Paul Elam of A Voice for Men offers a brief overview of MRA outrage at man-hating, rape education, and male ‘reengineering.’
As far as issues go that are of concern to men’s activists, misandry—the hatred, contempt, or depraved indifference to men and boys—sits atop the list. This goes far past simple male-bashing and into our collective consciousness of what defines a man—and prompts an ever more intense power struggle over that definition.
The question is this: is there something inherently wrong with men that would necessitate attempts to socially reengineer them into something different?
Consider this public service announcement regarding rape that aired recently on local television in Iowa. It evoked some measure of outrage, both from men’s activists and no small number of young mothers.
First let’s look at the pivotal, penultimate statement from the video. It challenges us to “redefine what it means to be a man.” In context with the rest of the ad, that statement seems to be saying that the current definition of being a man looks something like this: man (noun): an adult male human; probably a rapist.
Taking a very dim view of rape and punishing it severely isn’t enough to change this; men must be fundamentally changed.
Is the ad really saying what the ad is saying—that by nature, men are potential rapists?
“He’s tough. He’s strong. He’s aggressive. He’s powerful”—all the hallmarks of traditional masculinity. Whether by genetics or socialization or a combination of both, these are the qualities that we value, expect, and respect in men. And for good reason: for one thing, the human race would have died off if men weren’t that way. Survival has its demands. That was particularly true 3 million years ago on the African savanna. But we still expect men to protect and provide for families—as well as their societies—and those traits are still integral to the ability to do that. According to the PSA, though, it seems these are the traits that need to be changed to prevent baby boy from becoming a rapist.
But not only are none of these characteristics the traits of a rapist any more than they are of an armed robber, they’re also the elements that make up a good police officer or a marine. The same exact traits that lead men to put their lives at risk to protect women also lead men to rape them.
Think about it. If any of this were true, changing the nature of manhood would not only prevent rape, but would also prevent men from stopping rape and from seeking retribution against men who commit it. Does it not seem obvious that there is something else, something that differentiates men who take the path of protecting women from those who take the path of raping them?
♦◊♦
Unfortunately, this is not the worst message in the PSA.
If the fact that men are tough, strong, aggressive, and powerful results in rape, then the solution, just as the PSA tells us, is obvious. We need to engineer men who are fragile, weak, meek, and powerless. And we have to begin that process in the cradle, hammering it in with a toxic dose of innate shame and self-loathing for having been born male. There’s your “redefinition of manhood.”
Feminist academics have often worked to promote the idea that men, by their nature, must be remolded into the feminist ideal in order to pass muster as human beings. It is misandry in action; and it is a very real, toxic ideology that has so far snaked its way into the collective consciousness, because until recently there was no recognized opposing voice.
That is changing with the growing popularity of the men’s movement—the one that advocates for men and boys, not the one that trashes them, or teaches egregious stereotypes, like the ones taught in the PSA.
Misandry is a self-feeding tumor that has popularized the notion that men are in need of social reconstruction, arguably so they will be less of a threat to the society that they built and have protected for countless generations. We have seen it played out in simple memes like “Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them,” but it hardly stops there. There are many other ways this is happening. And the 33 seconds of hate speech being peddled above is just another symptom of the problem.
♦◊♦
It is so pervasive that I have even seen it promoted in this very magazine, in an article from the Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity (SPSMM) titled “Violence Is a Men’s Issue,” which asserts that the problem of violence is a problem in masculinity. That is a mild example.
Anti-rape efforts, however important, have become a well-heeled, thoroughly monetized industry in Western culture, one that feeds on public fears about the problem.
Despite the vehement objections by alumni, many faculty, and concerned parents, Hamilton College now requires all freshman males to attend a lecture called “She Fears You.” Attendants are herded into an auditorium on day one and told they are all potential rapists, and that this is rooted in their masculinity. No warnings are sent to the families of freshman women, alerting them that they have chosen to send their daughters to a school inhabited by men who all have the potential to rape their daughters.
I don’t think anyone in possession of their faculties would find fault in the idea of curbing any sort of crime, but criminalizing the sex of half the population is not the way to go about it.
If you are still not convinced, allow me to challenge you to answer some very simple questions. What would you think if the baby in that commercial had been black? In fact, please come up with one social ill for which you think it is fair and legitimate to target any other monolithic group because of the actions of a few. What group of human beings are you willing to put out there and say, “We need to change the meaning of what it means to be a(n) … ?”
Fill in the blank as you see fit: Woman? Asian? Jew? Homosexual? African American? Hispanic?
I’m betting that those who thought the commercial was a good idea would not come up with a single choice from that list, even though they might think it fair to target men in exactly the same way. I’m betting that men are the only group on the planet at which they feel justified in finger-pointing and alleging innate evils.
That is misandry in action, and it is a form of hate just as surely as any other. Good intentions or concerns about rape aren’t supposed to be a license to practice hatred in a culture that is trying to rise above it.
♦◊♦
Meet the Men’s Rights Movement
Hugo Schwyzer: How Men’s Rights Activists Get Feminism Wrong
Tom Matlack: Adultery’s Double Standard
Amanda Marcotte: The Solution to MRA Problems? More Feminism
Zeta Male: The Top 10 Issues of Men’s Rights
Kaelin Alexander: Men’s Studies: Teaching Masculinities in the Margins
Pelle Billing: Unlocking the Men’s Rights Movement
David Futrelle: Dismantling the Men’s Rights Movement
Dan Moore of Menz: The MRA Perspective
Ron Mattocks: When Men Are the Victims of Abuse
Tom Matlack: Do Divorced Dads Get a Raw Deal?
Blixa Scott: Why Do We Forgive Adulterous Women?
Joseph Caputo: Can We Degenderize Domestic Violence?
—Photo quinn.anya/Flickr
About Paul Elam
Vocalyze
1 in 6 American women will be raped. There certainly is a dangerous culture in America but it isn’t men who are getting the short end of the stick. But hey, you’re just taking the brave stand that rape education is…infringing on your rights. Poor guy?
Do you have a source for the 1 in 6?
It’s based on social surveys that ask women if they have encountered “unwanted touching”, which is defined as “sexual assault” and then becomes a “rape” statistic.
When you walk a path in live that leads to a point where you are being a rape apologist, you might want to retrace your steps & ask how you got there.
& oh, the National Institute of Justice & Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. Prevalence, Incidence and Consequences of Violence Against Women Survey. 1998.
