one) driven by the same bitterness, solipsism and prejudice as those as the misogynists within the manosphere.

    Was he an MRA? Define what an MRA is? Someone that reads MRA blogs? There’s no evidence to suggest he was that, no.

  74. gjenganger says

    @WithinThisMind
    You sound like a lot of MRAs. Their list of grievances is slightly different, and they blame misandry or feminism instead of toxic masculinity, but the debating style is the same. Personally I prefer talking to people, giving each other some space, trying to agree on something. But, as you remind me, not everybody is willing to accept this option.

  75. carnation says

    @ WithinThisMind

    I don’t agree at all that anti-feminism is toxic masculinity. That’s self-serving.

    Anti-feminists aren’t necessarily misognists or even sexists (though of course many are).

    Toxic masculinity is damaging to the male – the impossibly high standards, the emotional suppression and the stoicism. Entitlement is part of it, but self-oppression is the most damaging part (and, of course, the vast majority of male identities aren’t toxic at all).

  76. gjenganger says

    @Carnation 80
    The original definition of ‘misogynist’ is clear. It is somebody with a pathological hatred of women as such, rooted in his own sick mind. Rodgers clearly qualifies. It is widely applied to anyone, insane or not, who is against feminist goals, or feminists themselves. Basically people prefer not to allow that you can be against their core values without being driven by insane hatred. I disagree.

    Rodgers was not only a misogynist, but a mass murderer. The manosphere may be full of misogynists, but it is not full of mass murderers. By refusing to make a distinction, you are saying that the entire manosphere is no better than Rodgers. Again, I disagree.

  77. carnation says

    @ Mike Buchanan

    “The man behind that website is evidently David Futrelle, universally regard with contempt by mainstream MHRAs. One of many AVfM pieces touching on what he does:”

    Mike, saying that AVfM hold somebody in contempt will enhance that person’s standing with anyone who is familiar with AVfM (who isn’t an MRA). You seriously need to stop linking to AVvfM as if it’s a credible resource. It makes you look really, really, really stupid. I say this because, against my natural instincts, Iretain a degree of affection for you.

    “I’ve invited plenty of people to do this, and none have ever told me they found the site misogynistic”
    The publisher of the blog you are commenting on think it’s misogynistic. Anti-feminists on this thread have described it as “offensive” and “clickbait” – you, and some other self-identified MRAs, continue to promote it as if it’s the Great Truth – it isn’t. I refuse to believe that you don’t understand this on some level.

    “– unless you mean expecting women to demonstrate more moral agency than a little child is misogyny, of course?””

    Excellent point. If you accept that society doesn’t already expect women to demonstrate more moral agency than a child. Which, it appears, you do. You do, Mike, some MRAs do. The vast majority of people would think you’re a fool for believing that.

    Infantalising women is pure sexism.

    I’m just trying to help you, Mike.

  78. carnation says

    @ Gjganger

    But who is refusing to make a distinction? I’m not. Ally isn’t. David Futrelle isn’t. Jessica Valenti isn’t.

    So who is?

  79. gjenganger says

    @Carnation 80

    Anti-feminists aren’t necessarily misognists or even sexists (though of course many are).

    Indeed, but they are often accused of being so. Regrettably I think we are already at the point where ‘misogynist’ needs to be reclaimed. Myself I happily accept the labels ‘misogynist’, ‘bigot’, ‘heteronormative’, and I expect to get more merit badges in the future. To some extent I am reaching out – there have been complaints about ‘the misogynists on this thread’ where I have been active, but I have never been accused by name. But you get so many silly discussions on this. Someone is accused of being a misogynist, indignantly denies it, and people waste their time to argue about the definition of ‘misogynist; and whether the label applies. ‘Misogynist’ is so widely misused, IMHO, that there really is no point in keeping it to its original definition. Better just to accept that it is a general insult, and move on with the debate.

  80. gjenganger says

    @Carnation 86
    You are not, Ally is not.

    David Futrelle I do not know, but his main activity seems to be arguing against MRA sites. If he was trying to come up with something useful I would check him out, but as it is I will leave them to their spats.

    Jessica Valenti? Well, on this topic she said “The truth is that there is no such thing as a lone misogynist – they are created by our culture, and by communities that tells them that their hatred is both commonplace and justified.“. In other words, it is not Rodgers we should blame, it is not any specific influences on him we should blame, it is some vague, cultural miasma that she prefers not to define but that conveniently includes most of her political opponents. For the rest I tend to avoid her. She is good at being sarcastic and confirming the beliefs of people who share her echo chamber, but she seems neither sincere nor original. She is not worth arguing against – unlike you.

  81. carnation says

    @ Gjganger

    No, no, no… You are missing the big picture. You doing that (and I don’t accept the problem is anywhere near as widespread or acute as you claim) allows actual misogynists to hide.

    You are allowing a paranoid myth to lump you in with Elam

  82. carnation says

    @ Gjganger

    I don’t accept your analysis of Valenti – I think it comes from the same place that causes you to view the word misogony in the way that you do.

    She is not “refusing to make a distinction”, like we talked about.

    MRA’s loathing of Valenti is, I think, inspired by her looks and success, moreso than her politics.

  83. says

    @carnation #80

    “Elliot Rodger was a misogynist.”

    Most of the people he killed were men. Does this make him a misandrist rather than a misogynist?

    “The manosphere is populated and defined by misogynists. That’s indisputable.”

    On the contrary. it’s not only disputable, it’s plain wrong. (Just as it would be wrong for me to say that the most hate-driven radical feminist websites ‘defined’ feminism. You seem to regard a refusal to be deferential towards women, regardless of what they do or say, as evidence of misogyny. I call it expecting women to act as adults, with the same moral agency as men. Now that would make a change.

  84. gjenganger says

    @Mike Buchanan 91
    I am against using a word like ‘misogynist’ except in the most narrow sense. It matters whether MRAs (or anybody else) are reasonable, sane and make sense, not what label they go under, and labels like ‘misogynist’ are too often used as shorthand for ‘crazy, wrong, not worth listening to ever’. But Rodger is a misogynist, in the classical sense that he has a pathological, irrational hatred for women. That is his mental state, as proved by his writings, and how many men, women or little dogs he kills does not really make a difference.

    I am with you in defending the manosphere in general against being branded as just a bunch of miosogynists, but trying to defend Rodger as well is likely to be counterproductive, and actually looks rather weird.

  85. says

    Gjenganger, thank you. I’m certainly not trying to defend Rodger, nothing could be further from my mind. He wrote plenty of stuff about hating men too – even saying he wanted to be the sole man left alive in the world, because THEN he’d get some sex – but as always the mainstream media’s focus is on women. I honestly don’t think I’ve ever heard the word ”misandry’ used in the mainstream media. I repeat my point that women who see misogyny everywhere are projecting their own misandry on men.

    At lunchtime I was in a panel discussion about sexism on London Live TV (it will be our YYT channel in a day or two). The host was a women – Claudia-Liza Armah, very professional – and the two other panellists were women, one a ‘Guardian’ journo, Daisy Buchanan (no relation) and Dina Rickman of ‘i’ and HuffPo. I made my old point about British men and boys being disadvantaged in 20 areas today, women and girls in none, and invited them to come up with just one area. Ms Rickman came up with the gender pay gap, which anyone outside the leftie media echo chamber knows is accounted for by the different choices men and women make. So, a discussion about sexism hosted by a woman, and two of the three panellists women. Maybe just a tad… what’s the word?…sexist?

  86. gjenganger says

    @Mike 93

    From what I have seen (I have not studied his outpourings) he had a specific and visceral loathing of women, based on his sexual frustrations. His loathing of everybody else seems a secondary consequence, so ‘misogynist’ seems more accurate than just ‘misanthropist’, even if it was not the whole story.

    As for your ’20 areas where men are disadvantaged’ it is off topic and it is rather crass of you to keep bringing it up. What would you say about a feminist who used this particular thread as an opportunity to complain about the glass ceiling or FGM?

  87. says

    Gjenganger, a good point about going OT, I’ll try to stop doing so.

    “What would you say about a feminist who used this particular thread as an opportunity to complain about the glass ceiling or FGM?”

    I’d be DELIGHTED if a feminist did that. The glass ceiling is a baseless conspiracy theory, so I’d recommend she read ‘The Glass Ceiling Delusion’. Then I’d remind her FGM is illegal across (I think) the developed world, while MGM is carried out daily in ‘developed’ countries, and the political classed don’t give a damn. I understand there’s no legislation (in the UK at least) explicitly permitting MGM to be carried out on anything other than health grounds. It’s an astonishing example of male disposability.

  88. 123454321 says

    “I repeat my point that women who see misogyny everywhere are projecting their own misandry on men.”

    The single most pertinent comment on this thread so far. I think it’s an absolute disgrace that anyone could label MRAs as 99% misogynist . What a joke. From what I have read on the internet most men are simply fed up of the double standards and lack of compassion felt for men’s issues. They have no hatred for women and certainly wouldn’t be seen within a million miles of scumbags like Rodgers.

    It’s simply shaming tactics again, that’s all.

  89. Danny Gibbs says

    81.
    I think the point is that Rodger was a misognist (albeit a more extreme and active one) driven by the same bitterness, solipsism and prejudice as those as the misogynists within the manosphere.
    Oh yeah there are similar points however instead of just pointing out the similarities this case is being used to outright label him MRA.

    This happened when Anders Breviek went on his rampage.

    This happened when George Sodini went on his rampage.

    If the point is just that there are similar ideas when why force the labeling and identification?

    But at the same time there are MRAs that write stuff like this:
    http://dannyscorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/2014/05/im-sorry-elliot.html

    But for some reason there isn’t a rush to declare that MRAs think like this….

  90. Copyleft says

    Rodger’s primary online gender activity was “PUA Hate.”
    Feminists universally loathe the PUA community.
    Therefore, Rodger was a feminist.

    Now, does that syllogism make sense? No, and neither do the elaborate and desperate attempts to turn Rodger into an MRA.

  91. says

    Copyleft

    Now, does that syllogism make sense? No, and neither do the elaborate and desperate attempts to turn Rodger into an MRA.

    I agree, but would not describe these attempts as elaborate. They are mostly straight up lies.

  92. Jacob Schmidt says

    Rodger’s primary online gender activity was “PUA Hate.”
    Feminists universally loathe the PUA community.
    Therefore, Rodger was a feminist.

    Now, does that syllogism make sense? No, and neither do the elaborate and desperate attempts to turn Rodger into an MRA.

    This is easily my favourite example of damning with faint praise.* If I could put it into a sig, I would.

    *Technically breaks the form, but I don’t know of a term that denotes the same idea, replacing “defense” with “praise.” Close enough for me in any case.

  93. says

    Schmidt

    his is easily my favourite example of damning with faint praise.* If I could put it into a sig, I would.

    I do not understand this comment. The idiom “damning with faint praise” means to give a compliment so feeble that it is actually an insult. Replacing this with defense would mean something like defending someone so bad that you are not defending them? How does this apply to the comment by copyleft?

  94. abear says

    If I were as intellectually dishonest as the radfem and social justice dingbats I could easily “prove” that Elliot Rodger got all his misanthropic ideas from feminism.
    For example, this quote from feminist Witchwind os shockingly similar to the things Rodger wrote in his manifesto:

    Men, homo rapiens, you scum, you filth. There is no word to describe the extent of your evil, you are pure evil, pure lechery. I hate you, how I hate you. In the 250,000 years of your rotten, defunct existence, you have managed to kill 5 million years of life on earth.

    Rodger loved his grandmothers and his mother, had no hostility to his sister, yet resented his father and planned to murder his little brother. He ended up killing more men than women, obviously because of the hateful propaganda constantly spewed by feminists.

    Seriously though, it is sad to see all the attempts to pigeonhole Rodger’s tragic behavior with people’s pet politico-sexual dogma and saddest of all to see people that likely consider themselves “progressive” engage in as bigoted and hateful broadbrushing as the racists and fascists do.
    This type of nastiness and stupidity is a worse enemy to progressive causes than any “patriarch”, “misogynist”, or “fascist” could ever hope to be.

  95. Lucy says

    Mike Buchanan

    “How has it escaped people’s attention that most of the people killed in this case – as in most cases – were men? You might as usefully say misandry kills because both men and women regard men as inherently disposable,”

    Yeah and most of the people killed by Breivik were white and non-Muslim so I guess that means they’re inherently disposable and also most likely that he wasn’t really a racist or an Islamaphobe.

    “Couldn’t disagree more. They’re trying to create an atmosphere in which women are held accountable as adults for their actions and inactions – you know, the way men have always been. ”

    Come on now Mike, you know very well men haven’t always been held accountable as adults for their actions and inactions. There was that old unaccountable for marital rape thing that carried on until 1991. And the old unaccountable adultery thing that carried on until 1923. And the old free pass to act like unaccountable, perpetually juvenile anti social pains in the ass thing that carried on until at least last Saturday. And that talking total dishonest lying bollocks thing that carried on until this evening. Here’s your chance to hit me with your adult accountability credentials: I’m giving you some, accept it and give some to your friends.

  96. Lucy says

    Mike Buchanan

    “1. A 40-year-old female bank worker stole over £30,000 from vulnerable elderly customers (one had Alzheimer’s, another was blind) and walked free from court http://j4mb.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=6293&action=edit

    2. A drunk groom-to-be slapped an air hostesses’ backside and now faces a jail sentence http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2639566/Groom-returning-stag-faces-jail-slapping-air-hostess-bottom-Ryanair-flight.html

    We could do stories demonstrating such double standards every day of the week.

    Indeed we could:
    A drinker who bottled man walks free from court:
    http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/crime/11215762.Drinker_who_bottled_man_walks_free_from_court/

    Gang members walk free from court after leaving man for dead:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9022314/Gang-members-walk-free-from-court-after-leaving-man-for-dead.html

    Stretford shopkeeper walks free from court after sexually assaulting teenager:
    http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/stretford-shopkeeper-sardar-khan-walks-7133574

    Man walks free from court after attacking ex and trashing her home:
    http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/regional/west_midlands/11170284.Man_walks_free_from_court_despite_attacking_ex_and_trashing_her_Brierley_Hill_home/

    —–

    “Why is the patriarchy treating women so leniently and men so harshly?””

    Do you mind googling the rest? My “m”, “a”, “n”, “w”, “a”, “l”, “k”, “s”, “f”, “r”, “o”, “c”, “u” and “t” keys are getting hard to read, the text is rubbing off.

  97. Lucy says

    Mike Buchanan

    Re. Double standards in sentencing

    To demonstrate a double standard you really ought to find two examples of the same thing rather than an example of two completely different things: fraud and sexual assault. That’s not called a double standard, that’s what’s known as two standards.

    The “double standard” thing can be confusing when one’s brain is set to “crassly, inappropriately, selfishly, repulsively talk about men being the victims of women (sort of, in a really convoluted way) after a man has shot women”, mode I’ll grant you.

    Think of the sentencing system as being a bit like the gender pay gap where people are paid different amounts for doing different types of jobs, one type of job having higher value than the other. (Completely legitimately, arrived at via a process of objective, unbiased meritocratic assessment by a neutral 3rd party called er. men). Except imagine that as a system where there actually is a proven, objective, unbiased system in place.

    —–

    Re. “Why is the patriarchy treating women so leniently and men so harshly?””

    Google “man walks free from court” to find loads of examples of a single standard. Men being treated leniently, ie. being unaccountable for tax avoidance, fraud, assault, sexual assault, attempted murder, vandalism, you name it.