Ad hominen attacks are against TGMP comment policy and reveal the weakness of your argument.
It is interesting Denis. In Henry Ballanger’s article introducing the men’s movement, which is an associated part of the MRM series here, he points to MRA’s as a problem with hostilities in comment sections.
In fairness to Henry, I understand the mistake and don’t think it was intentional, but I do think that in all the MRM experience at GMPM is has overwhelmingly been non MRA’s that have gone on the personal attacks, and violated TOS here, which was recommended reading with this series.
I respectfully submit to the editors here that in light of their characterizing MRA’s as hostile, that they should acknowledge that at least within this website that the opposite has been true.
That is not to say that some self identified MRA’s have not made inappropriate comments here, but I do think it speaks to a bias when the record reflects that we are the targets of attacks, but management paints us as the perpetrators of the same.
Paul, I don’t think it’s any secret that this is a Feminist website, adhering to feminist ideology, and read primarily by young women…the bedrock of modern feminism.
We are truly speaking to the enemy here, no matter how much Henry wishes it wasn’t the case. These people have the most facile of ‘concerns’ for men, while they continue to push their hateful agenda.
On the other hand, this is a great opportunity to poke our fingers in some eyes. And that’s always fun.
Why are women the enemy?
“Why are women the enemy?”
I don’t know. Ask them.
See, this is what is wrong with you people. Fighting an idiot war that you don’t understand against a foe you can’t see. Get over it.
“Why are women the enemy? I don’t know, ask them.”
Wait…… Isn’t that sort of thinking what got us in the whole predicament in the first place? Isn’t the whole point of GMP to spread more understanding of men, rather than distance ourselves from women?
The point of this place is not to bash misandry with misogyny to create a balance of equal-hate. It’s to rise up against the misandric side-effects that feminism brought about. The feminist movement did this by assuming women were the only ones with problems and men were the ones causing them.
(Oh terrific, “misandry” isn’t a valid word in Firefox’s dictionary, but “misogyny” is. Fail)
Oh, you were referring to this:
“We are truly speaking to the enemy here, no matter how much Henry wishes it wasn’t the case. These people have the most facile of ‘concerns’ for men, while they continue to push their hateful agenda.”
Well, for you answer, look to responses from feminists to mens concerns. Look at all the ‘concern’ they have for men, all the legitimacy they give mens issues. Just look at their reaction.
Then tell me you have no idea why MRAs would consider Feminists the enemy..
Hi Factory,
Great post!
Because you want to have your problems as a male addressed-high suicide rate, low rate of success in family court, lack of respect in the media for certain types of males-yes?
Yet you wish to destroy half of humanity because some of them apparently contribute to these problems.
No, I intend to eradicate a vile, poisonous ideology…it’s Feminists that are advocating genocide…not us.
Women aren’t the enemy, some of the enemy are women – easy enough to understand I’d think.
Not really-to me an enemy is someone to hate and destroy.
To use the term “women are the enemy” is to say that you hate and wish to destroy women.
That does little to really solve the problems that men have that deserve solving.
“To use the term “women are the enemy” is to say that you hate and wish to destroy women.”
factory didn’t use that term. He was very clearly speaking of feminism as the enemy. So unless you are prepared to argue that feminism == women (which is an argument you would lose, given not all women are feminists, and not all feminists are women), then you are attacking a strawman and equating factory as hateful for no other reason then you want him to be..
If hatred and wishing to destroy, does little to solve a problem, then why is there so much hatred and wishing to destroy men allowed on this site? How is hating men solving problems?
“On the other hand, this is a great opportunity to poke our fingers in some eyes. And that’s always fun.”
I love it when MRAs prove all men aren’t violent by… celebrating violence.
I agree they should be summarily spanked, dressed in garters and made to perform in the Rocky Horror Picture show.
In just seven days………..we can make you a man!
Who said I was interested in proving I wasn’t violent?
In point of fact, I continually warn people that if these issues are not MEANINGFULLY addressed, and soon, there will be a LOT of violence (see: Middle East) that we MRAs won’t be able to stop.
And frankly, if it comes to that, society (and all the women in it along with the men) flat out DESERVES whatever is coming.
Your hubris as a movement is causing a lot of men to be angry. You all vastly underestimate both the anger, and the ubiquitous nature of this anger.
We MRAs do nothing except act as weather vane and map. That’s why we have no central authority, or funding, or organization of any kind. We are average guys mad enough to stand up like we do. There are a LOT more guys that are just as mad, but content to let others lead.
And there are a growing number of men that take Feminist (and ‘official’) dismissal of mens issues as indication that ONLY violent revolution will lead to change.
And speaking for myself, if it ever comes to violence, I will stand aside, and feel bad while all manner of nasty things are done…but I won’t lift a FINGER to stop it.
Just like people like you are doing right now.
You’re arguing that men are going to be so angry they’re not going to be able to control their rage and are therefore going to start inflicting mass amounts of violence upon others.
I’m not sure a feminist could be more defamatory of men than you are being.
MRAs sure are misandrist.
I, and feminists like me, think men are better than that.
Oh look! Feminists on the way to rescue the image of men! Now there’s a sight for sore eyes.
And Annie, you might want to consult at least one history book. Men, when disenfranchised and pushed to the edge, have frequently become violent.
History teaches you nothing else.
Really, almost any book will do. And some common sense.
We know what you and feminists like you think of men
Fanny, as a social worker and a one time feminist, your twisting of the writers words to suggest support for your stance that men are violent…well that is typical of the type of research results femanists often present.
“I, and feminists like me, think men are better than that.”……As a university graduate of social work…I can tell you with absolute certainty….those are not the sentiments held by the school of social work or feminists. Men are viewed just as depicted in this article. The absolute abuse I endured as a male by the female staff and class was nothing short of eye opening. Of course I am a graduate of psychology as well….so going into social work had me well prepeared for dealing with the games women like to play!
“[If I were] called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.”
That is what you said, Mister Elam? Yeah, you don’t have any credibility here.
And what does it take to have credibility with you, posting fraudulent statistics about the incidence of rape? Calling names? Given your posts here that would seem to be the case.
My stand on jury nullification is at least honest, and supported by a lengthy and well documented article that is, as we speak, under review by GMPM for publication here.
Perhaps if they run it you can offer your thoughtful critique about why it is an idea with no credibility. But I would suggest that you do better than statistics and data drawn out of thin air.
Yeah!
Go Paul!
Taking it to em!
Yes, the logical fallacies are as brazen as if I were to make fun of your Mercury Hat there to render your argument invalid.
“rape apologist” gasp we havent heard that one before have we?
The number of women who’ve been raped in their lifetime is 1 in 6. The number of women who’ve been sexually assaulted, considering the number of men who feel entitled to reach out and grab or pinch, would be inestimable.
University math departments should offer classes in feminist math since it uses some computations unknown to any but the feminist clergy.
Math using feelings and estimations.
This is what feminists think of men.
In a country of over 300,000,000 people the United Reports less than 100,000 rapes annually. That translates to a per capita incidence of 0.301318 rapes per 1,000 people.
SOURCE: The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (2002) (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita
Now, given that there are many rapes that go unreported the real number is higher, but the numbers you have provided are representative of long debunked feminist canards.
Additionally, the approach used in that video also lends us to accept whatever shocking numbers people want to float around, as long as they vilify men. Consider the following:
* 2.1% of men reported forced vaginal sex compared to 1.6% of women in a relationship in the previous year. From: Predictors of Sexual Coersion.http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID45-PR45.pdf
*94% of sexually abused youth in correctional facilities reported being abused by female staff. From: Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities, 2008-09.http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/svjfry09.pdf
* Among inmates reporting staff sexual misconduct, ~ 65% reported a female aggressor. From: Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008-09.http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/svpjri0809.pdf
* 50% of homeless youth reported being sexually abused by a female. From: It’s Not What You Think: Sexually Exploited Youth in British Columbia.http://www.nursing.ubc.ca/PDFs/ItsNotWhatYouThink.pdf
Also one last bit of empirical evidence. Cheap personal insults and shaming tactics like “poor baby,” combined with misleading, hysterical and false statistics, are cheerfully dismissed by MRA’s along with any credibility they might have extended the offender.
Source: Paul Elam
Rape is drastically underreported due to the shame inherent in the crime and a long storied history of victim blaming and incompetent judicial handling. Big surprise.
What shame?? You mean the shame of everyone in your social circle giving you attention and sympathy? or getting on tv shows? or (as in the UK) being paid $17K?
That’s shame that I wouldn’t mind having…
It’s pretty ridiculous to be shamed for something that was completely out of your control.
UNLESS
it WASN’T completely out of her control
I’ve noticed that feminists like to use the term “Victim Blaming” to describe the act of attributing blame to irresponsible women who put themself in risky situations (“because it’s my right to do whatever I want and if anything happens it’s *someone else’s* fault”)
Maybe if I drove my car to the ghetto, and left it with the key in the ignition and the engine running, and the doors open for a night or two, then when the car is inevitably stolen, I can be a “victim” and not have to share in the blame and receive $17K for my victimization.
LMAO Did I just say that I wouldn’t mind being raped?? haha yea…I think I’d rather not be raped…
but then again…$17k is some serious coin…isn’t the going rate for prostitution, $100?
might consider that one…
Rape is drastically overplayed as a woman’s problem. Most rape victims are male. The opposite is believed only because most of the victims are male and incarcerated. The only people whose problems are less cared about than men are men who have been imprisoned.
There are different types of rape. Intimate partner rape occurs in an entirely different culture than prison rape. I would never deny that men are raped in similar, equal, or even perhaps higher rates than women, especially if I could see credible, mostly unbiased survey results on the subject. The problem is, mainstream American culture upholds an unrealistic standard of masculinity that makes admitting to victimization a threat to gender identity, so men do not report being raped. This is when statistics arrive. Rape statistics are always shaky, since they rely on self-reporting. There are any number of reasons why a man or woman would not report being raped. If men are “tough, strong, aggressive, and powerful,” and these qualities are respect and expected, why would a heterosexual man ever admit that he has been victimized by a female intimate partner who is presumably (if we’re talking terms in mainstream gender logic) on the opposite and unfavorable side of the spectrum (weak, unaggressive, and powerless). Prison rape is an entirely different animal. Why WOULDN’T someone who was raped in prison (a phenomenon that we in mainstream culture know occurs in total institutions) admit to and report his victimization? What has he got to lose? The entire point of the total institution (such as a prison or mental hospital) is to break you down into a shred of humanity and rebuild you from the ground up according to how you “should” act in a civilized society. So when his masculinity has ostensibly already been broken by the total institution, there are fewer barriers to keep him from admitting that he has been raped. Fewer, at least, than in the mainstream culture where traditional “tough, strong, aggressive, powerful” (emphasis on the powerful) masculinity still reigns. This skews statistics that take mainstream rape and prison rape as one in the same… or almost any rape statistic, for that matter.
I believe what this video is trying to portray is not the weakening of men in a “break-him-until-he-does-it-right” total institution-type sense, but rather an invitation to reconsider what exactly defines respected, expected masculinity. That doesn’t mean “we need to engineer men who are fragile, weak, meek, and powerless.” It means we need to start raising men who are ALLOWED by our culture to express sentiments other than toughness, strength, aggressiveness, and power. It is the expectation that men will exhibit these qualities that leads to confused interpretations of what exactly it MEANS to be powerful, and what ultimately leads men to rape in the first place. If men are supposed to be powerful, then any time a woman denies him, he takes a dig to his gender identity. With masculinity at the foundation of many men’s personal identities, why wouldn’t he take action to protect himself from that emasculization? Hence, he rapes her. To be powerful. Because powerful men are respected.
What if we expected men AND women to have these characteristics, and also expected men AND women to be emotional, sensitive, attentive, and nurturing? And respected people of all genders for exhibiting qualities that reflect EXACTLY who they want to be, uninhibited by any idea of what they “should” be? The answer is openness to fluidity and level equality. Not programs like “She Fears You,” not verbal attacks on women (feminists) who have worked for decades to achieve gender equality that they were previously systematically denied, and not a battle of “who’s statistics are more credible.”
“Why WOULDN’T someone who was raped in prison (a phenomenon that we in mainstream culture know occurs in total institutions) admit to and report his victimization? ”
The fact that you are asking this question demonstrates that you live in a completely different world and reality than most men do. A guy who admits that he’s been raped will be an object of ridicule for the rest of his life, and that’s if he’s lucky. In the worst scenario, he would get shanked but not before he was gang raped repeatedly.