    Or Google, “How the patriarchy can offer patronage without patronising in two easy lessons”.

  98. nejishiki says

    Abear #102:
    Misogyny and misandry do not simply sum to to ‘Misanthropy;’ a misanthrope hates all of humanity for roughly the same reasons. A sexist like Roger hates men for specific reasons, and women for other specific reasons. The distinctions he made between humanity, the various lies and stereotypes he allowed himself to act by, were a defining part of his ideology, which was sexist at its core. The exact content of his ideology is important, not just a headcount of who he hated. It is also not particularly relevant that he didn’t hate all women (or men). Plenty of racists will tell you about that one black friend they have, and they’re still racists.

  99. Iamcuriousblue says

    Carnation @85 & @86

    I’m pretty far from a denizen of the “manosphere”, but I think the fact that David Futrelle is very much a bad actor here, and I take with a grain of salt the claims made by him and Manboobz/WHTM. There is very much a failure to make distinctions here – he basically holds that anybody anywhere on the “manosphere” spectrum belongs the KKK of gender politics. His twisting of Warren Farrell’s writing to make it out to be extremist misogyny is borderline defamatory. (And, note – I too have issues with Farrell’s writing, but they’re much the same criticisms I have of a lot of mainstream writing on gender, such as that of Farrell’s sometimes-collaborator, John Gray.) And Futrelle’s open cheering-on of censorious and borderline-violent campus radical feminist groups and their tactics to shut down MRA groups by less-than-ethical means is pretty disgusting. In fact, if I was uncharitable as Futrelle was about those he critiques, I could make a case that WHTM is a site that encourages violence against the targets of their animus.

    Similarly, using the same argument about vile, toxic gender politics played out in the comments section of the MRA blogs, one could make a similar case for the commentariat at WHTM. The fact that the latter carries a tone of extreme cattiness rather than machismo doesn’t make it any less nasty.

    Similarly, I think that Jessica Valenti, Amanda Marcotte, and Jaclyn Friedman similarly fail to made distinctions and lump everybody in with the most violent extreme. Contrast that with these same people immediately downplaying of the role of TERF/SWERF types within feminism, in spite of the fact that this subset is still going strong and is in fact the dominant strain of feminism in some countries (notably the UK, and reflected in ‘respectable’ publications like The Guardian and New Statesman).

    If you want to have an honest discussion of gender politics, you need to step back and look at the spectrum of masculism and feminism, note what the extremes are, and where the leakage between the extremes and the mainstream is taking place. I’m all for that discussion, which right now is lost under a junkheap of partisan accusations.

  100. Iamcuriousblue says

    sheaf @1

    “I agree with Glosswitch on one thing: There is little nuance here. There is no credible connection between Rodgers and the MRM, and any attempt to do so I have seen was full of obvious lies and misrepresentations.”

    There has been painting with an incredibly broad brush. But it is worth noting that this is the *second* time, someone associated with the TFL/Incel end of the manosphere has gone on a spree killing, the first being George Sodini. Like “pro-ana” sites, I don’t get behind the moral panic that seeks to purge these spaces from the internet, which would be an effort as futile as it is misguided. But I don’t think it’s too much to suggest that these are sites that are attracting people with some serious issues and not exactly encouraging them in the best direction.

  101. Iamcuriousblue says

    I’m noticing that Glosswatch, who’s post inspired Ally’s response, has taken up her drawbridge and fled behind privacy wall. Not sure what drover her to do that. In any event, Glosswatch’s post is Google cached here

    http://goo.gl/LtVmJQ

  102. abear says

    @106 nejishiki writes

    Misogyny and misandry do not simply sum to to ‘Misanthropy;’ a misanthrope hates all of humanity for roughly the same reasons. A sexist like Roger hates men for specific reasons, and women for other specific reasons.

    Someone that hates people in general is a misanthrope, regardless of whether they hate different people for different reasons. You don’t get to change the definitions of words to prop up your argument.
    Did he hate women? Hell yes! And even slightly more than he hated other males but if you want to go to the effort of reading his manifesto, or at least substantial part of it you may find he hated pretty much everybody. He is described as a narcissist, in the end I think he despised himself more than anyone else.
    Just saying this is all about sexism is really simplistic, and trying to pretend that Rodger’s mental health is irrelevant is ignoring reality.

  103. says

    Iamcuriousblue

    There has been painting with an incredibly broad brush. But it is worth noting that this is the *second* time, someone associated with the TFL/Incel end of the manosphere has gone on a spree killing, the first being George Sodini.

    Neither is there evidence that Rogers identified with either of these groups (TFL or Incel). But even if he did: The the vast majority of MRAs have diametrically opposed views (to TFL or Incel). They mostly identify as libertarian/ liberals who are egalitarian and disagree with some mainstream feminist narratives and believe that gender issues facing men are systematically underaddressed by the political mainstream (at least the last view I share). Trying to conflate them with Rogers or TFL/Incel or even Sodini just smacks like the most deliberate asspull in history.

    Like “pro-ana” sites, I don’t get behind the moral panic that seeks to purge these spaces from the internet, which would be an effort as futile as it is misguided. But I don’t think it’s too much to suggest that these are sites that are attracting people with some serious issues and not exactly encouraging them in the best direction.

    Sure these pro-ana sites look like a pretty unhealthy place. But the behavior of several people (like e.g. Ally) would be to hold them collectively culpable for the actions of Rogers.

  104. Lucy says

    Mike Buchanan

    That ManKind domestic violence video seized on gleefully by who else but MRAs and the MRA tabloids is, to put it politely, completely disingenuous. Well to be honest, I think they’d have to be cleverer than they actually are for it to be disingenuous, what it is is dumb.

    Take some actors, put them in a completely convoluted, fake scenario and watch as the public react just as you might imagine people would to a convoluted, fake scenario that doesn’t ring true. For their next video they should stage should get some kids to stage a daring bank raid in broad daylight, get some women to sexually harass men in the street, get some white guy to dress up as Bin Laden and sit in one of those little aeroplanes you get outside shopping centres and see what social lessons can be drawn from the public’s bemused reaction.

  105. says

    @Lucy #112

    Your lack of compassion for men is startling but not surprising. I’ve just checked out the Mankind Initiatiive video again. In the space of just a few days it’s attracted 4.9 million views, almost 20,000 upvotes, 317 downvotes and 2,730 comments.It’s done that because it’s an excellent illustration of the double standard. When a woman is being hurt by a man, both men and women are concerned and intervene. When a woman is hurting a man, nobody intervenes, and both women and men find it funny.

    Which exactly are the ‘MRA tabloids’ to which you refer? The mainstream media globally gives NO exposure to MRAs, and virtually none to men’s issues. Indeed both Laura Bates and Caroline Criado-Perex individually attract more mainstream media coverage in the average month than the world’s MRAs have collectively for the past 30 years.

    As to your comments on differential in sentencing of the genders, of course sometimes men get off lightly. My point is that the frequency with which women get off lightly – or aren’t punished at all (e.g. they get a suspended sentence) – is FAR higher. The female bank worker who stole £30,000+ from customers (one with Alzheimers, one blind) was told by the (male) judge that the loss of her good name was punishment enough.

  106. carnation says

    @ IamCuriousBlue

    Your comments about David Futrelle are laughable. He provides links and citations for everything that he writes, including the full context of Farrell’s ridiculous collection of hysteria that provides the “intellectual core” of the wretched MRM.

    “If you want to have an honest discussion of gender politics, you need to step back and look at the spectrum of masculism and feminism”

    This, in common with Mile Buchanan’s constant exhortation to read AVfM and then “know” it’s not misogynistic ramblings and fantasy, is bewildering. I, and others like me, don’t approach this blog with a pro-feminist attitude, but with an anti-MRA (manosphere) attitude. Why? Because we are well versed in the “spectrum” of attitudes in the manosphere. Masculism, much like MGTOW, doesn’t really exist. A few blogs, a few commentators with Masculist in their handle, that’s literally it.

    Look at the most prominent British MRAs: Tom Martin and Mike Buchanan – both are so wrong so often (and in Martin’s case, in such attention seeking ways) that I’m surprised people don’t assume them covert enemies of the MRM (I don’t hold this view, I just think the calibre of person attracted to the MRM is very low).

    Whilst I appreciate that you’re well mannered and are attempting some form of magnanimity, please understand that those commenting about the MRM have made their own minds up, based on what they have read.

    To suggest critics of the manosphere has been manipulated by David Futrelle is absolutely ridiculous

    @ Lucy #105

    That is a point I have made repeatedly. It’s not even that these studies don’t exist, it’s that MRAs don’t attempt to have them carried out to prove their rationale for existing. Yet another reason they can’t and won’t be taken seriously by anyone of influence. This won’t stop their constant predictions of imminent “victory”, however.

  107. Lucy says

    “a. Ms Rickman came up with the gender pay gap, which anyone outside the leftie media echo chamber knows is accounted for by the different choices men and women make. ”

    Which anyone outside the MRA echo chamber knows is because of structural inequalities between men and women’s unpaid responsibilities. Unpaid because of structural inequalities. Responsibilities because of structural inequalities. And incidentally, in roles that are assigned pay rates in a system of structural inequality where typical male jobs are regarded as more skilled and senior and valuable than female ones, which are more often regarded as a vocation or for pin money. Do you imagine women have to compete with their men to take part-time work, close to home and drop out of their careers and pensions? Do you imagine nurses are paid less than tube drivers and plumbers because what they do is less tricky and responsible?

    And no it isn’t always, I know of several women in IT and engineering, who get lower daily contractural rates for doing exactly, exactly, the same jobs as male colleagues. In one case, me, when she was doing most of her male colleague’s job for him too because he was incompetent and she was covering for him. Because their male colleagues have a widespread, established system of nepotism and insider trading going on across different companies and agencies.

  108. Lucy says

    Sheaf

    “Yeah, it was fake because women do not act like that”

    Not in the street, in broad daylight, not like that they don’t.

    Whereas I’ve seen several examples of men doing that kind of thing to women in the street in the last few months. With minimal or no public intervention by the way.

    If they wanted to prove something genuine about the public perception of female on male violence, why don’t they interview people? Or show people some more realistic scenarios and then interview people? Or put hidden cameras somewhere where real violence is taking place with witnesses? These gender-swap circus tricks are ridiculous and misleading, their dangers compounded by the fact that their audience are known for two things: not being very bright, and being massive propaganda merchants.

  109. says

    Not in the street, in broad daylight, not like that they don’t.

    Categorically untrue. I have witessed cases of assault committed by women myself. Maybe stop geeralizing based on sexist preconceptions.

  110. says

    @Lucy #116

    As it happens, I was at the monthly meeting of the Patriarchy’s ‘Remuneration at Work’ sub-committee meeting when the matter of nurses’ pay was discussed. It was decided unanimously that nurses should be paid 30% less than plumbers. Someone then enquired about a potential problem – what if, attracted by the extra money, lots of women chose to become plumbers rather than nurses? There was uproar, and the man next to me was crying with laughter. It was some time before we could get onto the next matter, ensuring that men earned more than women for doing exactly the same work, despite women working longer hours and being more competent than their male colleagues.

  111. Lucy says

    Sheaf

    “Categorically untrue. I have witessed cases of assault committed by women [in the street, in broad daylight! like in this video] myself. Maybe stop geeralizing based on sexist preconceptions.”

    Everything happens somewhere once or twice. The public’s awkward, bemused reaction is because it’s unusual. And there’s the real lesson in the experiment.

  112. says

    Lucy @103:

    Yeah and most of the people killed by Breivik were white and non-Muslim so I guess that means they’re inherently disposable and also most likely that he wasn’t really a racist or an Islamaphobe.

    Now, where have I heard someone do exactly that? Feminist Hugo Schwyzer published an article stating that Anders Breivik was primarily an anti-feminist trying to kill feminists and offered up this argument:

    If Breivik were primarily anti-Muslim, he’d have targeted a mosque. He targeted a youth camp filled with non-Muslim young progressive members of a party that is legendary for its role in fighting for feminism.

    Not only did he erase

  113. says

    The last sentence should have read:
    He also erased those muslim youth who actually were killed and injured on Utøya.

  114. Lucy says

    Mike Buchanan

    “As it happens, I was at the monthly meeting of the Patriarchy’s ‘Remuneration at Work’ sub-committee meeting when the matter of nurses’ pay was discussed. It was decided unanimously that nurses should be paid 30% less than plumbers. Someone then enquired about a potential problem – what if, attracted by the extra money, lots of women chose to become plumbers rather than nurses? There was uproar, and the man next to me was crying with laughter. It was some time before we could get onto the next matter, ensuring that men earned more than women for doing exactly the same work, despite women working longer hours and being more competent than their male colleagues.”

    Because this is exactly how structural inequality works.

    I’m just nipping off to the Feminazis’ “Deprive Fathers of Custody of their Kids, family-court sub-committee”. We discussed how successful we’d been so far in infiltrating the court system and undermining the ancient principles of justice in England and Wales in order to consistently hand down biased judgements. And here’s the really clever part – without lawyers or judges or parliament noticing. Our next project is to infiltrate company boardrooms so that we can organise companies around women’s rather than men’s parenting needs. Although there was consternation at that idea because everyone knows board rooms operate a much tighter ship than the court system when it comes to judging the candidates put before them.

  115. says

    Lucy @112:

    That ManKind domestic violence video seized on gleefully by who else but MRAs and the MRA tabloids is, to put it politely, completely disingenuous. Well to be honest, I think they’d have to be cleverer than they actually are for it to be disingenuous, what it is is dumb.

    Take some actors, put them in a completely convoluted, fake scenario and watch as the public react just as you might imagine people would to a convoluted, fake scenario that doesn’t ring true. For their next video they should stage should get some kids to stage a daring bank raid in broad daylight, get some women to sexually harass men in the street, get some white guy to dress up as Bin Laden and sit in one of those little aeroplanes you get outside shopping centres and see what social lessons can be drawn from the public’s bemused reaction.

    I am not surprised that you’re attacking charities addressing male victims of DV nor that you’ve stooped down to compare female-on-male violence to absurdities as a white man dressing up as Bin LAden and sitting on a kiddie ride.

    Exactly that dismissive attitude contributes to male victims not coming forward and not seeking help.

  116. says

    Lucy, yes it was in the street, it was evening but the sun was still shining. A friend of mine got attacked by a women after an intense verbal exchange between the two. She crashed into him, he stumbled and she began kicking his face.

  117. Lucy says

    Tamen

    ‘”Yeah and most of the people killed by Breivik were white and non-Muslim so I guess that means they’re inherently disposable and also most likely that he wasn’t really a racist or an Islamaphobe.

    Now, where have I heard someone do exactly that? Feminist Hugo Schwyzer published an article stating that Anders Breivik was primarily an anti-feminist trying to kill feminists and offered up this argument:’

    He very well may have been anti-feminist. It does go with the territory of being hyper-masculine.

    But I’m not sure what your point is. My point is that choice of victims doesn’t necessarily simplistically reflect one’s ideology. Bully victims don’t always kill their bullies, but often innocent people who they feel either are like them or who they feel enabled them. Racist killers don’t always target the hated race, but instead the people they feel enable the hated race. And misogynists don’t always kill only women, but the men who enable those women. In most cases spree killings are a disorganised, panicked affair and killers kill anyone who happens to be caught in the cross fire.

    The most important factor in determining what Rodger’s ideology and motivation was, is what he said his ideology and motivation was. Definitely not what the ever-slippery misogynist hoard say it was.