The rest of your post is similarly completely off the mark and isn’t even worth responding to.
Yeah, it blew my mind when I read “why WOULDN”T someone who was raped in prison admit to and report his victimization.”
Not sure what world she lives in but it’s clearly not the world of men. Virtually no man raped in prison will open admit it. Much less where it as a badge of honorable victimhood for the world to see the way women do. More to the point, not only will he not admit to being raped, barring some seriously mal-adjusted outliers he sure the hell wouldn’t make up a rape story for sympathy the way so many women do.
Ghost118 is right at the beginning about forgetting that ANY sort of victimization is regarded as laughable, whiny, or weak.
It’s kinda like Superman saying “We live in the same world and play by the same rules. If you aren’t as invulnerable and indestructible as me, it’s your own fault for being weak.”
Then society says “With guys like Superman around, why would we put up with or settle for the other weaklings?”
It’s the whole “world revolves around the alpha male” ideology. The moment you show you aren’t as powerful as him, you become expendable. In a culture like that, there is no room for anyone knowing you have been overpowered.
Bringing me to my next point. I agree with your interpretation of the video. It’s not about weakening guys, it’s about destroying the superman expectation. It’s about allowing guys to have human fallacies rather than being pitted against whoever is top dog. That is, the guy who ACTS like he has no fear, ACTS like he’s tough, making everyone else ACT the same way.
As I often put it. People never actually “grow up”, we just learn how to act like it over time to avoid being the “immature” one.
Male-on-male sex crimes are also under-reported for the same reason, as is male domestic violence and crimes committed against children. Shame is a common emotion felt by those who have been victimized. Violent crimes of all stripes are important issues and real problems but focusing solely on one crime that impacts one group, often utilizing faulty facts to do so, does nothing for the problem.
Edit: I should have phrased the DV bit as “domestic violence against men”
Its often hard to find any real facts about these numbers, but I think I recall a post mentioning that men who rape often have as many as 10 different victims. That does not change the number of women who are raped, but causes one question how that number changes the scope of the issue in the male social arena.
.
It is of course impossible to tell who rapists are or might be. So a broad preemptive sweep does make sense. I don’t think the author of this article denies that presumption, but he does take issue with how these sweeps take place.
.
“She Fears You.” From the title alone it is hard to draw conclusions, but unless its about not following to closely behind women in the parking garage (Schrödinger’s Rapist) then it doesn’t really make sense. One of the problems with teaching fear is the response from an expectation of fear in others, is often fear it self. You probably end up conditioning several men to be afraid of causing women to be afraid, leading to them withdrawing far more then intended. Gynophobia is not a good solution to the issue.
mordicai,
How can any adult post a follow-up comment such as 1 in 6 women will be raped in America? So have I, a male, been raped if a woman has come up to me and made an unapproved or unwanted touch on my body (arm, ass, belly, etc) or tried more than once to seduce me after I indicated I wasn’t interested while continuing to sensuously touch my neck and chest.
Yes, Aharon. Please continue in this vein… describe how frightening, aggressive women violated you through touching your bottom or coming on to you. Your terror of social interaction makes you look bizzarre to any normal human being.
Hey, atheist? I bet you’d mock my husband for being sexually assaulted by a bunch of teenage girls and also by a bunch of cougars (both of which tried to get him drunk before he escaped).
I’d bet you’d also mock me for being sexually assaulted by a group of young men– oh wait… that’s right, I’m a woman, so I don’t get mocked.
And people wonder why men don’t report sexual abuse.
Atheist is using the typical shaming tactics that have been so effective used against men historically. He’d never think of saying that to a woman. Trivializing men’s pain via shaming tactics, telling us to suck it up, stop whining or take it like man are also aspects of misandry. The very idea of being a victim and being a male are contradictory to many men’s understanding of manhood. Gender ideologues take advantage of this to promote a female victim, male perp. (women=good, men=bad) point of view.
It’s people like YOU atheist who are the problem. It’s people like you who tell male victims to shut up and deal, or they’re not “really men.”
Do us a favor and shut up
1 in 6? Complete bull.
Yeah, it’s actually closer to 1 in 4
Actually Paul Elam has already been exposed as a fraud by Manhood Academy: http://manhood101.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=287
“The same exact traits that lead men to put their lives at risk to protect women also lead men to rape them.”
See, the problem is:
1. you’re all like “use your power for good,” but really it’s more like “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
2. What?
Actually Paul Elam has already been exposed as a fraud by Manhood Academy: http://manhood101.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=287 .. I’m surprised this scam artists still purports to speak for men.
As SPSMM’s liaison and editor to GMPM, I’d like to make a factual clarification about the article Paul is referring to. Paul says that article “asserts that the problem of violence is a problem in masculinity.” That’s not correct. The article says that “Violent men nearly all adhere to toxic definitions of masculinity.” The article does NOT say that most or all definitions of masculinity are toxic, just that many men who commit violent acts have adopted a version of masculinity that is toxic.
I also have an unanswered question from that article: Given that 90% of violent crimes likes murder and arson are committed by men, and that men are also the most likely victims, shouldn’t we spend some time thinking about violence as a men’s issue? I’m not saying this is the only way to think about violence, but when the group “men” makes up the majority of perpetrators and the majority of victims, then isn’t it “our” issue?
Andrew,
Since there is so much hysteria propaganda directed at men as being the source of so much violence, I’m responding to simply add a little balance:
1) mothers are responsible for the murdering of their own children more than fathers or strangers.
2) mothers are responsible for the majority of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse of children not fathers.
3) women (not men) are responsible for 7 out of 10 cases of one-way domestic violence abuse where the victim does not strike back. Among heteros 15-20% of couples have some dv abuse. Interestingly among lesbians the rate of dv is 1 in 3 couples Gee, who would think two women could be violent together?
Women’s use of violence has been ignored for too long. If there is any program to address violence as a men’s issue, it will only perpetuate the status-quo of ignoring women’s use of violence.
Aharon & Denis,
I get where you’re coming from and I have no argument with that. But I’m not talking about just interpersonal violence or child abuse, I’m talking about violence in general. Assault, violence, and arson are overwhelmingly committed by men and against men (or men’s property). If we want to help men – even if we’re only talking about male victims – then shouldn’t we be talking about ALL of these forms of violence?
And while I see the value of having both a general approach and a sex-specific (i.e., male-only) approach, Denis’ point is valid. For me, that’s not enough of a reason to stop thinking about it both ways.
If we want to help men – even if we’re only talking about male victims – then shouldn’t we be talking about ALL of these forms of violence?
We should, but we cannot do that properly unless we address the misinformation feminists present regarding the violence that a minority of men commit. If we do not address that, then we end up with the same problems advocates for male victims of domestic and sexual violence face: feminists accusing male victims of causing their own abuse.
More so, the feminist explanation overlook a major component of the violence: those who commit violence tend to target people no one will care about. On a smaller level this means assaulting the homeless or foster kids. However, on a broader social level it means assaulting males. Simply put: if someone hurts or kills a bunch of males, no one cares. This applies to adult men in prison to little boys raped by their female teachers. Our society considers violence against males acceptable and normal, not just because males are presumed capable of defending themselves, but also because our society views males as disposable.
Jacob,
Why does work on other forms of violence (assault, murder, arson) that are committed primarily by men against men need to wait until after issues regarding IPV are addressed? Or am I misreading that? As far as I know, in these other areas, there’s no debate about men as majority in both the perpetrator and victim side.
I agree with you that society views males as disposable. Wouldn’t advocating for the male victims of these other crimes be one way (not the only way) to get this point across and potentially change people’s minds?
You cannot artificially separate these issues.
80% of the people in prison (90% of whom are male) come from single mother homes. Children who are abused, as we’ve seen a majority of whom by their mothers, are the ones frequently doing the raping, murdering, arson, etc.
Sadly these gender biased approaches that marginalize and demonize men will only make the problem worse. It’s the concept of giving a dog a bad name or a self fulfilling prophecy. In psychology it’s called the “looking glass self.”
There’s nothing to be gained by promoting the idea that the male sex, manhood or masculinity is inherently flawed and a whole of harm has been, and will continue to be done, if we do.
As far as I know, in these other areas, there’s no debate about men as majority in both the perpetrator and victim side.
Yet there is the notion that it is men themselves (via “Patriarchy”) who cause there own victimization. There is the notion that there is something inherent in men that prompts them to violence. Those notions taint how people treat male victims of crime. Until we address those biased, misandrist concepts, we will not be able to adequately help male victims.
Andrew, I agree that violence is worth talking about, but violence is essentially a societal problem and not just a men’s problem.
You can’t just focus on men’s violence and pretend that the root of the problem is different than women’s violence. It’s not and apparently women are becoming more and more violent.
Denis,
I see the value of having both a general approach and a sex-specific (i.e., male-only) approach
I’m not suggesting that we only think about this ONLY as a men’s issue, but as BOTH a men’s issue AND also as a general/societal issue. (And we don’t need to think about it in that order.)
@AS
I got a chuckle at your mention of unanswered questions given the number of them you failed to answer from the exchange you are referring to. But I will answer you just the same.
You say that you are clarifying things by pointing out that your article is simply asserting that most violent men have “toxic” ideas about masculinity.
That means exactly nothing. Many violent criminals, especially habitual ones, have much of their perceptions distorted by sociopathic tendencies that often lead them to justify their actions and their disregard for the well-being and property of others. Most men who end up incarcerated for violent crimes have personal histories of abuse from childhood. And much of that childhood abuse is at the hands of women.
Most men who end up in prison for violent crimes repeatedly had eggs or cereal for breakfast in the morning for most of their lives. And I would wager that most of them would believe that the Earth is not shaped like a pretzel.
Of all these factors, which would establish causation?
And that is the glaring hole in everything SPSMM – Division 51 of the APA, has fallen into intellectually and can’t (or won’t) get itself out of.
Yes, many violent men have distorted notions of manhood. Where is your proof that establishes that as causing the violence, Mr. S, especially to the degree that we need to institutionalize the assumption that we can address the problem by chastising our fellow man en masse?
All you need to do to prove your point is prove that unhealthy definitions of manhood are the CAUSE of these problems, and are not just an artifact of other conditions that lead to violent conduct. If you can do that, then I will RUSH to my website to issue you a public apology, endorse the ad campaign above and start encouraging my readers to confront each other about all the potential mayhem that could be residing in each and every one of them.
No need to wait for evidence, guys, if it has a penis it has potential.
But you do not have that evidence Mr. S, because it does not exist and never has. It is nothing more than the simplistic, purely politicized postmodern fantasy of insulated academicians with notoriously poor reactions to dissent. In short, it is just one more aspect of the feminist “scholarship” that your organization supports.
So in regard to this:
“Given that 90% of violent crimes like murder and arson are committed by men, and that men are also the most likely victims, shouldn’t we spend some time thinking about violence as a men’s issue?”
The answer is yes, Mr. S, but with more scientific acumen than would lead us to take any particular factor and treat it as causing a problem when there is no proof, or even reasonable supposition that we should do so.
And certainly not with the cryptomisandric bigotry and blanket condemnation you bring to the table.
*Crickets* (surprise)
Paul,
I did NOT say that toxic definitions of masculinity CAUSE violence, nor did Kilmartin. We’ve both indicated that it’s one part of the puzzle. Nor has either of us said that it’s the biggest piece in the puzzle. And although you don’t like it, there’s plenty of research that demonstrates a connection. In fact, you even seem to be acknowledging the connection: Yes, many violent men have distorted notions of manhood.
As far as I can tell, our biggest disagreement is what to do about it. You seem to think that SPSMM members think that the solution to every problem relating to men is to change masculinity. That’s a huge misrepresentation, but since we mostly spend our time working with men in therapeutic settings and training therapists that they should NOT expect guys in therapy to act the same way female therapy clients act, I can’t say I’m surprised.
There are many things we can do about guys’ problems, whether those guys are perpetrators or victims, whether it’s related to violence or health, etc. On your website, you argue that we need to get past gender roles. That’s on our website as well – it’s part of our mission statement. I think we have the same goals, but we sometimes take different paths to get there. I think it’s important to do both – after all, not all guys think or act the same way.
As for unanswered questions, I don’t speak for all feminism or all feminists, so I can’t answer most of the questions you asked. I don’t describe myself as a feminist, and most of the feminists I’ve met don’t think I’m a feminist, although you seem to think I am. The Schwyzer article (http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/how-the-mens-rights-activists-get-feminism-wrong/) has clarified some of that reasoning for me.