  118. Lucy says

    Tamen

    “I am not surprised that you’re attacking charities addressing male victims of DV nor that you’ve stooped down to compare female-on-male violence to absurdities as a white man dressing up as Bin LAden and sitting on a kiddie ride.

    Exactly that dismissive attitude contributes to male victims not coming forward and not seeking help.”

    You mean you’re not surprised that you think I exactly match what you think I am? Amazing that.

  119. Lucy says

    Sheaf

    “Lucy, yes it was in the street, it was evening but the sun was still shining. A friend of mine got attacked by a women after an intense verbal exchange between the two. She crashed into him, he stumbled and she began kicking his face.”

    And a bystander intervened I assume?

  120. says

    Lucy, no noone intervened. I was relatively shocked and did not expect this to happen (as opposed to in confrontations with men, where I am typically on my guard). Please stop dishing out sexist preconceptions about what woman and men do. It honestly helps nobody.

  121. Lucy says

    Mike Buchanan

    “As to your comments on differential in sentencing of the genders, of course sometimes men get off lightly. My point is that the frequency with which women get off lightly – or aren’t punished at all (e.g. they get a suspended sentence) – is FAR higher. ”

    That sounds like a citation begging to be given,

  122. says

    Lucy, no I did not to my shame. He manage to cover his face with his arms after a few kicks. She gave another kick to the belly and stormed off.

  123. says

    That you are wrong about your generalization. I think some women assault men in public and I suspect that these assaults are probably not as rare as you make them out to be.

  124. Lucy says

    Sheaf

    You said you were shocked, and it was unexpected, that doesn’t sound like a reaction to something common does it?

    I think it proves that people don’t always react like you might expect them to, ever. But especially to things that are so rare and unusual that they shock us into inaction. If there had been a hidden camera, people might assume you thought violence against men was a trivial thing that didn’t require intervention.

    And this is in a non-convoluted, fake, unrepresentative scenario that wasn’t acted by paid fakers for political ends. Imagine what your reaction might have been in those circumstances.

    The main generalising that is going on is thousands of people assuming they know what’s going on in the heads of bystanders in this idiotic video, and generalising that on the basis of unfounded generalisations. It tells us next to nothing about public perceptions of female on male domestic violence. It tells is as much about it as a guy sitting in a kiddie ride tells us about public perceptions of religio-politically inspired plane hijacking.

  125. says

    @ Lucy

    “I think it proves that people don’t always react like you might expect them to, ever. But especially to things that are so rare and unusual that they shock us into inaction.”

    “Rare and unusual”? You have to be joking. It’s known that in most cases of one-directional domestic violence the perpetrators are women, and that only 4% of women report self-defence as their motivation. These are contained (along with much else that shows your analysis on violence between men and women to be woefully incorrect) in a presentation given last year by Dr Nicola Graham-Kevan to Mankind Initiative’s National Conference on Male Victims of Domestic Violence. Email me [email protected] if you’d like me to send you the file. I’m trying to put fewer links to my websites on Ally’s blog pieces.

  126. Lucy says

    Mike Buchanan

    http://fightingfeminism.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/121016-prison-sentence-inequality-uk-parliament.pdf

    The Rt Hon Philip Davies

    “This morning I was made aware of a debate in the House of Commons held last Tuesday, 16 October, on the topic of ‘Sentencing Female Offenders’. My thanks to James Williams for making me aware of the matter. In the debate Rt Hon Philip Davies (C, Shipley) delivered an outstanding critique of the anti-male and pro-female discrimination endemic in the sentencing of convicted criminals. The transcript of the debate is 14 pages long, and well worth reading from beginning to end.”

    A critique in which he doesn’t address the point raised repeatedly by his opponents in the debate that what differential sentencing there is is due to various mitigating circumstances such as family commitments and says that’s “for another day”. It’s just a rant.

  127. says

    Lucy

    You said you were shocked, and it was unexpected, that doesn’t sound like a reaction to something common does it?

    Neither male nor female assault is common. But society has prepared me for male one and not for female one.

  128. says

    @Lucy

    Philip Davies MP presented hard facts in a very calm manner, he very calmly disproved what the female MPs were saying, and you consider his contribution to the debate a ‘rant’? Wow. You’ve really lost the plot now.

  129. Lucy says

    Mike Buchanan

    ““Rare and unusual”? You have to be joking. It’s known that in most cases of one-directional domestic violence the perpetrators are women, and that only 4% of women report self-defence as their motivation. These are contained (along with much else that shows your analysis on violence between men and women to be woefully incorrect) in a presentation given last year by Dr Nicola Graham-Kevan to Mankind Initiative’s National Conference on Male Victims of Domestic Violence. Email me [email protected] if you’d like me to send you the file. I’m trying to put fewer links to my websites on Ally’s blog pieces.”

    I do wish people would read my comments before replying to them. I’m talking about scenarios like in the cartoon video.

  130. Lucy says

    Sheaf

    “Neither male nor female assault is common. But society has prepared me for male one and not for female one.”

    The reason you didn’t react was because you were shocked and confused. It wasn’t because you hadn’t had the appropriate political training, it was because you hadn’t had the appropriate limbic training, ie. self-defence. You didn’t prepare yourself!

    When you say society has prepared you for the male one, you mean you’ve been repeatedly exposed to the male one, from school, to the streets, to the news, to drama. The Feminist campaign against domestic violence may have played a small part in that preparation, but it’s unlikely to be the major one. And it’s more than counteracted by the MRA campaign against female-lead domestic violence, certainly if online comment boards are anything to go by.

  131. says

    Lucy

    The reason you didn’t react was because you were shocked and confused. It wasn’t because you hadn’t had the appropriate political training, it was because you hadn’t had the appropriate limbic training, ie. self-defence. You didn’t prepare yourself.

    Absolutely untrue. I have had self defense training for several years and acted properly in situations where men were the aggressor. Stop lying about me.

  132. Lucy says

    Mike Buchanan

    “Philip Davies MP presented hard facts in a very calm manner, he very calmly disproved what the female MPs were saying, and you consider his contribution to the debate a ‘rant’? Wow. You’ve really lost the plot now.”

    A debate in which you refuse to engage with the counter arguments is a rant. He didn’t disprove the central thrust of what the female MPs were saying, which was that the differential sentencing where it happened, may well reflect the differential family responsibilities female defendants have. He said what they were saying was “for another day”. That’s not discrimination, Mike, that’s women and men making different choices. Think if it like a glass ceiling. Glass bars if you will.

  133. Lucy says

    Sheaf

    “Absolutely untrue. I have had self defense training for several years and acted properly in situations where men were the aggressor. Stop lying about me.”

    And yet you were unprepared for a female aggressor.

    Sure blame society if you want to.

  134. says

    And yet you were unprepared for a female aggressor.

    That is exactly the poit, thanks for recognizing it!
    I do not think there ca be blame layed on either me nor society as I was a person in an unexected and unprepared situation nor is society an entity that can properly be blamed. Blame lies on the perperator of violence. But the fact that I was unprepared to deal with a female aggressor even though she physically would not have been a match for me suggests to me that other unprepared people would not be able as well. The video of Buchanan confirms this: No one intervenes.

  135. Lucy says

    Sheaf
    “That is exactly the poit, thanks for recognizing it!”

    Don’t worry, I recognised it ages ago, it’s not exactly an opaque point. None of us are strangers to the contention that men can’t bring themselves to be physical with women (rather confounded by the statistics on violence) and can’t get their heads around female violence (rather confounded by every single comment board on the Internet ever).

    —-

    “I do not think there ca be blame layed on either me nor society as I was a person in an unexected and unprepared situation nor is society an entity that can properly be blamed. Blame lies on the perperator of violence. But the fact that I was unprepared to deal with a female aggressor even though she physically would not have been a match for me suggests to me that other unprepared people would not be able as well. The video of Buchanan confirms this: No one intervenes.”

    She was an actress, not a perpetrator of violence. The only blame to be apportioned in that video are the ridiculous producers and script writers of it.

    Are you seriously trying to tell me that you didn’t intervene in the attack on your friend because she was female and this rareness either so discombobulated you that you were unable to compute it or some instinctive urge to do no harm kicked in that you didn’t know how to grab hold of a woman and stop her doing something violent? How come brothers manage to wrestle their sisters, school boys manage to fight with school girls, how do you think the police manage every day to grapple women to the ground and disable them by thumping them hard in the arm three times? How do the thousands of violent men manage it? Which self-defence classes are they going on?

    I think your excuses are bogus. I think you would have done exact’y the same thing if the attacker had been a man, and who knows maybe it was the right decision. But it was you, not society.

    As to why nobody else intervened, it would be far more informative if they had been asked. And no doubt most of them would say: because it was obviously a staged stunt by some dumb-ass woman hating group.

  136. says

    Are you seriously trying to tell me that you didn’t intervene in the attack on your friend because she was female and this rareness either so discombobulated you that you were unable to compute it or some instinctive urge to do no harm kicked in that you didn’t know how to grab hold of a woman and stop her doing something violent?

    My contention is that the situation shocked and confused me and I did ot react properly because of it. I would have been physically able to prevent it.

    She was an actress, not a perpetrator of violence. The only blame to be apportioned in that video are the ridiculous producers and script writers of it.

    I was obviously talking about the incidence where a woman assaulted a friend of mine. She was no actress.

    How come brothers manage to wrestle their sisters, school boys manage to fight with school girls, how do you think the police manage every day to grapple women to the ground and disable them by thumping them hard in the arm three times? How do the thousands of violent men manage it? Which self-defence classes are they going on?

    Your argument seems to be: Some men know to do it, therefore everyone knows to do that. This obviously logically fallacious.

    As to why nobody else intervened, it would be far more informative if they had been asked. And no doubt most of them would say: because it was obviously a staged stunt by some dumb-ass woman hating group.

    You mean just like whe my friend was assaulted? It was just a stunt by misogynists? Seriously, fuck you.

  137. carnation says

    @ Lucy
    @ Mike Buchanan

    Courts take into consideration, as they should, whether or not a convict is guardian of a child.

    This goes quite some way to explain the admittedly true discrepancy in sentencing between the sexes. It doesn’t fully explain it, and I believe that some purely sex based discrimination (against men) does exist. Unfortunately, because of the appalling low calibre of the self-styled advocates for men, this researched hasn’t been carried out or indeed called for.

    @ Lucy

    It’s useful to ask MRAs whether they want women punished more, or men punished less. Ask them if they want the same slightly elevated humanity shown to female prisoners to be shown to men, or if they just want more women in jail.

    I think we all know the answer.

    @ Sheaf

    You’re not living in the real world. The vast, vast majority of violence perpetrated against men is by one (or quite often more than one) man. Of, if we are being exact, youth. Most often of the same social and ethnic class. This is a consistent example of what toxic masculinity is. Most males are unprepared and unwilling participants in violence. Some commentors blame females for “encouraging” this by being attracted to violent males. It’s difficult to move beyond a narrative that fits your prejudices, I suppose.

  138. says

    Carnation,

    I never disputed that the majority of violence is committed by males. I therefore reject your false insinuation that I did. Nothing you said had anything to do with anythng I said. I think I say this in the interest of almost everyone on this blog: Learn to fucking read!

  139. says

    @ Lucy #144

    Women with ‘family responsibilities’ – especially young children – have long used their kids as ‘get out of jail free’ cards – or are you suggesting they forget they’re mothers when they commit their crimes? It’s cheaper for the state to not give women custodial sentences than finance someone to care for the kids while the woman is behind bars. In this and many other ways women cynically manipulate things to their advantage.

  140. carnation says

    @ Mike Buchanan

    “Women with ‘family responsibilities’ – especially young children – have long used their kids as ‘get out of jail free’ cards – or are you suggesting they forget they’re mothers when they commit their crimes? It’s cheaper for the state to not give women custodial sentences than finance someone to care for the kids while the woman is behind bars. In this and many other ways women cynically manipulate things to their advantage.”

    Interesting. Can’t wait to see your evidence for this?*

    Also, you just acknowledged that parents – not females- are shown more leniancy than males, which somewhat sinks your previous hypothesis.

    * Just to remind you, a link of an MRA blog isn’t evidence of anything other than your own solipsism and intellectual sloppiness.

  141. Lucy says

    Sheaf

    “My contention is that the situation shocked and confused me and I did ot react properly because of it. I would have been physically able to prevent it.”

    We’re going round in circles. The reason you were shocked and confused was because you weren’t prepared for it, because it is outside your normal experience. The reason it is outside your normal experience is because it is rare.

    “Your argument seems to be: Some men know to do it, therefore everyone knows to do that. This obviously logically fallacious.”

    Well a lot, not some.
    But it’s no more logically fallacious than saying, “I didn’t intervene, and some other people didn’t intervene in a fake scenario, therefore society doesn’t prepare men for female violence.”

    The point about children engaging in male on female violence illustrates that this is a learned response not an innate one. Learned because people get far less practise at it in everyday life. The point about the police is that you obviously weren’t going on very good self-defence courses if they didn’t address female violence.

    “You mean just like whe my friend was assaulted? It was just a stunt by misogynists? ”

    The video isn’t just like when your friend was assaulted. It’s vaguely like it.

    “Seriously, fuck you.”

    Well seriously fuck you too for stooping to blame the misandrist society because you didn’t have your friend’s back when he needed you. You might have convinced yourself and him that the reason was some kind of chivalric impulse, but you don’t convince me. I doubt you’ve convinced him either to be honest.

  142. Lucy says

    Mike Buchanan

    “Women with ‘family responsibilities’ – especially young children – have long used their kids as ‘get out of jail free’ cards – or are you suggesting they forget they’re mothers when they commit their crimes? ”

    Because criminals and drug addicts and controlled people are well-known for acting rationally and with forethought?

    ” it’s cheaper for the state to not give women custodial sentences than finance someone to care for the kids while the woman is behind bars. In this and many other ways women cynically manipulate things to their advantage.”

    How in the hell are women manipulating things? You’re going to need something more than your rank prejudice to convince me that this is what women attempt to do, let alone successfully do, cynically or otherwise.

    Why in the world would you want kids to be put in care?!? Though at least you admit their fathers aren’t an option.

  143. says

    @Lucy #147

    I keep thinking your assertions can’t get more ridiculous, but you keep proving me wrong. Even by your standards, this was something special:

    “As to why nobody else intervened, it would be far more informative if they had been asked. And no doubt most of them would say: because it was obviously a staged stunt by some dumb-ass woman hating group.”

    In the immortal words of John McEnroe, ‘You cannot be serious!’

    1. Mankind Initiative is not a ‘women hating group’, I assure you. The chairman, Mark Brooks, is very happily married. I’ve never heard one misogynous sentence leave his lips, even in private conversations.

    2. You must be living is a delusional bubble to think most people would have seen it as a ‘staged stunt’. The public response to it is precisely what we’d expect in a society where 40% of victims of DV are men, but fewer than 0.4% of refuge places are available for them..

    It looks like the views of the video will pass 5 million shortly, and almost 3,000 people have left comments. You should read some of them. It’s attracted 20,576 votes, of which 20,252 are upvotes, and just 324 downvotes – i.e. 98.4%. If that’s true generally of the 5 million viewers, then 4,920,000 understand the point being made and believe it to be of merit, while 80,000 either don’t understand the point or (more likely) get the point, but are so steeped in misandry they simply don’t care about men being physically assaulted by women.

  144. 123454321 says

    “It’s useful to ask MRAs whether they want women punished more, or men punished less. Ask them if they want the same slightly elevated humanity shown to female prisoners to be shown to men, or if they just want more women in jail.”