I’m not an expert in interpersonal violence and haven’t claimed to be, so again, I can’t answer questions about IPV. And although I oversee SPSMM’s contributions to GMPM, that doesn’t mean I control what they do, how they think, or what they say. If you have a question that I can answer, I’ll answer it; I did that for others a few months ago and will do it again.
@ AS
You said:
“I did NOT say that toxic definitions of masculinity CAUSE violence, nor did Kilmartin. We’ve both indicated that it’s one part of the puzzle. Nor has either of us said that it’s the biggest piece in the puzzle. And although you don’t like it, there’s plenty of research that demonstrates a connection. In fact, you even seem to be acknowledging the connection: Yes, many violent men have distorted notions of manhood.”
I have to wonder, Andrew, how long you are capable of sidestepping the actual point here. I will reframe the same question to you and let’s see if we can get a more direct and sensible answer.
Without the establishment of cause, there is literally no difference in the “connection” between distorted notions of manhood and violence than there is between the distorted notions of manhood and a history of eating eggs for breakfast. Unless, of course, you can establish logical and compelling reasons why we should consider your ideas above things like a history of being abused, drug and alcohol abuse, competition in the realm of sexual selection, etc..
Admittedly, where it comes to gaining attention, the puzzle pieces I mentioned are more commonly known, and certainly not as sexy and sellable as “toxic masculinity.” They also don’t provide the ideological benefit of the nice fit with misandric feminism.
But since those things provide a more plausible concern for causation, it would seem to be an irresponsible disregard them in order to focus your attentions on concepts like “toxic masculinity,” and encouraging men to confront each other’s notions of manhood vs. confronting the disproportionate abuse of male children and the equally disproportionate incidence of men afflicted with alcoholism and addiction.
In fact, with all this overkill on toxic masculinity, without providing even a remotely credible reason to see it as causative of violence, you have provided us with nothing but meaningless, dangerously distracting conjecture.
So when you say, “As far as I can tell, our biggest disagreement is what to do about it [male violence],” you have made the understatement of the year.
And that understatement is clearly inspired by your political need to adhere to feminist orthodoxy (the problem is the nature of men) rather than embrace a cogent and well-reasoned approach to addressing the problem.
That dedication to feminist orthodoxy is broadcast front and center on your website. To wit:
“[SPSMM] Acknowledges its historical debt to feminist-inspired scholarship on gender, and commits itself to the support of groups such as women, gays, lesbians and people of color that have been uniquely oppressed by the gender/class/race system.”
It looks like you are doing a fine job of repaying your “debt,” Andrew, but I would suggest that publicly stated obligations to political ideology is not the best way to inspire any sort of confidence in your objectivity. And yes, this would be a fine example of possible causation here. I hypothesize that your ideological obligation to feminism has directly resulted in viewing male violence through a misandric lens.
Feminism is a political ideology, Andrew. Even if there are differing views as to its merits as such, that much is still undeniable. To that extent, there is no such thing as “feminist scholarship,” on gender any more than there is “republican scholarship,” on climate change.
On your very own website you are acknowledging that everything you do is biased.
Additionally, you say, “On your website, you argue that we need to get past gender roles. That’s on our website as well – it’s part of our mission statement. I think we have the same goals, but we sometimes take different paths to get there. I think it’s important to do both – after all, not all guys think or act the same way.”
No sir, we don’t have the same goals at all. Indeed, A Voice for Men is very active in pushing the idea that we get past gender roles. For men, that would primarily be the role of protector and provider, as well as encouraging men to completely reevaluate their role in the sexual selection process and rebel against it. I assert that there is likely a great deal to be gleaned from these things where it concerns male violence.
Your work almost totally ignores the male gender role, and the crushing price to them of fulfilling it. Indeed, what SPSMM does, as is amply evident in your article, is attempt to publicly coerce that role to the hilt by vilification of men in general, and attempts to shame them into an even more rigid role as the generic, congenital protectors of women.
And that is all feminism is, an ideology that pushes the mandate for men to sacrifice for women to the absolute extreme.
If we are to move past gender roles, we need to move past the antiquated notion that men are to focus on the problems of others at their own expense.
The role of protector mandates the capacity for violence. If you want to curb the violence, then you might consider that unburdening men from that expectation would be helpful.
You might also consider that if you represent SPSMM here, and “oversee” SPSMM articles on violence that tag men with the ultimate responsibility for it, and then retreating when asked uncomfortable questions with something like ‘Gee, I dunno, I am not an expert’ comes off as evasive and disingenuous.
You are fronting this work and a chapter of the APA. If you, or your writers, won’t answer fair and legitimate questions, then please don’t complain about anyone challenging your credibility.
Very interesting Mr. Elam. Still interested in hearing a response from Andrew Smiler. I wonder if we will ever hear one?
(This comment pasted from WORD due to GMPM’s practice of auto refreshing to inflate the appearance of advertising impressions.)
Sooo, let me get this straight Elam.
You mentioned earlier that “Men, when disenfranchised and pushed to the edge, have frequently become violent. History teaches you nothing else. Really, almost any book will do. And some common sense.”
And instead of pushing for a solution to violence, whether that be focus it into categories (men’s violence, women’s violence, youth’s violence, etc.) or a generalization, you’d rather blame a group outside of yourself than actually come up with real, tangible solutions. Andrew I don’t think was trying to say men are bad, men are evil, men’s ways are the cause. I think Andrew was trying to start a discussion of how can we solve this problem. Let’s help men out. Let’s figure out why men are victims of violence and why men cause violence. Let’s work together boys.
Sure, women cause violence too. Shame on them. But for once can we stop caring about women’s issues and care about our own? That’s what Andrew was getting at. Guys, let’s figure this out. Let’s take responsibility were we need to take responsibility and make things better. If we find women are helping to cause this violence, then let’s bring them in on the discussion as well, but let’s not blame the feminist movement for our own actions, ok?
“The article does NOT say that most or all definitions of masculinity are toxic, just that many men who commit violent acts have adopted a version of masculinity that is toxic.”
Yeah, exactly like The Patriarchy(tm) doesn’t mean “men”, it just means all things male.
Hy – po – crite.
It’s just “patriarchy”, not “The Patriarchy”. It’s a system, not an institution, same way that it’s “capitalism”, a system of private accumulation and exploitation, and not “The Capitalism”, a shadowy cabal of trillionaire super-villains. A not-insignificant distinction.
(Also, you’re misusing the ironic trademark thing. Like, really badly.)
“Given that 90% of violent crimes likes murder and arson are committed by men, and that men are also the most likely victims, shouldn’t we spend some time thinking about violence as a men’s issue?”
Sure….most of those men come from fatherless families…..FACT
Secondly most crime is committed against men and as such for territory or resources specifically. Men are exactly what women selected for us to be. I make no apologies. I would guess and say that 95+ % of men have no criminal history.
There is overwhelming evidence that “male aggression” and “male violence” are GOOD things.
It is male aggression and male violence that tore a whole through a mountain to build Eisenhower Tunnel and the list goes on.
Red,
I mostly agree with you, although I think 95% may only be correct if you eliminate drug possession offenses (the most common reason that men and women are incarcerated or on parole).
But we do lock up folks who use that aggression & violence “inappropriately,” so there’s some line that gets crossed, so I don’t think those things are always or 100% good. And I, for one, am glad that assault, murder, arson, etc. are illegal.
I’m not clear why the “Good Men Project Magazine” feels the need to publish and promote the work of Paul Elam, whose own work and writing is some of the most hateful, woman-hating and woman-bashing garbage I’ve ever read. I realize that he uses articles like this one to conceal his larger points and make his hateful ideology palatable to other men, but it’s really disgusting that you’re giving him a voice. It makes me really disinclined to read other articles in the magazine, and there’s no way I would recommend it to others now. You really need to re-think who your contributors are; Elam’s a jerk, not a “good” man.
Joe,
Paul is a great man and a great leader for men’s rights. I’ve gained a bit more respect for the GMPM by their publishing an article by Paul Elam. Paul’s criticism is more focused on the behavior and attitudes of modern western (feminist indoctrinated) women and is not about women as a gender. In this series, the GMPM is providing (love that word!) other writers whose views range far from Paul’s writing. Perhaps you believe that feminism and women are above criticism and questioning?
I agree with Aharon. I give GMPM props for allowing Paul to write here. It shows that they are open to at least some sort of debate on these topics. None better to debate them than Paul. Whereas I didn’t read this site before, I will at least give it a spot in my Google reader now that I know they aren’t completely in the feminist camp.
Many have much the same opinion about other man-hating writers at GMPM. This article is about misandry and doesn’t contain any misogyny.
Stay on topic and address what the author actually says.
“really disgusting that you give him A VOICE!” LOL I love it!
Yes SILENCE him at once!!
sure thing “Joe”
Elam’s not a hater. He’s an excellent man.
That being said, he doesn’t “sugar coat it”.
People are always going to say things in tones you don’t like. I’d recommend you listen to the content and stop worrying about how he makes you feel.
While I may not agree with many of the things and tactics that Paul uses, he is still more an ally for us dealing with Men’s Rights than most other people — on this site, or in the world at large.
The debate between Andrew and Paul is interesting, and is the kind of lively conversation that helps educate me, at least, on the issues at hand, and helps me to make up my own mind.
Paul might not be the nicest guy to talk to, but he’s right about being honest, upfront, and not ducking the hard issues.
I think we all have our weak-spots when it comes to Men’s Rights, but as long as we remember that THAT is the issue we came here to discuss, I think we’ll find our way back to a unified center to *help* men, first and foremost.
It’s funny, what I find disturbing about guys like Kilmartin is they identify quickly with politically incorrect violence, and label it toxic and well it is. But violence for profit, and violence by proxy completely escapes discussion. Most men who look closer see the obvious. Maybe you should look closer.
Focusing soley on this “toxic definition of masculinity” -which seems to me to be most of the crux of this whole subject- seems to me the concept of the Zeta male is doing the best job in causing men to re-assess all of that. What with doing away with the tradtional gender roles that men have had thrusted upon them for so long. Also seems to me that what men in this site are doing is very “white knight” (a term I am sure you have heard before and will undoubtedly be met with a fecetious dismissal).
Exactly, feminism should be embracing the zeta male or even the Japanese grass-eaters.
Nothing like redefining masculinity by eliminating chivalry which has caused so much violence.
Indeed. The Zeta male is the least misogynistic man there is. Look I don’t think a lot of you guys in this website get that the TRUE MRA way is largely about men looking at themselves a lot; as much as it is about looking at feminism. It’s about sane rational men saying ‘OK, how did we, as men perpetuate a lot this? What pills did we blidnly swallow?” Ultimately it is men that must change, just not the way men in this site are indicating.
**munch munch* MMMM..Denis!! This grass is DELICIOUS!! Where’d you get it?
“What with doing away with the tradtional gender roles that men have had thrusted upon them for so long. ”
So… feminism?
No……MGTOW
Feminism, for the most part says “we women will progress and move forward out of tradition…you men STAY RIGHT WHERE YOU ARE!’
No, it doesn’t.
If feminism is ever one-sided toward women (which it rarely is) it is in the context of men being VASTLY better off and women struggling to catch up behind them.
This cartoon is about racial affirmative-action, but you could easily replace the black man with a woman of any colour:
http://i.imgur.com/lSkMi.jpg
Problem with your argument is that women were never oppressed and women didn’t really have much to do with elevating anyone.
So that cartoon doesnt really work
“women were never oppressed”
What.
Ok, fine
it’s fine
Women were and are still oppressed
by feminism
It teaches women that they are children
they are irresponsible and can’t do anything without government intervention
Not good enough to be a Firefighter?
Get Big Daddy Government to lower their standards
Made a bad decision?
no prob, we can just blame it on the men
I could write an essay on how women were never oppressed before feminism
but you’d never read it and I’d waste my time
Feminism rarely one sided toward women?
Uhhh….. ok. Did you ride the short-bus to school today?
Actually the real reason that your cartoon wouldn’t work with a woman (especially a white woman) in place of the black man is because there are no real societal “advantages” to being black, whereas there are with being female.
Were women oppressed in some ways? Yes, but they were protected in others. They largely got to avoid (and still do in many ways) the more dangerous aspects of life that males (lower class males especially) frequently had to over come. How many men have died protecting a woman? The reverse?
Women have greater access to help and institutional support than do men, and are often seen by society as being “morally superior” to men
The problem is that feminism wants men to throw off the gender role that feminists have defined for men via ‘patriarchy theory’.
It seems men would prefer to throw off the gender role that they actually have.