    What a ridiculous question to ask. MRAs simply request fairness with no double-standards or entitled privilege. You wouldn’t appreciate that, of course, as you’d lose more than you’d gain.

    Let me ask YOU a question, Carnation, which sort of resonates along the same lines as your question. Take THE single most influential and dominant behavioural development tool there is out there – TV. I’ve noticed that the ratio of women beating on men (with no consequence for the woman) compared with men beating on women is A VERY LARGE NUMBER:1 Seriously, I lost count while I watched pre-watershed TV.

    Question: Do you think OFCOM should address the double standard at all? If so, should they impose rules to increase the number of men beating on women or reduce the number of women beating on men?

    Now do you see how absurd and ridiculously dumb your question is?

  145. 123454321 says

    The comments on that video speak volumes. Definitely worth a read for people like Lucy, hopefully to clear up their indoctrinated delusions. It’s beyond me how anyone could simply sweep this stuff under the carpet and cast that video off as an unrealistic, staged stunt. Completely beyond me. Something needs to be done about people’s perception of gender violence and videos like these are reaching out to millions and changing the way they think – for the better, of course.

  146. carnation says

    @ 123454321

    More delusional ramblings. Let’s easily dismiss them, shall we?

    “What a ridiculous question to ask. MRAs simply request fairness with no double-standards or entitled privilege. You wouldn’t appreciate that, of course, as you’d lose more than you’d gain.”

    What, exactly would I lose? What do I have to lose? Who would gain what? You’re literally rambling.

    Idiotic. MRAs use non-research to justify ridiculous complaints, with no reference to a desired outcome. You are incapable of understanding this as your next quote confirms:

    “Let me ask YOU a question, Carnation, which sort of resonates along the same lines as your question. Take THE single most influential and dominant behavioural development tool there is out there – TV. I’ve noticed that the ratio of women beating on men (with no consequence for the woman) compared with men beating on women is A VERY LARGE NUMBER:1 Seriously, I lost count while I watched pre-watershed TV.”

    To accept your question I’d have to accept your assertion that; a/ TV is “THE single most influential and dominant behavioural development tool” and b/ “the ratio of women beating on men (with no consequence for the woman) compared with men beating on women is A VERY LARGE NUMBER” and c/ that there is a direct link between a & b and the behaviour of adults. I don’t accept any of these things and consider you to be a delusional ignoramous.

    You can continuously repear these preposterous statements, even using CAPS, but you simply make yourself look acutely silly.

    Try to remain calm when engaging in conversation.

  147. marduk says

    @Lucy

    The Mankind Initiative is not a woman-hating group, that is a shockingly cruel and unfair thing to say.
    It is a registered charity that provides services just like any other DV charity. I’m amazed anyone would think it was acceptable to casually lash out at such a group providing much needed help to people in distress.

    It is uncontroversial that male survivors of DV lack support and there is no controversy that they do constitute a significant proportion of suffers. It has no more to do with MRAs than the fact that crimes against women are gleefully seized on by RadFems (like Witchwind and the RadFemHub inmates in general) who consider the Y chromosome to be a “hateful mutation” that needs to be reduced to 10% of the popular (Mary Daly again). The fact that advocates of some sort of actual holocaust or programme of eugenics try to make it about them doesn’t inflict any injury to my compassion for women, and I wonder why yours is so limited and easily distracted by irrelevancies. Principles should not yield to politics surely.

    The video is not ‘disingenuous’ and in any case, wasn’t created by the group itself and follows a strand in activism that the Guardian feminist sonority thought (or perhaps now thought they thought) was the best thing since sliced bread. Do you think #everydaysexism is a hate group as well? What about Refuge?

  148. Lucy says

    123454321

    “The comments on that video speak volumes. ”

    Don’t they just. Isn’t it amazing that days after a man (another one) has gone on a murderous rampage against women, we’re talking about women’s violence against men?

    ” It’s beyond me how anyone could simply sweep this stuff under the carpet and cast that video off as an unrealistic, staged stunt.”

    Er. Because it’s a staged stunt? An unrealistic one?

    Bear with me folks, I’m just putting a video together of a man being awarded custody of his kids, get your up voting fingers ready when I prove how this shows society is stacked against women.

    “Something needs to be done about people’s perception of gender violence and videos like these are reaching out to millions and changing the way they think – for the better, of course.”

    It certainly does. Some god-damn perspective is sorely lacking.

  149. Lucy says

    Mike Buchanan

    “2. You must be living is a delusional bubble to think most people would have seen it as a ‘staged stunt’. ”

    Well the moment I saw the still from it in the daily mail, I thought: ah another staged stunt showing how the public responds exactly how the daily mail wants them to. All that’s missing is a crying, lost 6 year old in the high street and there’s my morning’s dumb Internet viewing sorted

    —–
    “The public response to it is precisely what we’d expect in a society where 40% of victims of DV are men, but fewer than 0.4% of refuge places are available for them..”

    Just a side note, most of the perpetrators of that 40% are male.
    Pay for more refuge places then. Women didn’t get refuges without fighting for them and funding them. You just sound bitter that they got off their arses and did it and you haven’t

    —–
    “It looks like the views of the video will pass 5 million shortly, and almost 3,000 people have left comments. You should read some of them. It’s attracted 20,576 votes, of which 20,252 are upvotes, and just 324 downvotes – i.e. 98.4%. If that’s true generally of the 5 million viewers, then 4,920,000 understand the point being made and believe it to be of merit, while 80,000 either don’t understand the point or (more likely) get the point, but are so steeped in misandry they simply don’t care about men being physically assaulted by women.”

    As we all know, the arbiter of a good quality point is up votes on the Internet. A video with a negative point to make about women popular on the Internet? Now that’s something society hasn’t adequately prepared me for.

  150. thetalkingstove says

    I’ve noticed that the ratio of women beating on men (with no consequence for the woman) compared with men beating on women is A VERY LARGE NUMBER:1 Seriously, I lost count while I watched pre-watershed TV.

    Your ridiculous hyperbole is noted.

    The vast majority of TV shows do not feature anyone ‘beating on’ anyone. TV mainly consists of soaps, gameshows, news, documentaries, sport, comedies, politics, the Arts, etc – the subset of drama programmes which regularly feature violence is pretty low.

    This is why people laugh at MRAs. They can’t have a sensible discussion without foaming at the mouth about injustices they’ve made up.

  151. Lucy says

    123, etc

    “What a ridiculous question to ask. MRAs simply request fairness with no double-standards or entitled privilege. You wouldn’t appreciate that, of course, as you’d lose more than you’d gain.”

    What a crock.

    When there are fewer women being selected in politics, the board room, the legal profession, higher echelons of academia, science and tech, this is because of innate differences and/ or different choices (apparently made in a vacuum,). No discrimination here folks, you can trust a board and an electorate and an employer to act without bias.

    When there are fewer men being selected in class rooms and court rooms and hospital, this is because of discrimination. Because if there’s one thing we know about the court system it’s that it’s hopelessly biased and unreliable.

    Just look at this ridiculous thread. If you want an example of double-standards, privilege and refusal to take accountability for one’s own actions you need go no further.

  152. says

    @Lucy #163

    Women in politics – Caroline Spelman MP was chairman of the Conservative party in 2008 when I worked at their HQ. She recently admitted only 100% of applicants to become MPs were women at the time. Compared with the number of women applying to be MPs, women are OVER-represented in the House of Commons. Many years ago parliament was made far more female-friends (taxpayer-supported crèches etc.) yet STILL men are far more likely to seek a political career. Labour has all-women PPC shortlists for the more ‘winnable’ seats in 2015. Yet even all this special treatment for women is presumably insufficient – apart from which many female MPs (Harriet Harman and Yvette Balls being obvious examples) are clear a prime motivation in entering politics was to focus on “women’s issues”, thereby ignoring half the electorate.

    Women in business – the government is threatening the FTSE100 legislated gender quotas in 2015 if they haven’t achieved 25% representation by then. About a third of FTSE100 chairmen are members of the 30% club, committed to driving up the proportion of women on their boards. We’ve presented House of Commons and House of Lords with evidence showing that when the proportion of women on corporate boards is increase, financial performance declines (it’s mainly an inexperience effect, we believe). The government’s response to this evidence? They’ve going to threaten 50% gender quotas, and are expanding the scope to the FTSE350.

    I don’t recall any of this being discussed in Patriarchy meetings…

    “If you want an example of double-standards, privilege and refusal to take accountability for one’s own actions you need go no further.”

    For once I agree with you – but the double standards always benefit women, not men.

    In an earlier answer you said women shouldn’t be held accountable fro their actions and inactions if they’re drug addicts, or ‘controlled’ – hmm, who by, I wonder? A person with a Patriarchy stick? – and something else I can’t be bothered to look up. Here we go again. You’re saying women shouldn’t be treated as having moral agency. Sadly the (male-dominated) judiciary agrees with you.

  153. 123454321 says

    “The vast majority of TV shows do not feature anyone ‘beating on’ anyone. TV mainly consists of soaps….”

    Watch this and tell me what you notice. The person putting this together must have been really hard-pressed to find footage of women hitting on men. There is just so much footage of men slapping women, it’s unbelievable. And there couldn’t possibly be any links with what people watch on TV and their real-life behavioural expectations, could there? no possibility of that. Sorry, the sarcasm just kicked in.

    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1978j6_soap-opera-slaps_shortfilms

  154. carnation says

    @ Mike Buchanan

    Mike, for God’s sake man, you are a walking disaster:

    “You’re saying women shouldn’t be treated as having moral agency. Sadly the (male-dominated) judiciary agrees with you.”

    YOU are talking about moral agency, nobody else. YOU are making such fanciful claims that even your potential supporters are asking you to stop.

    You are clearly incompetent. You don’t understand debate, lobbying or the machinations of policy development.

    You will lose your deposit. You aren’t winning any supporters.

    @ 123454321

    Yeah…. You realise that linking to a video (with no credible research) doesn’t convince anyone of anything, except that you’re from the Mike Buchanan/Tom Martin school of hysteria and inconsequential nonsense, yes?

  155. Copyleft says

    Yes, but those men all ‘deserved it’ because they disagreed with or offended a woman, which fully justifies physical violence in return. At least, according to the confused logic of radfem thinking.

  156. Lucy says

    Mike Buchanan

    “It looks like the views of the video will pass 5 million shortly, and almost 3,000 people have left comments. You should read some of them. It’s attracted 20,576 votes, of which 20,252 are upvotes, and just 324 downvotes – i.e. 98.4%. If that’s true generally of the 5 million viewers, then 4,920,000 understand the point being made and believe it to be of merit, while 80,000 either don’t understand the point or (more likely) get the point, but are so steeped in misandry they simply don’t care about men being physically assaulted by women.”

    So how does that fit into the MRA narrative about public obliviousness and indifference to female-male violence?

  157. 123454321 says

    Lucy – How do you think Thatcher got into politics if the political culture is so anti-female?

    You keep whining about the selection process but fail to consider the prior events – the fact that there aren’t actually many women or girls who study and then choose to take the political career path (or engineering, or mining, or construction industry etc.), and even if they do, perhaps they haven’t got what it takes to satisfy the credential tick list. Or perhaps they prefer to take the option of having children and taking maternity leave and part-time work as balanced approach.

    Lucy has fingers in ears….fingers in ears…dancing around whining with fingers in ears…fingers in ears…

  158. Lucy says

    Mike Buchanan

    “Women in politics – Caroline Spelman MP was chairman of the Conservative party in 2008 when I worked at their HQ.

    She recently admitted only 10% of applicants to become MPs were women at the time. Compared with the number of women applying to be MPs, women are OVER-represented in the House of Commons. ”

    Women are not over-represented in the House of Commons, they are vastly under-represented. Vastly under represented. Women candidates may be over-represented, but women are vastly under-represented. In our representative parliament, women are vastly under-represented. In our democratic, representative parliament that is meant to represent us, female people, 52% of the population are not adequately represented.

    Via a long standing system of positive discrimination in favour of male candidates. Over a millenia of male-only short lists, system of indirect discrimination in their favour, men are surprise surprise vastly over-represented in parliament.

    —-
    “Many years ago parliament was made far more female-friends (taxpayer-supported crèches etc.) yet STILL men are far more likely to seek a political career. ”

    Yeah weird that isn’t it. What with the female friendly location, the female-friendly hours, the female-friendly transport system in London, the female friendly colleagues, the female friendly mode of exchange, the female-friendly media, the female-friendly electorate, the female-friendly growers and rape threateners. It’s a mystery alright.

    ——

    Labour has all-women PPC shortlists for the more ‘winnable’ seats in 2015. Yet even all this special treatment for women is presumably insufficient – apart from which many female MPs (Harriet Harman and Yvette Balls being obvious examples) are clear a prime motivation in entering politics was to focus on “women’s issues”, thereby ignoring half the electorate.”

    Half the electorate is ignored already Mike. Did I mention that women are vastly under-represented in our representative parliament?

  159. Lucy says

    1,etc

    “Lucy – How do you think Thatcher got into politics if the political culture is so anti-female?”

    1, etc – How do you think none of Thatcher’s female contemporaries got into politics if the political culture is so gender-neutral or female-positive?

    —-

    “You keep whining about the selection process but fail to consider the prior events – the fact that there aren’t actually many women or girls who study and then choose to take the political career path (or engineering, or mining, or construction industry etc.), and even if they do, perhaps they haven’t got what it takes to satisfy the credential tick list. Or perhaps they prefer to take the option of having children and taking maternity leave and part-time work as balanced approach.”

    Credentials tick list. Oh I know that one! Being a mate of a mate of the guy doing the selecting. See it ALL the time.


    “Lucy has fingers in ears….fingers in ears…dancing around whining with fingers in ears…fingers in ears…”

    Does that get sung to the tune of “Devil Woman” or “She’s more than a woman to me”?

  160. 123454321 says

    “Yeah…. You realise that linking to a video (with no credible research) doesn’t convince anyone of anything, except that you’re from the Mike Buchanan/Tom Martin school of hysteria and inconsequential nonsense, yes?”

    Show me one single video clip of a pre-watershed soap – actually, fuck it, show me any mainstream TV clip where a man slaps a woman for a stupidly inane, menial, pointless reason without being characterised as a severe, evil aggressor who faces no ramifications. Go on…show me.

  161. carnation says

    @ 123454321

    I don’t watch TV and have never followed a soap opera, believing them to be the preserve of the lazy and easily pleased, so I cannot grant your request.

    But since I have comprehensively rubbished the rationale for doing what you ask, why on earth would I?

    It would prove nothing because it means nothing.

    Your line of thinking is really, really weird, disjointed and of no consequence.

  162. 123454321 says

    “How do you think none of Thatcher’s female contemporaries got into politics if the political culture is so gender-neutral or female-positive?”

    Because they didn’t meet the criteria or didn’t work hard enough or didn’t behave in the right way or didn’t influence effectively etc. compared with the person who got the job. What’s difficult to understand about that?

    “Credentials tick list. Oh I know that one! Being a mate of a mate of the guy doing the selecting. See it ALL the time.”

    It’s called a democratic process of appointment and most firms would be taken to the cleaners if they were seen to be applying favouritism – despite the fact that YOU think it’s ok to promote all-women shortlists, which is nothing short of favouritism. You sound bitter. Keep dancin’ to whatever songs are in your head….

  163. says

    @Lucy

    I strongly recommend Charles Moore’s biography of Margaret Thatcher – vol #1 (900+ pages) out, She asked no quarters of any men, which is why she’s a heroine to so many – not Ally, to be fair – and a hate figure to feminists. By comparison Harriet Harman and her like weren’t fit to be her filing clerks.

  164. carnation says

    @ Mike Buchanan

    What did Thatcher do to “fight” feminism during her time in office?

    She is a hate figure to feminists amongst many other groups. Hundreds of thousands of men who were thrown out of jobs, for example.

    It’s like you enjoy failing in public.

  165. 123454321 says

    Thatcher removed herself from any associations with women’s issues and many women didn’t like that. She achieved being at the top of the game precisely because she avoided getting tangled up in feminist, self-centred nonsense and instead concentrated on promoting individual success borne out of hard work and determination, regardless of gender. I don’t necesarilly agree with all of Thatcher’s political strategies but she is evidence and proof that a woman doesn’t need a foot up the privilege ladder if she has what it takes to be a successful politician – just as some women are successful lorry drivers or engineers. It seems that the only ‘successful’ female politicians these days have got where they are on the back of pandering to female voters using the usual feminist sell tactics which women obviously love because it explicitly supports their needs above anyone else’s. Or, they were hired due to the pressure on politics to introduce more women. It’s all for the wrong reasons.

    I actually admire women who accomplish career achievements via hard work and determination far more than I do whiny women who spend their lives moaning using entitlement-geared arguments such as: ” we should be introducing board-room quotas to address representation.”

  166. nejishiki says

    Abear @110

    Someone that hates people in general is a misanthrope, regardless of whether they hate different people for different reasons. You don’t get to change the definitions of words to prop up your argument.
    Did he hate women? Hell yes! And even slightly more than he hated other males but if you want to go to the effort of reading his manifesto, or at least substantial part of it you may find he hated pretty much everybody. He is described as a narcissist, in the end I think he despised himself more than anyone else.
    Just saying this is all about sexism is really simplistic, and trying to pretend that Rodger’s mental health is irrelevant is ignoring reality.

    Consider the following hypothetical individuals: One has no particular hatred of men or women as groups. However, she hates every race on the planet, obsessively. She hates them all for different reasons, and has different levels of hatred for each. The second person hates both men and women, though does not distinguish between races. So, they hate the same set of people. Are they both simply ‘misanthropes?’ Is that all we can say about them? There is content to their beliefs that is worth noting. One can well be described as sexist, one racist. ‘Misanthrope’ is misapplied here; it doesn’t get to the content of their beliefs. Which one is more likely to oppose immigration from certain countries, for example? The point is that misanthropy and sexism are different: they arise differently and they have different effects; and people who are animated by them can be expected to behave in different ways. You can say “Oh but he hated a bunch of things, and had all sorts of problems.” True, but he himself lays it out very clearly in his videos what motivates him. If you lump all his beliefs together and label that Ideology X, Ideology X is many things but is also profoundly and overwhelmingly sexist. No particular social movement nor political change immediately follows from this fact, but it is a fact nonetheless and any worthwhile discussion of this incident will have to take this fact into conssideration.
    That’s all I can say, really.

  167. johngreg says

    Lucy, and carnation, your mutual sexism and soft-edged misandry is vivid, and implicitly eloquent.

  168. says

    @ gjenganger 77
    >”The problem is that ‘misogyny’ is a very widely applied term. I am one, by some definitions, because I am somewhat antifeminist. For people who already think that all their political opponents are ‘misogynist’, it is very tempting to argue ‘Rodgers was a misogynist and an evil murderer, my opponents are also misogynists, therefore they are all evil murderers at heart’. People who are routinely called ‘misogynist’, myself included, take some exception to that logic.”
    That is reasonable to dislike. I have no group loyalties myself and have encountered enough self-described MRAs that I don’t use the term as an object all by itself.

    >”It is not reasonable to use Rodgers to deligitimize the entire manoshpere, anymore than it was reasonable to use the Baader-Meinhof gang to deligitimize socialism.”

    I agree, depending on the elements of the “manosphere” in question.

    >”It is reasonable to ask what actions might be specifically encouraging or condoning violence, and some specific sites or people might be in for a warning. Personally I am not necessarily shocked by revenge fantasies, but I would propose keeping them off the debating sites and limiting them to alt.sex.stories, where they are not mistaken for political programs. Other people will have stronger demands, but wherever you draw the line it cannot include the entire antifeminist sphere.”
    But here we run into our tribalistic problems in the political debates that surround and sometimes frame the attempts (depending on the person) to make sense of the situation. While I allow individual MRAs or any person with any particular label to show me what sort of person they are in an interaction, I am entirely unwilling to avoid considering the groups attached to the labels in terms of the behaviors, views, positions, and other characteristics that might affect this situation. The proportion of, and affect of people with violent, black and white, irrational, prejudiced, and/or similar dispositions is a valid topic. And at no point does looking at that topic imply anything about the complete set represented by the label attached to those groups (general statement, no implications with respect to you).

    I farther cannot avoid strategically taking into account that I will be interacting with such sleaze bags as these politically charged debates continue. I can only hope that people such as yourself actively deal with such sleazebags as this situation unfolds because they will be largely using emotionally based political behavior and there is nothing more effective than a member of one’s in-group when it comes to rooting out people that make one’s chosen group look bad.

  169. says

    Johngreg, good point. I’ve come to the realisation that if Lucy and Carnation are critical of anything – our support for AVfM, the Mankind video, whatever – then we need to do more of the same. Particularly pleasing to read Lucy’s hostility to the Mankind video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3PgH86OyEM. Almost 5.3 million views and still climbing rapidly. Feminists are losing control of online narratives so fast even MRAs can scarcely believe it – and they have no credible response. In time, inevitably, they’ll lose control of mainstream media narratives too. Happy days.

  170. johngreg says

    Brony said:

    I farther cannot avoid strategically taking into account that I will be interacting with such sleaze bags as these politically charged debates continue.

    Ah, but you seem not to have strategically taken into account a full frontal presentation of a peer-reviewed and publically confirmed definition and diagnosis (confirmed by the literature and a group of its best-funded peers) of sleaze bag or sleazebag? That’s the real ponder.

    And where’s them-there rhetorical assassins?

  171. says

    @ johngreg 184
    >”Ah, but you seem not to have strategically taken into account a full frontal presentation of a peer-reviewed and publically confirmed definition and diagnosis (confirmed by the literature and a group of its best-funded peers) of sleaze bag or sleazebag? That’s the real ponder.”
    I will do so when someone presents the diagnosis so we can consider the details. If you do so you will be the first who has been willing to present me with such.

    >”And where’s them-there rhetorical assassins?”
    Tucked away until necessary.

  172. 123454321 says

    Absolutely, Mike, 5 million views, and the comments that go alongside that video is significantly representative and can’t be ignored. Feminists are most definitely losing their supremacy battle and have nothing logically credible to argue with other than use shaming tactics and falsities, all of which is transparent and boring.

    Personally, I would support any other human-being who looked in need of some assistance, whether they be male or female. To see those people laughing at a man being physically abused is sad to say the least.

  173. carnation says

    @ 123454321
    @ Mike Buchanan

    Cheers guys, your vainglorious pronunciations of imminent victory made me lol, just what I needed to top my night off.

    @ JohnGreg

    Shh, stop being so silly.

    G’night all x

  174. Pitchguest says

    What’s the proper term for someone who invents something like “rhetorical assassins”?

    Would that be similar to someone wanting to spraypaint a butterfly on someone’s driveway as a “message”?

  175. Pitchguest says

    “Rhetorical assassins.”

    Whatever happened to “master debater”? I liked that one. “Rhetorical assassins” sounds scary.

  176. Iamcuriousblue says

    carnation @ 114

    Your comments about David Futrelle are laughable. He provides links and citations for everything that he writes, including the full context of Farrell’s ridiculous collection of hysteria that provides the “intellectual core” of the wretched MRM.

    Well, says you. I’ll fully acknowledge your dislike of MRAism is from direct reading, but that doesn’t mean that David Futrelle is making a good-faith case, nor that those who get their ideas about the “manosphere” from him are getting an accurate picture. Are you really going to stand by the actions of the UToronto students? Do you genuinely think outright censorship tactics are the way to deal with speech you don’t like? Futrelle apparently does, given his lionization of those who use decidedly unethical tactics on the anti-MRA side. I think Futrelle is an utter shit for doing so, regardless of whether Paul Elam is also a shit or not. (And for the record, I think Elam is.)

    As for Warren Farrell, I do think a certain degree of demonization and out-of-context quote mining are taking place. Take Farrell’s much repeated quotes on incest – lifted out of an interview from the 1970s, with no attempt to confirm whether those are his current views. And, more importantly, without any attempt to put in the context of the sexual politics of the time. You can find examples from feminists and queer writers during the same era. Have a look at Gayle Rubin’s “Thinking Sex” sometime, in which she includes pedophiles on her list of unnecessarily maligned sexual outlaws. Hell, have a look at *Andrea Dworkin’s* first book, “Woman Hating” – which has a chapter on what sexual utopia might look like once patriarchy is done away with, and it includes ideas like an end to taboos against incest, bestiality, etc. (I’ll hasten to note that Dworkin later moved 180 from that view to the opposite extreme.) Alan Ginsberg defended NAMBLA as late as the 1990s – to the bonfires with “Howl”? So Farrell shared the perhaps-too-open sexual liberation ideas of the era – he had a lot of company there. My question is what are his current attitudes on the topic, the answer to which I don’t think I’ll get from David Futrelle.

  177. Iamcuriousblue says

    “Neither is there evidence that Rogers identified with either of these groups (TFL or Incel). But even if he did: The the vast majority of MRAs have diametrically opposed views (to TFL or Incel). They mostly identify as libertarian/ liberals who are egalitarian and disagree with some mainstream feminist narratives and believe that gender issues facing men are systematically underaddressed by the political mainstream (at least the last view I share). Trying to conflate them with Rogers or TFL/Incel or even Sodini just smacks like the most deliberate asspull in history.”

    Well, I wasn’t talking about MRA or even PUA, I was talking about Incel, so lets keep the conversation to that before you accuse me of conflating. Rodger certainly hung out on at least one more or less “Incel” board, and his manifesto reflects a lot of the same rhetoric, so I don’t think it’s much of a stretch. And, yes, so did Sodini, who hung around on TFL spaces. And while I don’t think a blanket condemnation of everybody in Incel is called for (any more than the across-the-board condemnation of the “manosphere” that we’re getting from much of the media), it’s worth asking why no less than two spree killers in the last five years have been at least peripherally associated with that group.

    My guess is that, more than the rest of the “manosphere”, Incel gets a larger share of men with some serious mental illness/personality disorders and who are at the end of their rope. Like pro-Ana, I don’t think they’re encountering an environment that’s exactly positive or good for helping them deal with their issues.

  178. carnation says

    @ IamCuriousBlue

    Good points, all of which I was aware of. The French intellectual scene of the 70s was also home to some views on the sexualisation of children that are anathema.

    But I was thinking of Farrell’s narrowminded and bitter views on date-rape, “date fraud” and the ridiculous case fir men being controlle and oppressed d by their sexual desires. Horribly sexist against men and women.

    And of course, he writes for and supports the avfm blog, which is reason enough to dismiss him.

    The manosphere double standards are difficult to comprehend.

  179. says

    191, Iamacuriousblue

    You answered a comment of mine that did not discuss incel but the mra and its lack of relation to the either of the two, bringing up incel. I did not claim that you conflated the two but reinforced my stance that the divide in views of rodgers and a run of the mill mra is vast. I agree that rodgers has some similarity in views to some people i have read in the online gender debate, and i suppose that a certain point like minded individuals will meet online.

  180. carnation says

    @ Sheaf
    @ IamCuriousBlue

    What is pertinent is that underpinning PUA blogs, MRA blogs, Incel blogs and PUA hate blogs is dark resentment against, and stereotyping of, women and the scapegoating (and tragic misunderstanding) of feminism.

    They all have that in common. Their words demonstrate it time and time and time again.

    In this brooding online underworld, the mindset of a man like Rodger does not appear as obviously disturbed as on, for example, a blog about Neo-liberalism.

  181. says

    194,

    this is just stereotyping in my experience and in direct violation of hetpat first directive. Contrary to you blatant assertions, views seem quite diverse.

  182. Danny Gibbs says

    Well, says you. I’ll fully acknowledge your dislike of MRAism is from direct reading, but that doesn’t mean that David Futrelle is making a good-faith case, nor that those who get their ideas about the “manosphere” from him are getting an accurate picture. Are you really going to stand by the actions of the UToronto students? Do you genuinely think outright censorship tactics are the way to deal with speech you don’t like? Futrelle apparently does, given his lionization of those who use decidedly unethical tactics on the anti-MRA side. I think Futrelle is an utter shit for doing so, regardless of whether Paul Elam is also a shit or not. (And for the record, I think Elam is.)
    Pretty much the sentiment is, “Since Elam says awful things I should be free to be dishonest when talking about him.”

    As for Warren Farrell, I do think a certain degree of demonization and out-of-context quote mining are taking place. Take Farrell’s much repeated quotes on incest – lifted out of an interview from the 1970s, with no attempt to confirm whether those are his current views. And, more importantly, without any attempt to put in the context of the sexual politics of the time. You can find examples from feminists and queer writers during the same era. Have a look at Gayle Rubin’s “Thinking Sex” sometime, in which she includes pedophiles on her list of unnecessarily maligned sexual outlaws. Hell, have a look at *Andrea Dworkin’s* first book, “Woman Hating” – which has a chapter on what sexual utopia might look like once patriarchy is done away with, and it includes ideas like an end to taboos against incest, bestiality, etc. (I’ll hasten to note that Dworkin later moved 180 from that view to the opposite extreme.) Alan Ginsberg defended NAMBLA as late as the 1990s – to the bonfires with “Howl”? So Farrell shared the perhaps-too-open sexual liberation ideas of the era – he had a lot of company there. My question is what are his current attitudes on the topic, the answer to which I don’t think I’ll get from David Futrelle.
    Good point about context. To me more importantly it seems that there is a bit of a double standard when it comes to “context”. I’ve been in plenty of discussions where someone has said that you have to look at the context of the era, the place, etc…. of what a feminist said. But for some reason that is not extended in return. That’s why we can’t just unload on Dworkin (because we have to take into context the era during which she was most active and have to take into context her experiences) but are apparently free to unload on Farrell.

    Also I notice another double standard in relation to time. On one hand what Farrell said in the 70s on incest is supposedly still relevant today (which is why Futrelle refuses to let it go) but pulling something that feminists in the 70s did/said is supposedly unfair because its “old”.

  183. carnation says

    @ Danny Gibbs

    “That’s why we can’t just unload on Dworkin”

    Yeah, I haven’t ever seen anyone hold back from unloading on Dworkin.

    I strongly advise trying to address the victim/persecution complex. It has no basis in reality and statements like that make you look ridiculous.

    Trying to depict Futrelle as employing “censorship tactics” is verging into the world of the absurd.

  184. Danny Gibbs says

    Yeah, I haven’t ever seen anyone hold back from unloading on Dworkin.
    Its not a question of whether or not people do it but whether its justified, okay, etc….

    I’m talking about the idea that talking about Dworkin isn’t right because it happened in the past or that one must include the context of the day while at the same time it is okay to talk about Farrell from that same era and apparently the context of the day doesn’t matter.