I’m sorry-but I cannot ever come back to this forum again. It is clear to me that these are men for feminism, some of them clearly are. Yeah well, thing about that is I would not continue a conversation with a man in person once he established that about himself. I find talking with men who support feminism is just slightly less entertaining and pleasant that..say ohh…..getting marrow extracted from ones bones? (Saw it in a House episode…guy was screamin).
So, I am out and won’t check to see the response..victory is yours men.
Nice thought!
Amen to that.
Thanks for a very strong and important text!
M./Sweden
Going back to a point made much earlier in the threaded replies, I’d like to add that I’ve visited many feminist sites over the years. The vast, vast majority rely on censorship and shaming tactics to silence any male-friendly perspective.
Take for example mordical’s reliance on strongly implying anyone who takes issue with men (as a whole) being branded as rapists, is somehow pro-rape or potentially a rapist themselves. THAT is truly, truly disgusting behaviour – yet it is very, very common within feminist websites to see them relying on ‘tried and trusted’ methods such as this.
This not only is an attempt to suggest that men are rapists just waiting to be free to rape, but it also serves to clearly demonstrate that feminism is NOT anti-sexism. This feminist mentality repeatedly attempts to justify sexism against men, as is the case demonstrate by mordical’s replies whereby s/he makes clear efforts to defend other’s “rights” to assume all men are rapists.
Disgusting – yet typical.
“The vast, vast majority rely on censorship and shaming tactics to silence any male-friendly perspective.”
Or crippling your vocabulary so unbelievably that you actually have to take a 4 year course on sensitivity to write for them. I had a blog I wrote for that did that and I finally quit. EVERYthing I said violated some poor abused minority. Actually, I was just pushing for equal treatment across the board, and someone got their feelings hurt every time…
Your post was always approved if you talked about how men were so awful. That was the final nail in the coffin of my support for anything remotely feminist.
And yes, I’m a woman.
Funny how much of feminist rhetoric resembles Newspeak and feminist ideas of equality require doublethink.
I think that the author misunderstands the meaning and purpose of the PSA that he criticizes. The implication is not that men’s “innate” characteristics cause rape, but that they must learn the attitudes that make rape possible. Nor does the PSA mean that all masculine characteristics are negative. It’s okay to be “strong” and “powerful.” However, there are other characteristics that are a part of conventional masculinity (in our historically-specific culture) that contribute to rape.
On a larger scale, I think that many of the arguments and comments here suffer from taking a very simplistic view of very complex issues, such as rape, domestic violence, etc. These crimes have no simple, single cause; nor are their solutions simple. The goal of many academics who research and write about these issues is not to blame a person or even a group of people but to understand the complexity of them and to begin working toward solutions.
If I am allowed, I am going to repost a couple of excerpts from my own blog that works in hand with the points that Paul discussed in his article. (There is also some expansion of those points for the context of this discussion.) The original article is here: (http://demosthenesxxi.wordpress.com/2010/02/19/the-act-of-rape-is-not-a-condition-of-being-male/)
____________________________________________________________________________
First off, all reasonable men, including the ones who identify themselves as “feminists,” should be deeply offended by the prevailing ideas regarding the male population and the crime of rape. Those ideas can be summed up by three concepts that are continuously put forth in the majority of feminist-supported platforms, including the US government by way of VAWA:
1. One in four women are victims of rape.
2. There is a culture of rape that permeates human society even to the modern day.
3. Nearly all rape victims know their attacker.
Without taking the time to disprove these individual ideas, I can say that combined, these three ideas support one other underlying and frightening concept that is being put forth as “fact:”
[b]Rape is not an action that is symptomatic of criminal or deviant behavior but something that is causal of being male.[/b]
Let me state this in another manner; the feminist philosophers and thinkers have disassociated the concept of rape with deviant behavior and re-associated it with being a facet of typical male behavior. The logical extension of this thinking (which has been stated in many feminist dialogs) is that any male can be a rapist granted motive and opportunity. One of the core documents of feminist philosophy, “Against Our Will” by Susan Brownmiller clearly states these ideas and promotes them as fact. Take this passage for example:
[i]“Man’s discovery that his genitalia could serve as a weapon to generate fear must rank as one of the most important discoveries of prehistoric times, along with the use of fire and the first crude stone axe. From prehistoric times to the present, I believe, rape has played a critical function…it is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.“[/i]
Read that passage again and consider what it says. Brownmiller is citing that “all men” consciously use rape as a tool. This is dangerous thinking and symptomatic of what is wrong with some divisions of feminist thought.
Another piece of ill-logic that is applied to men and rape is that while a child molester (regardless of gender) is seen as “mentally unbalanced,” a rapist is being portrayed as just “one of the guys.” Part of this is based upon the Koss study which many researchers use as a metric (albeit flawed) to base their research upon.
Both rapists and child molesters display the same predatory behavior (though the rapist who targets adult women is allowed a broader freedom based upon the simple fact that their chosen prey is legally accessible for sexual activity). There are other traits that both predators share in their behavior. One trait is the “grooming” of the victim. Feminists will quickly tote out the fact that most rape victims know their attacker. If you compare this to a child molester grooming their victim, then it makes sense. The predator picks out his or her victim and then tries to get to know their victim in a twisted form of courtship, which eventually leads to the actual molestation/rape.
In addition, though criminal psychologists have typically classified all other forms of criminal behavior as being symptomatic of a greater socio-psychological deviance, there is a concerted effort by the feminist lobby to avoid defining the rape of an adult female as deviant behavior by a male perpetrator. However, looking at the definitions of sociopathic behavior, the typical actions of a rapist fall well within that range.
Looking at the PSA that Paul included in this article and adding it to the above ideas discussed; you are left with a logical deduction that there is something going on here beyond the concept of protecting women.
Forgive the flawed attempts at coding in the above post.
Demosthenes XXI wrote: “Rape is not an action that is symptomatic of criminal or deviant behavior but something that is causal of being male.”
Indeed! Thank you for this and for the three concepts. So true. This one sentence encapsulates much of the discussion here with Elam attempting to fight against this meme and Andrew Smiler trying to indirectly support it.
Actually Paul Elam was exposed as a fraud by Manhood Academy: http://manhood101.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=287
Your continued spam with of this “smear” piqued my curiousity about Paul Elam, and I now support him all thanks to that dreadful myriad of ad hominem that defeats the purpose of the blog in my opinion.
Sorry about the typos – well not really. I’ve had a long flight from one hemisphere to another.
Paul, you’re a fucking hero.