    I strongly advise trying to address the victim/persecution complex. It has no basis in reality and statements like that make you look ridiculous.
    Pointing out inconsistencies isn’t ridiculous. Not sure where you’re getting victim/persecution complex from.

    Trying to depict Futrelle as employing “censorship tactics” is verging into the world of the absurd.
    Who said anything about censorship tactics? To me its a double standard on what is valid and not valid to talk about.

  185. carnation says

    @ Danny Gibbs

    You said:

    “That’s why we can’t just unload on Dworkin (because we have to take into context the era during which she was most active and have to take into context her experiences) but are apparently free to unload on Farrell.”

    You say people are apparently free to unload on Farrell, but “can’t just unload on Dworkin”. This isn’t a valid point as Dworkin has been maligned, ridiculed, attacked and generally held up (with varying degress of justification) as a poster-child of reactionary feminism.

    Farrell isn’t attacked with anything like the consistency or venom (or personal jibes) that Dworkin endured. Granted, part of that is that he’s virtually unknown in the mainstream, but Dworkin is considered more infamous than famous.

    “Pointing out inconsistencies isn’t ridiculous. Not sure where you’re getting victim/persecution complex from.”

    As I’ve just demonstrated, you didn’t point out (wittingly) an inconsistency. Your POV is that MRAs are allowed to be “attacked” in a way that feminists aren’t. That is wrong, wrong, wrong.

    Re Futrelle, you quoted someone else accusing him of “censorship tactics”, and whilst not openly endorsing that POV, you did imply that he was “dishonest” about Elam, when he simply isn’t. Once again, he quotes (not quote-miness) and provides citations for every single thing he writes.

    Now, if you go to mancheeze, you will find misreadings of MRA statements and reactionary feminism. But it isn’t a popular blog. It is, I think, similar to AVfM, but with the genders reversed.

  186. Danny Gibbs says

    You say people are apparently free to unload on Farrell, but “can’t just unload on Dworkin”. This isn’t a valid point as Dworkin has been maligned, ridiculed, attacked and generally held up (with varying degress of justification) as a poster-child of reactionary feminism.
    And she’s also been defended on the ground that “we should look at how she was treated” and so forth.

    Farrell isn’t attacked with anything like the consistency or venom (or personal jibes) that Dworkin endured. Granted, part of that is that he’s virtually unknown in the mainstream, but Dworkin is considered more infamous than famous.
    Who said it was the same level?

    As I’ve just demonstrated, you didn’t point out (wittingly) an inconsistency. Your POV is that MRAs are allowed to be “attacked” in a way that feminists aren’t. That is wrong, wrong, wrong.
    The last few days have shown differently. Even with it not being clear that Rodger ID as MRA it is still said that MRAs caused him or made him carry out that attack. The same thing happened when Breivik carried out his attack (oddly enough Futurelle was behind that claim).

    Re Futrelle, you quoted someone else accusing him of “censorship tactics”, and whilst not openly endorsing that POV, you did imply that he was “dishonest” about Elam, when he simply isn’t. Once again, he quotes (not quote-miness) and provides citations for every single thing he writes.
    No the dishonestly is more in what he chooses to say about what happens at AVfM. I recall last October when AVfM ran a series of posts in Oct. focusing on men who have been abused, those who helped abused men, and/or men who were working with services to help abuse victims. Oddly enough that diligence that is always present when they are on some dumbness was lacking.

    Or (once again) when AVfM offered up a portion of reward money for the conviction of Danielle Entrounte’s (im sure i spelled that wrong) attacker and it didn’t get much notice.

    Again I’m not saying the place is holy ground or anything but if there is going to be an effort to show what they are really about then the entire picture would be nice.

  187. Iamcuriousblue says

    Carnation @ 194 & 197

    “Trying to depict Futrelle as employing “censorship tactics” is verging into the world of the absurd.”

    Well, actually, what I’m saying is that Futrelle is endorsing the censorship tactics of others. Which is, in fact, what’s being employed by the UToronto group in everything from “heckler’s veto” direct action tactics to attempts to use student government to institute official censorship. A news piece on this that’s a hell of a lot more balanced than any of Futrelle’s reporting on the same incidents

    http://www.citynews.ca/2013/04/16/the-inside-story-mens-rights-group-causes-controversy-at-u-of-t/

    The fact that censorship tactics are being used is undeniable. And Futrelle continues to blanketly endorse what this group is doing. That’s absolutely wrong, and I think Futrelle is every bit as accountable for his apologism for censorship tactics as Elam is for endorsing violence.

    What is pertinent is that underpinning PUA blogs, MRA blogs, Incel blogs and PUA hate blogs is dark resentment against, and stereotyping of, women and the scapegoating (and tragic misunderstanding) of feminism.

    They all have that in common. Their words demonstrate it time and time and time again.

    Well, I’m not buying your too-easy conflation of Warren Farrell with Paul Elam with Elliot Rodger. And, for that matter, the generalized use of “MRA as hate group” to paint pretty much anyone who so much as questions feminism as being more or less MRAs and therefore on a continuum with violent hate groups. That’s a pretty obvious smear tactic, and one in which some feminists use to basically place their ideas above criticism.

    From where I sit, the kind of feminists who basically want to have their opponents shut down via state control (or in more extreme rhetoric, just arrest the lot of them) are hardly better than those like Paul Elam who more or less endorse direct violence toward their critics.

  188. Danny Gibbs says

    But anyway carnation this is a road we’ve gone down more than once. Chances are despite the two of us probably having (the majority) of our hearts in the right place we’ll probably always have a few slight differences that will keep us seeing eye eye.

  189. Iamcuriousblue says

    me @ 201 – Apologies for the long commercials embedded in the above video link, BTW.

  190. carnation says

    @ IamCuriousBlue

    A quick message to you, and please take this on board. I don’t use “tactics”, I’m not promoting an ideology. I’m very much freelance. I comment on this blog because I am interested in men’s issues and admire Ally as a writer. I am absolutely opposed to the MRM because, alongside being ineffectual and misogynistic, I believe it damages men individually and the cause of men’s issues broadly.

    “Well, I’m not buying your too-easy conflation of Warren Farrell with Paul Elam with Elliot Rodger”

    Are you being serious? I quite simply didn’t do this. Nothing I wrote has remotely suggested that I did this. If you have any integrity you will apologise for such a blatant falsehood.

    As for the “censorship” tactics, you clearly know nothing about activism. They had what’s known as a “counter-protest” – there are thousands of them across the world, all the time. They are arguably as valid as demonstrations. That’s your persecution complex coming into play.

    @ Danny Gibbs

    “Or (once again) when AVfM offered up a portion of reward money for the conviction of Danielle Entrounte’s (im sure i spelled that wrong) attacker and it didn’t get much notice.”

    I don’t think I am alone in viewing this as nothing more than a crass publicity stunt, with less than benign motivations behind it. And, I’m not sure if you’re aware, this has been followed up with a promise to send in a private investigator. Uninvited by the victim.

    Put on a sceptical hat, why would avfm pull a stunt like that, when many from their ranks have said they don’t believe that a/ there was an attack b/ it ws a serious attack and c/ the attack was staged?

    Think, Danny. That wasn’t a humanitarian move.

  191. marduk says

    @Lucy

    I think you are in need of some decent information that is peer reviewed, draws on sizeable samples and represents the work of the leading experts in the world on DV, not ‘factsheets’ with unattributed junk stats from lobbying groups.

    Here you go:
    http://domesticviolenceresearch.org/

    Note how coherent the picture of the phenomenon is across the various PASK volumes. The research on prevalence for example is entirely compatible with the research into motivation and attribution. This is normally a clue that a consistent picture is emerging.

    I’m afraid what you seem to be struggling with is that the academic community is now a severe odds with the activist community who are doing their level best to pay them no notice. It is somewhat like the response of the Koch brothers in the US to global warming research.

  192. W.M. says

    You know, the trouble I have with this, Ally, is that if you do succeed in discrediting an
     anti-establishment faction (which,  as we’ve discussed before, undeniably has some highly thoughtful 
    and considerate people (Straughen, Pizzey, Esmay, etc.), then the only force for societal change 
    on sex equality will reside with your feminist bosses and friends in the metropolitan media
     (whose reputation on gender equality is – how may one put this politely –  not all together that good.)

    I mean, you say here that

     Inaccurately calling Rodger an MRA simply allows actual MRAs to dissociate themselves from him and lets them dodge their culpability in their shared misogyny.   

    Well, what about the deliberate institutionalised misandry of the newspaper that you write for, which 
    for every piece it will publish sympathetic to men, will print 7 or 8 actively preaching discrimination
     against them? When, for every article on male prison reform, there have been
     8 or 9 with sentiments and titles like this by Yvonne Roberts, saying that

      ‘Penal reform must not be gender neutral’   http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jun/22/penal-reform-women-prison

     These were pieces further encouraging policies which the governing class had in mind to implement already!
    This does  matter,  since   last year alone,  there were apparently 74 violent deaths
     amongst male prisoners (70 of which were suicides).  

    Thus there is surely an even more compelling argument to say that your 
    newspaper’s inability to own up to its shared culture of misandry is responsible for such circumstances, than 
    to link some rude comments and posts on a site like Avfm to Roger’s actions. 

     I’m sorry to point this out, because  believe it or not I do like you Ally in a lot of ways, 
    and I think you have some excellent values which I believe I can learn a lot from. 
    But all this stuff along the lines that 
     ‘MRAs/ MHRA’S are misogynists, while we in the liberal media are purer than pure’  is just so much baloney. 

     If you look back through this blog, you will see acknowledgements by MRA sympathists like myself, admitting 
    there are ugly anti-women thoughts expressed around the edges of the Avfm blog, and regretting that this is the 
    case.

    Where is the admission, on your part, of the sexist collusion between your publication and the powers-that-be, 
    which is  directly responsible for so much of the formalised and institutionalised sexism here in the UK? 
    (And which can be shown,  quite clearly, to cause so much unnecessary suffering, as in the case
    of prisons and homelessness ?)

  193. 123454321 says

    ” I am absolutely opposed to the MRM because, alongside being ineffectual and misogynistic, I believe it damages men individually and the cause of men’s issues broadly.”

    Why is the MRM misogynistic? The vast majority of men are only interested in standing up for their own rights, just as feminists do. Most men don’t hate women, they really don’t. I’m not saying there aren’t some men who aren’t misogynistic but the same can be said for women – there are always the excetions. It’s like you enjoy saying men who stick up for their own rights are misogynists because you know it prompts a reaction that once again enables you to bite back with yet another shaming tactic.

    What should the MRM do according to you, and how should they behave in order to help resolve some of the key inequalities men face – the ones which feminists don’t appear to care for? What should they do, exactly, Carnation?

  194. carnation says

    @ 123454321

    “What should the MRM do according to you, and how should they behave in order to help resolve some of the key inequalities men face – the ones which feminists don’t appear to care for?”

    A very good question.

    The first thing to do would be the easiest and most effective: stop blaming “feminism” for the inequalities that men face. It is puerile nonsense. It’s embarrassing. It’s self-serving, inaccurate and attracts misogynists. Remove from the MRA discourse the word “feminism” (this will mean, on occassion, biting the tongue). Deal with the reality that you now find yourself in.

    Call out and isolate the clowns and misogynists. Decide that your actions will speak louder than the odious words of your leaders.

    A large section of the manosphere is now gone. The good news is that some bright and motivated people will remain. They would be key to the second phase.

    The second thing to do is to encourage and facilitate activism. Not “put up posters driving traffic to my website blaming feminism for everything from overprescription of Ritalin to 9/11″ activism, voluntary provision activism. Safe space for male victims of DV, advocacy in the family court, support for economically marginalised young men, self-help groups, helplines – the list is endless.

    Then, when positive outcomes start happening (and they will), start applying for funding for these projects.

    This will take patience and dedication. If you are mired in a reactionary mindset, you will constantly feel under attack, and feel that the all seeing and powerful enemy is against you. It’s not, it’s just life. Projects doing excellent, vital work are closed down all the time. Screaming “misandry” on a blog might be temporarily cathartic, but will achieve precisely nothing.

    Now ask yourself, what’s easier to do? Endlessly blog about an all-powerful (imaginary) enemy and enjoy the upvotes, or give up your free time and skills to help those you claim to advocate for?

    “Why is the MRM misogynistic? The vast majority of men are only interested in standing up for their own rights, just as feminists do. Most men don’t hate women, they really don’t”

    The MRM is misogynistic because its “leading and guiding lights” produce blog after blog stereotyping women, promoting and indulging in the most crass (non) satire to sate the motivations of its base.

    You’re right, most men don’t hate women. Almost all men don’t. But most writing, by MRAs, about women, is hateful, bitter and inaccurate. That is why the MRM is largely misogynistic.

    Wouldn’t it be great to start achieving better results than the feminists you despise, instead of occassionally annoying them in comments sections? What do you actually want with your movement?

    Same question to you, 123454321 (I challenge you to omit the word feminism) “”What should the MRM do according to you, and how should they behave in order to help resolve some of the key inequalities men face”

    (I predict you will be unable to do so)

    @ Danny Gibbs

    Same question to you, actually. Would like to see your answer.

  195. Ally Fogg says

    W.M

    Well, what about the deliberate institutionalised misandry of the newspaper that you write for

    First of all, may I congratulate you on producing a bit of literal whataboutery.

    Usually when we talk about people using whataboutery we mean it metaphorically, but nope, you came right out and said it.

    And tell you what, here’s the deal: When a woman who is a regular participant in women’s interest websites writes a 140-page manifesto echoing the worst excesses of feminist blogs, using feminist reference points and the language of ‘Kill all men’ etc,, then goes out and murders six people, then I’ll be more than happy to join you in debating the extent to which the Guardian or Mumsnet or whatever else has contributed to creating the conditions for those murders.

    Until then, all you are doing is indulging in some really quite blatant derailing and deflecting behaviour.

  196. carnation says

    @ Ally Fogg

    If I may – a question about de-railing. Is it something you want to avoid? Or is it something you encourage, so long as the debate is actually useful? Or a bit of both?

    I sometimes feel guilty about starting/encouraging/joining in on derailed discussions/arguments here. After all, it’s your blog and I’d be a bit annoyed if people behaved in a way that annoyed me on mine.

  197. Danny Gibbs says

    I don’t think I am alone in viewing this as nothing more than a crass publicity stunt, with less than benign motivations behind it. And, I’m not sure if you’re aware, this has been followed up with a promise to send in a private investigator. Uninvited by the victim.

    Put on a sceptical hat, why would avfm pull a stunt like that, when many from their ranks have said they don’t believe that a/ there was an attack b/ it ws a serious attack and c/ the attack was staged?

    Think, Danny. That wasn’t a humanitarian move.
    So other than the promise to send an investigator you don’t have anything solid to say that there was ill motive behind the reward? But even then that still doesn’t address the mass silence on it (unless you’re saying that nearly every single feminist that keeps up with AVfM thought this same thing but then decided not to actually mention it, even to say that they doubt the sincerity of it?).

    I’m in the US to answer your other question.

    “”What should the MRM do according to you, and how should they behave in order to help resolve some of the key inequalities men face”
    Simple focus on men as something other than privileged perps. One thing I often see is when talking about addressing inequalities that men face the tone (or direction if you will) usually takes on the form of “will if it wasn’t for male privilege….”.

    Take for example this Elliot Rodger shooting. Most of the coverage has been about how he was entitled this and entitled that. But I haven’t seen much in the way of trying to simply reach out to the “Elliots” of the world before they get to that point and simply listen to them before prescribing a way to fix them. People are tripping over themselves to get in a post or article about how he thought women owed him sex. That may be true but what’s the likelyhood of getting through to someone like that with such aggressive approach?

    Hell I wrote something of a letter to the Elliots of the world the other day and despite clearly saying that what they did was wrong and that the scary reality is that a lot of people never engage in dating/sex/relationships I was still told that I was feeding his sense of entitlement. The vibe I’m getting right now is that if your response to this isn’t to go on about entitlement, misogyny, or some other keyword you’re just wrong.

    Well what’s more important, getting through to these people or philosophically masturbating favored theories (as in pushing favored theories despite the fact they are not having positive impact)?

  198. carnation says

    @ Danny Gibbs

    So you see nothing suspicious about a blog offering a reward (and being very public about doing so) for an attacker that they don’t believe exists? You don’t think that that’s opportunism?

    Do you think they have the wellbring of you young feminist at heart? After all, on that blog, feminists have been described in the most hateful language imaginable, and one prominent MRA discussed how “FTSU” aroused him.

    So why would such a blog do such a thing?

    “Simple focus on men as something other than privileged perps.”

    Yeah, here’s the thing – the vast majority of people of influence don’t think that. The vast majority of men suffering the inequalities who list are not affected by those few that do view men in that way.

    You’re looking in the wrong direction.

  199. Ally Fogg says

    Carnation (211)

    I’d draw a distinction between drifting and derailing.

    The former happens on pretty much all my blogs. People start off talking about the OP and then the conversation / argument drifts off in unexpected directions. I’m generally OK with that.

    Then there is deliberate attempts to say “No, I don’t want you to talk about this, I demand you talk about something else instead.” That is what I call derailment and, apart from anything else, it is seriously fucking rude.

  200. carnation says

    @ Ally Fogg

    That makes sense. I suggested something on the First Directive thread – would be interested to see your thoughts. I’m guessing that it’s not something you think is adviseable, however.

    I noticed your Tweet about Caspar Walsh. I had the pleasure of spending a good few hours in his company once. If anyone is looking for a book to read, I highly recommend his memoir.

  201. gjenganger says

    @Carnation 209
    Cutting the feminism-blaming and getting down to practical, helpful projects would help, yes. But it would not be enough. To take an obvious parallel, feminists did not just hunker down and start shelters, careful not to challenge the political orthodoxy of the time. If they had they would have been no different from Barnardos, RSPCA, Medecins sans Frontieres, and other voluntary benevolence groups, and the world would not have changed as it did (something which a lot of men might have preferred). Feminism analysed society, looked at what might change, what would serve women, and campaigned for change, sometimes quite loudly. Now, after the first stormy phase, feminism (broadly seen) serves as a sort of trade union looking out for the interests of women. Men may not be as desperately in need of revolution, but we still need something similar if we are to get to some reasonable, balanced result for society. There must be a political dimension to this, on our side too.

    The MRA world does not do it particularly well, though, and what little I see of it does not encourage me to find out more. First there is the continuous scream of rage and wounded feelings. Feelings deserve respect, but they are no substitute for thinking, and some of them are not very nice. Second a lot of the thinking seems to driven by feminism envy. “Women, did it, so we must do it too”. We (well somebody) need to start getting clear what the specific interests of men are, where we would want to go, and how we might realistically get there. Then we can start to do politics. It may well be that the general feminist movement is somewhat hypocritical in what they demand for women and what they cannot see the need for for men. But is really in our (men’s) interest to ape them, ban hate speech against men, establish ourselves as a threatened and uninsultable minority, compete in the victimhood olympics, just because the women do it? Do we strongly want gender-equality for prison populations, soldiers, and truck drivers, and if not what is it we want? Or, on the other hand, do we want to just assume that men and women are not ‘really’ different, can not ‘really’ have different interests, that it is all ‘social conditioning’ anyway, and fight alongside the feminists for mostly woman-oriented goals, like the left-wing ideologues and the ‘if you cannot beat them, join them’ brigade?

    To get anywhere we would need some clear, sensible, defensible view of what our interests actually are, that we could use to inspire policy, and to decide where men’s and women’s interests do coincide, and where we should ask the sisterhood to wind in their collective necks and leave some space. Of course I have done nothing towards that end myself, and would be unable to anyway. If anybody knows some place that has made a start, please let me know?

    PS
    @ Danny Gibbs
    You misunderstood the question, You were asked what the MRAs ought to do, not the feminists.

  202. carnation says

    @ Gjganger

    I think you’re missing the point. Railing against (an imagined and non-existent) form of feminism is all that the bulk of MRAs want to do. Remove them, you remove a large bloc. Keep them, the MRM will just continue to be a collection of blogs railing against (an imagined and non-existent) form of feminism.

    That’s it, end of story. Rarely, some MRAs will attempt some publicity stunt, but it will be in the shadow of (an imagined and non-existent) feminism, like Tom Martin or Mike Buchanan.

    This:

    “To get anywhere we would need some clear, sensible, defensible view of what our interests actually are, that we could use to inspire policy”

    Is drowned out by this:

    “First there is the continuous scream of rage and wounded feelings”

    And you’ve put it very politely.

  203. Danny Gibbs says

    So you see nothing suspicious about a blog offering a reward (and being very public about doing so) for an attacker that they don’t believe exists? You don’t think that that’s opportunism?

    Do you think they have the wellbring of you young feminist at heart? After all, on that blog, feminists have been described in the most hateful language imaginable, and one prominent MRA discussed how “FTSU” aroused him.

    So why would such a blog do such a thing?

    Then call their bluff. If they have to pay up then that means there was an attacker. Or if someone does come to collect and they suddenly try to figure out how to not pay it out….

    You misunderstood the question, You were asked what the MRAs ought to do, not the feminists.
    Who said anything about feminists?

    But yeah I’m done with this rabbit hole. You ask questions and pose challenges, I answer, either you skip on to something else and ignore my answer or you just ask more question.

  204. carnation says

    “Then call their bluff. If they have to pay up then that means there was an attacker. Or if someone does come to collect and they suddenly try to figure out how to not pay it out….”

    Or maybe don’t engage with a group of people trying to exploit an assault for their own purposes? I think that’s why they’ve been completely ignored. That and their online antics.

  205. gjenganger says

    @Danny GIbbs
    Seeing that you seem a very sensible person (and I did not actually ask you any questions, Carnation did) I would not like us to separate like this.

    Carnations question was “What should the MRM do according to you, and how should they behave in order to help resolve some of the key inequalities men face

    Your answer was “Simple focus on men as something other than privileged perps. One thing I often see is when talking about addressing inequalities that men face the tone (or direction if you will) usually takes on the form of “will if it wasn’t for male privilege….”.
    [...]
    The vibe I’m getting right now is that if your response to this isn’t to go on about entitlement, misogyny, or some other keyword you’re just wrong.

    That did not sound to me as advice to what MRAs should do (because presumably they are doing it already), but as advice to what other people should do (feministst?). DId you misunderstand the question, or did I misunderstand you?

  206. Danny Gibbs says

    Or maybe don’t engage with a group of people trying to exploit an assault for their own purposes?
    Oh kinda like how they are now with taking Elliot’s attack as a chance to go after MRAs and PUAs?

    I think that’s why they’ve been completely ignored. That and their online antics.
    But if that’s the case then why weren’t their other responses ignored? When that woman was attacked there were plenty of folks pulling quotes and bits from AVfM talking about how they don’t think the attack was real. But as soon as they offer a reward they need to be ignored?

    That did not sound to me as advice to what MRAs should do (because presumably they are doing it already), but as advice to what other people should do (feministst?). DId you misunderstand the question, or did I misunderstand you?
    Misunderstanding on my part. I was thinking the question was overall everyone, not just MRAs. Because the stuff I talk about in that answer is not limited to feminist spaces.

    As for them specifically its going to take being more confrontational on a higher level. Despite the negativity a lot of what comes from MRAs is pretty valid and would make a bigger impact if they went after politicians and higher level people. Yes there is a need to get rid of the negative (but I do think that that expectation is used as a scapegoat for not engaging MRAs).

  207. Danny Gibbs says

    @gjenganger
    Big misread on my part I thought I was talking to carnation when I went into the rabbit hole thing.

  208. carnation says

    “Or maybe don’t engage with a group of people trying to exploit an assault for their own purposes?
    Oh kinda like how they are now with taking Elliot’s attack as a chance to go after MRAs and PUAs?”

    Yes, just like that. Except they are going after the victim of a crime with unwarranted publicity.

    Do two wrongs make a right? Not that I completely accept your point.

    “I think that’s why they’ve been completely ignored. That and their online antics.
    But if that’s the case then why weren’t their other responses ignored? When that woman was attacked there were plenty of folks pulling quotes and bits from AVfM talking about how they don’t think the attack was real. But as soon as they offer a reward they need to be ignored?”

    \You are treating what they did as something positive, when it clearly isn’t.

    Danny, it’s obvious. I refuse to believe you can’t see it for what it is.

  209. WM says

     “When a woman who is a regular participant in women’s interest websites writes a 140-page manifesto echoing the worst excesses of feminist blogs, using feminist reference points and the language of ‘Kill all men’ etc,, then goes out and murders six people, then I’ll be more than happy to join you in debating the extent to which the Guardian or Mumsnet or whatever else has contributed to creating the conditions for those murders.”

    Well, philosophically, Ally,  I really don’t think it’s  that big a leap. 
    The parallels between someone directly committing a murder through being
     influenced by an ideology, and then a collective culture of deliberate discrimination 
    against a group who are already experiencing violence and death because of lack of reform and 
    terrible conditions, still appear pretty strong to me. Again, it’s taking the culture as a whole,
     just as you say
     that you’ve done with the ‘manosphere’ and Avfm. Having 10 articles actively
     promoting discrimination against a marginalised and oppressed group is not 
    made up for by printing literally one or two  which might question those beliefs. 

    (Similarly, politicians are not directly killing prisoners themselves with their own hands,
     but the negligent culture they are responsible for I believe, in many respects, does.)

  210. 123454321 says

    Carnation, you spoke a lot of sense in 209 and I’d be inclined to agree in the most part with what you said. But it’s really not that easy when we live in a world where those who shout loudest get heard, even if what they are saying is wrong. Feminists and women in general are particularly good at shouting from the hills when something isn’t working for them and it’s a strategic tactic that has paid them dividends. You know that.

    Conversely, life is also about acceptability and how far one can get pushed before they fall. Men (in general) tolerate living in a world where their threshold of acceptability is greater than that of women (in general), in other words, they can take more shit than women (in general) before they break. Their outer shell has adapted, probably via long-term social expectations, to become a hardened, emotional barrier which protects them in some ways but also enables them to be taken advantage of.

    It’s easy for me to agree with you in 209 (in theory), but in practice it simply doesn’t work due to the social constructs that I outlined above. Every day is a constant reminder of how much women in the media these days fit the description above. I know I keep harping on about it but you only have to watch ‘Loose Women’ to witness the oodles of misandric, hateful comments they direct at men, with not so much as a bat of an eyelid. That coupled with the fact that nobody complains means that man-bashing becomes a cult, sociological acceptability.

    Carnation, it won’t stop until men start shouting from the hills also. It won’t stop.

  211. JT says

    @Carnation

    I think the answer to your question is that it isnt what a MRM should do but what each individual man should do. We should all continue to grow and show that we are human and just as women are, susceptible to abuse, depression, vulnerability, hurt, sorrow……….and the list goes on. We as men need to continue to show that we are good, honest, loving, dedicated human beings just as women can be too. We ALL need to realize that we are equally capable of being destructive and hurtful but most importantly loving and sensitive. Neither sex/gender has that capability more than the other.

  212. marduk says

    123454321

    I’ll give a specific example. It is possible to advocate for the life chances of young men without engaging in misogyny. One place you’ll find this is a book called “The End of Men” by Hanna Rosin.

    Which is odd really because she gets called names and is accused of being a radical feminist in MRA blogs all the time. As she says herself, she gets hassle from the “dude bros”. Have a google around.

    Why? Because they don’t like the title and that is enough to go apeshit at. This the intellectual level we are batting at, taking offence without much thought. Never mind she dedicates the book to her son who didn’t like the title and Rosin says she doesn’t either, it was assigned by an editor at The Atlantic when her first article on the subject came out and the publishers wanted to play on the recognition. Anyone who had read the book would know this.

    Rosin isn’t a CIF comment hack hired on the cheap, by anyone’s reckoning she is one of the top 50 or so journalists alive at the moment, probably much higher if we’re talking feature writers on social issues. She even says in the new edition that patriarchy is no longer a relevant concept for most people at this point in time but again, that would require us to actually read wouldn’t it (lots of feminists did read it and started threatening her for saying so!). Most recently she has written about a serial killer who thought single men would be an easy target (turned out he was wrong for interesting reasons) and about children’s pay (it needs to be braver and more dangerous, particularly for boys).

    http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/09/the_end_of_men_why_feminists_won_t_accept_that_things_are_looking_up_for.html

    If MRAs were actually interested in the issues as much as they are interested in resentment they’d have been interested in her work because it is relevant to what they claim to be interested in. I’m not saying anyone has to agree with her but calling her names is ridiculous and shows the level of hair-trigger sensitivity at work (something they accuse feminists of as well naturally).

  213. carnation says

    @ JT

    Yes and no. Develop as humans, not merely as being men comparered to women.

  214. carnation says

    @ 123454321

    “But it’s really not that easy when we live in a world where those who shout loudest get heard, even if what they are saying is wrong. Feminists and women in general are particularly good at shouting from the hills when something isn’t working for them and it’s a strategic tactic that has paid them dividends. You know that.”

    No, I don’t know that. I don’t agree with it. It isn’t correct. A few examples:

    AMIS – they got £500k of funding. Were they “shouting from the hills”? No, they were involved in actual activism, and they have a clear mission statement and a desire to provide provision. They aren’t confined to anti-feminist blogs, ranting about something nobody believes. And don’t claim they did it on the backs of MRAs, that is self-serving nonsense.

    In contrast, F4J – got a huge amount of press coverage and achieved nothing. Why? Because begging for press attention (which feeds the ego of their leaders) is all that they do. And they’ve gone down an increasingly scummy, irrelevant anti-feminist/woman route lately. They haven’t been able to produce a single piece of credible research. And I don’t think they even want to.

    Two men’s advocacy organisations (I use the term loosely). One a growing success, one an abject and miserable failure.

    See the difference? And, I hasten to add, these are actually organisations, with actual activists, not just blogs with glorified and unpaid promoters.

    Removing the ridiculous fixation on feminism would at a stroke transform the MRM. At the moment the MRM makes me think of the proverb at the start of A Million Little Pieces:

    “The Young Man came to the Old Man seeking counsel.
    I broke something, Old Man.
    How badly is it broken?
    It’s in a million little pieces.
    I’m afraid I can’t help you.
    Why?
    There’s nothing you can do.
    Why?
    It can’t be fixed.
    Why?
    It’s broken beyond repair. It’s in a million little pieces.”

  215. 123454321 says

    Carnation, I, along with many other men who are fed up of the double-standards and inequalities men as a group face are not in a position to contribute via activism in the way that you suggest, unfortunately. The reasons are far-reaching and complex and probably differ from person to person.

    What do you suggest in that case?

  216. carnation says

    @ 123454321

    Well that isn’t really for me to say, is it?

    But if I was an anti-feminist, then I’d support the trans-equality movement. They have (unintentionally) caused disruption, reflection and division within feminism on a scale that the MRM can only dream of.

    You seem to have a specific focus on the media. I’d urge you to read feminist critques of the media, particularly from the 80s. You will see that MRA critiques are crude imitations. And you will get some balance.

    You, personally, need to decide what’s important to you. Pro-men activism, or anti-feminist(/woman) ineffectual but possibly cathartic blogging.

    On a basic level, you can write well and obviously have passion. I’ve volunteered in the past to help young men with CVs. It was enjoyable, rewarding and kept me grounded. It also helped me progress, career wise.

  217. carnation says

    @ Adiabat

    Ah, I was wondering when you were going to pop up!

    123454321 spoke of the necessity of “shouting from the hills”, which I took to mean angry, bitter blogging/commenting a la the manosphere. AMIS don’t do that, do they?

    Being “critcal of feminism” is quite different to relentlessly blogging about an imaginary, all-powerful enemy. And, as is obvious, AMIS have a clear mission statement and rationale that has nothing to do with feminism.

    Christ, what a shining testament to the oustanding activism of AVFM! One of their bloggers is a patron of an organisation that got some funding.

    With sterling work like that, it is surely only a matter of time before feminism is dismantled and the MRM takes its rightful place as the most significant human rights movement of this century.

    But keep rooting around for relevance, it’s good for a giggle.

    I once met a Tory MP shortly before they formed the current Government. I keep my achievements to myself, but between you and me, I think it was instrumental. I am not proud of it.

  218. marduk says

    Back to the topic, I’m getting increasingly unhappy with rhetorical finger-trap that is ‘entitlement’ in the evolving coverage of this. Its another original sin from which you can never be cleansed. Not thinking you are entitled now proves you are apparently.

    I think that would be a fair description of Rodger. What it isn’t is a fair description of lonely and forlorn people who aren’t hurting anyone and aren’t doing anything wrong except failing to live up to what are themselves basically sexist stereotypes. It isn’t anti-feminist or anti-woman to want a partner or a friend and it isn’t a sin to be lonely. If people want to create another Rodger themselves from the whole cloth, keep up on telling harmless (almost pathetically so) people they are evil for having feelings, I’m sure one of them will crack under the shame of it eventually. Its a classic double-bind after all.

  219. 123454321 says

    Carnation, do you mean “transgender”? I don’t know what the “trans-equality” movement is. Perhaps I should know, sorry. Any links and I’ll take a look?

    My focus on media is intentional and mainly because I recognise it for what it is – the single most powerful influencing factor there is known to man. Our children are growing up in a media-rich world where they soak everything up like a sponge. Where the media subliminaly tells a child via a Disney film that it’s ok to smack a guy around like a punchbag, they’ll grow up supporting that very notion. That video I posted the other day showing soap slaps is exactly what I am talking about. I’m passionate about the causal link between media (especially TV and film) and the outcomes of behaviour in society and I’m sticking to that path because there is merit in my assumption, in my opinion. Just to clarify, I think women suffer from the resulting outcomes, too, because so many men and boys have now been programmed, almost beyond the point of no return, to ‘take it like a man’ and shut up because if they complain they’ll look stupid, and like I said this isn’t necessarily favourable for women because the emotions are being ripped out of men and boys which leaves them with a hardened attitude. It’s that forced, hardened attitude which brings ramifications to women in a full circle, wash, rinse, dry merry-go-round which, quite frankly, I don’t want to play on.

    “You, personally, need to decide what’s important to you.”

    Seeing everyone get treated with respect, ending violence against everyone regardless of their group title. I know I might appear a little hostile at times but, like I said, many men are tired of being cast in an evil light when many of us are good-natured, hard-working, respectful individuals who would go to the end of the Earth to help their families and friends – and strangers. However hard you try as an individual to ‘do the right thing’ you are constantly bombarded by the media/society with punishing, judgmental reminders that you are ‘a man’ and therefore don’t qualify for the same basic privileges, so ‘man-up’ and put up with being conveyed as a moronic idiot who doesn’t know his arse from his elbow, or a violent, evil thug etc.

  220. carnation says

    @ 123454321

    I’ll take what you say at face value. I’ll come back with some links re trans-equality (they do excellent work on media representation too, BTW) but not until later, right now I can’t, but Google Paris Lees Jonathon Ross, or Paris Lees Julie Bindel, read/watch and enjoy.

    My concern about your POV is this – your focus on the(negative) portrayal of men ignores the (negative) portrayal of women (and minorites). That in and of itself is fine (being concerned with men). But to understand how the media portrays *anyone* is vital to arrive at the opinion that men are disproportionately or specifically targeted. To do that, you will need to study feminist critiques. There is some irony in me suggesting this, given some of my previous comments, but IMO it’s simply impossible to look at latter day critiques of male portrayals without looking at former and present day critiques of the portrayal of women and minorites.

    I think your current POV will become more nuanced, still passionate, but more understanding of the nature of the media and of lazy stereotyping.

    Have a look at Owen Jones’ brilliant essay on the demonisation of the “Chav” for a nexample.

    I say this in good faith to you.

  221. Adiabat says

    Carnation (234):

    Ah, I was wondering when you were going to pop up!

    I’ve been away and just catching up now. I’m glad to see you trying to make actual arguments since I’ve been gone, it’s an improvement. You still have this nasty habit of just writing arguments off as “nonsense” though, without reason nor rhyme.

    123454321 spoke of the necessity of “shouting from the hills”, which I took to mean angry, bitter blogging/commenting a la the manosphere. AMIS don’t do that, do they?

    Well, the chair of AMIS has commented on this blog before, I had a nice chat with him. He found it funny how he was using feminists own research on DV prevalence among homosexual couples to discredit their position on heterosexual couples.

    Being “critcal of feminism” is quite different to relentlessly blogging about an imaginary, all-powerful enemy. And, as is obvious, AMIS have a clear mission statement and rationale that has nothing to do with feminism.

    As far as I can tell MRA’s don’t log about an “imaginary, all powerful enemy”: the arguments and claims made by MRA’s are functionally identical to AMIS’s, such as claims about research and ideology leading to a lack of provision for men, as well as a reluctance to look at the issue. The only difference is tone. If you were arguing that MRA’s are correct but assholes you’d have a point.

    Christ, what a shining testament to the oustanding activism of AVFM! One of their bloggers is a patron of an organisation that got some funding.

    Erm, an organization getting funding as a sign that they are credible is your argument. I just took your own argument and applied it in a way that disproves your argument about feminist criticism. This way you end up arguing against yourself, which amuses me.

    For example, now you are minimizing the fact that they got funding, when in #230 it was the crux of your argument.

    With sterling work like that, it is surely only a matter of time before feminism is dismantled and the MRM takes its rightful place as the most significant human rights movement of this century.

    Lol, I said before on here that I don’t want feminism dismantled. What I want from feminism is already happening, albeit slowly.

  222. carnation says

    @ Adiabat

    This isn’t the manosphere. Ally described the MRM as a “basket case” and the two most prominent MRAs as “scumbags”. AMIS aren’t even remotely connected to the manosphere and they aren’t a blog.

    As is obvious, I was mocking the mocking your ridiculous AVFM connection to the funding, not the funding. AVFM.fund themselves and do very well out of it from what I gather.

    You have a delusional idea of what an MRA is, therefore it’s fruitless trying to point out how intensely stupid describingMRAs as functionally identical to genuine DV activists.

    The problem isn’t that they are assholes, it’s that they are low-calibre, dyfunctional, ineffectual trogs who invented a root cause of men’s problems and blog about it. And you support them.

    You must be proud.

    And if you think feminisms have been anything other than reinvigorated by the manosphere, you are not looking very hard.

  223. Adiabat says

    carnation said (239):

    You have a delusional idea of what an MRA is

    I’d like to nominate the above should be a contender for the least self-aware comment made on the internet.

    The problem isn’t that they are assholes, it’s that they are low-calibre, dyfunctional, ineffectual trogs who invented a root cause of men’s problems and blog about it.

    You mean “invented”, as in making the same claim about feminism that AMIS do? Can you explain why it’s wrong when MRA’s “invent” that particular root cause but okay when AMIS do it?

    You aren’t making any sense. You are trying to twist everything to feed your weird little MRA obsession, creating countless contradictions in your own position, and it’s getting really creepy.

    As is obvious, I was mocking the mocking your ridiculous AVFM connection to the funding

    You mean the fact that Erin Pizzey, DV pioneer and editor of AVFM, is a patron of Mankind? You’re mocking me for pointing out that someone who is highly critical of the feminist movement, partly because they killed her dog and ran her out of the country, is a patron of Mankind.

    What the hell is wrong with you?

  224. says

    Marduk @228:

    The problem I have with Hanna Rosin is that she appears to be areverse gender polarity feminist who strikes me as both gleeful and condescending in her writings on the end of men.

    This video of her and her having her children (one boy and one girl) argue about whether boys or girls are best – with the girls winning didn’t exactly improve my opinion on her “End of men” -project: http://www.theatlantic.com/video/archive/2010/06/resolved-girls-are-better-than-boys/57552/

  225. carnation says

    @ Tamen

    I’m suprised that Rosalind Miles’ work hasn’t been picked up by some sympathetic to men’s issues.

  226. marduk says

    I’m aware there are flaws in it (Ally might be interested to know he is cited in the Boston University Law Review: http://www.terpconnect.umd.edu/~pnc/BULR2013.pdf) although I do actually have some problems with the debunking itself, the author of the piece I link to for example has very high evidential standards for some things and flaps around and cites very marginal sources (e.g., Gail Dines) as definitive on hugely controversial issues. You’ll note she is being attacked from the position of feminism itself.

    One of the interesting things for the present discussion is that despite what Carnation says above, in the section on “the place of feminism” the author (and others) do actually and very soberly make the case that feminism is responsible for the current situation of men. Which of course we blame MRAs for believing (presumably they should respect the triumphs and overlook any of the problems). Its not really that MRAs are deluded as much as they choose to believe (and argue with/against) the wrong things and seem to be trolled to death every time someone calling themselves a feminist says virtually anything (an in a non-monolithic movement riven by civil war, a probability of 1 is approached for someone saying anything). Personally I think Rosin is more correct on this issue and feminists have a habit of claiming credit for things that are nothing to do with them and then get tied in knots over it in a way that is funny to observe from the outside (e.g., “having it all” was feminism, now its patriarchy, there is a lot of awkward backtracking going on even today, when the truth is it was always actually a capitalist notion emphasising workplace participation and consumption, the perfect worker drone).

    Anyhow bigger point is that the response of a lot of MRAs is just to call her names because they haven’t even read her book. There are plenty of arguments they could agree with, there are plenty of arguments they could question and so we move on intellectually. That isn’t what happens, she gets called a man hater and that is that.

  227. Ally Fogg says

    Ally might be interested to know he is cited in the Boston University Law Review:

    Ha, thank you, didn’t know! Philip Cohen has quoted me before though, we were basically doing a tag team demolition on Rosin.

    I do actually think that MRAs have legitimate reasons to be cross with Rosin. I found her book very negative, in that it didn’t really offer any ways out.

    More generally, I think there’s a fundamental conservatism to her world view that isn’t especially constructive for men or women.

    I think Susan Faludi’s Stiffed is a vastly, vastly better book.

  228. carnation says

    @ Ally

    Have you read The Rites of Man by Rosalind Miles? Classic in my opinion.

  229. Ally Fogg says

    No, to my shame, I’ve never bumped it to the top of my wishlist.

    Have seen it referenced in various places, but always in such a way that it makes me think it would be quite hard going!

  230. Jacob Schmidt says

    marduk

    I think that would be a fair description of Rodger. What it isn’t is a fair description of lonely and forlorn people who aren’t hurting anyone and aren’t doing anything wrong except failing to live up to what are themselves basically sexist stereotypes. It isn’t anti-feminist or anti-woman to want a partner or a friend and it isn’t a sin to be lonely. If people want to create another Rodger themselves from the whole cloth, keep up on telling harmless (almost pathetically so) people they are evil for having feelings, I’m sure one of them will crack under the shame of it eventually. Its a classic double-bind after all.

    Who’s describing loneliness, in and of itself, as entitlement, or evil?

    That’s one thing that bugs me about all this: many people are advocating that we be empathetic to people who are lonely, but no one seems to be against that. The only thing I see people critcising is the vitriolic resentment and hatred that some lonely people feel towards others when others don’t fix their loneliness for them.

    Ally Fogg

    I do actually think that MRAs have legitimate reasons to be cross with Rosin. I found her book very negative, in that it didn’t really offer any ways out.

    Maybe I’m missreading you, but are you annoyed that Rosin didn’t offer any solutions? If so, that’s a silly thing to be annoyed about.

  231. Iamcuriousblue says

    carnation @ 204

    “As for the “censorship” tactics, you clearly know nothing about activism. They had what’s known as a “counter-protest” – there are thousands of them across the world, all the time. They are arguably as valid as demonstrations. That’s your persecution complex coming into play.”

    Oh, FFS! You’re being both condescending and either dishonest or willfully ignorant here. Condescending in that, in fact, I damn well know what a counter-protest is and that counter-protest is as much an expression of free speech as a protest is. It’s a tactic I’m totally on-board with, and I don’t need your explanations of.

    Here’s how the UToronto protests go beyond simple counter-protest, in two key areas: 1) Use of “heckler’s veto” – in other words, the “protest” consists of physically interfering with the other side’s ability to communicate their point of view, in some cases using illegal means (eg, pulling a fire alarm) to do so. Such actions take these actions out of the realm out exercise of free speech and ethical civil disobedience. I don’t think that tactics like shouting down a speaker or newspaper theft can be seriously defended as “free speech” actions. They are in fact quite the opposite. 2) The role of student government in this. The “counterprotest” is in fact sponsored by the student government at a public university, making it a kind of state action. This same student government has been attempting to have CAFE officially shut down on the UToronto campus – in other words, an act of state censorship.

    If you are ignoring that context even after having it pointed out to you, you’re being willfully ignorant. If you’re aware of that context and making arguments as if those facts didn’t exist, then you’re being downright dishonest. And if that’s the case, perhaps YOU’RE the one who should be making an apology here.

    As for David Futrelle, I have not said that he’s engaging directly in censorship tactics, but certainly actively cheering on those that do. His blanket defense of the unethical actions of the UToronto “protesters” make that abundantly clear, and I stand by that criticism. You can say it’s “ridiculous” until you’re blue in the face – that doesn’t make your right. That would require bringing relevant facts or arguments to the table, something you’ve manifestly failed to do in the discussion of the UToronto controversy.

  232. Iamcuriousblue says

    “You say people are apparently free to unload on Farrell, but “can’t just unload on Dworkin”. This isn’t a valid point as Dworkin has been maligned, ridiculed, attacked and generally held up (with varying degress of justification) as a poster-child of reactionary feminism.”

    Maybe because that reputation is, in fact, deserved? The feminism of Andrea Dworkin, Catherine MacKinnon, Sheila Jeffreys, etc is extremely reactionary, and I think there’s even quite a few feminists that understand that. The laws and policies that have been adopted in several countries and are inspired directly by their ideas have caused real harm to both general civil liberties and sex worker and trans rights in particular.

    Just because they’ve made contributions to feminist theory doesn’t put them above much-justified criticism, even condemnation. Lenin, after all, was an intellectual and theorist too, and by some standards, a “progressive” one – should he be above criticism for the deaths and repression he caused?

    And if Dworkin, etc, are to be held accountable for their toxic ideas, then I don’t think that feminists should be the only ones allowed to make those criticisms.

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>